RE: 13D UG flush

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Is there not some underground code that requires a flush? Either NFPA 24 if it 
only supplies the sprinklers, or IPC if it is a domestic plumbing line. 

We have encountered many contractors who swear they have never heard of 
flushing - but that has never been a good excuse to not do it.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Rocci 3 Cetani via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2022 9:12 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Rocci 3 Cetani 
Subject: 13D UG flush 

We have a contractor that is refusing to flush the UG pipe prior to tie in 
because he "has never done it in 20 years". I can find something in NFPA 13R 
that requires a flush  but nothing in 13D.. Anyone have any insight on why 
its not required in 13D?

Rocci Cetani III, CET
Senior Designer
Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.norcalfire.com=E,1,8NwqTuO1pZIUJpx2KvyFgvVTGHQFvqYTLTAahq17GJqL3uEklm1X6d_Fyg87o70pdjfnU7tAA5qee-b2S-Vl_QpNfrmTGTix7CuvngcLGyk,=1

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may 
contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is 
intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you are not 
the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,VymNo7T1uc13SNYyPyMKpvQEqMlqhWVz8hRj7FaSUYJ03TX8SVsEFBjTFuzalh82IUPKhrKcoqgosoPkSiW6mYUvPhOm63I88J47KADBDxIhfuMFhH_yrayA=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinkler in elevator pit.

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Todd,

Your question makes me think that you have run across something unusual...

Have you encountered a "non- enclosed" shaft?

Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
130 w 9th Ave
North Kansas City, MO
913.526.7443

sent from mobile device



 Original message 
From: Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 2/24/22 9:03 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Sprinkler in elevator pit.




  NFPA 13 (2013) section 8.15.5.2 says that sprinklers may be omitted in 
elevator pits for “enclosed, non-combustible…” elevator shafts. What 
constitutes an “enclosed” shaft?



 Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)

860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)

860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)







___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,ExS8p1y0Hr1gez_4FheG_PCYrYK5u7gB3u2dXqKeFW0ElN5FapcOv2AUonWa20Nzx11YndVwKfEQ3bNXV2NYUcMqO0PubiOKaEuqw3sYI-Y4eg6Kww,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

filling a pre-action system with water

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I am curious about how single-interlock pre-action systems get filled up with 
water:

When the detectors activate and open the deluge valve but no sprinkler head is 
open - how quickly does the piping actually fill up with water? Is it fast 
enough that you need to worry about a water hammer if the piping fills before 
the heads start to open?

I did not know if the supervisory air just kind of oozes out and lets the water 
in slowly, or if the valve opens, (maybe kicks the pump on) and really blasts 
it in there.

Does anyone out there have experience with this sort of thing? I would 
definitely appreciate some insight into how it actually goes down.

Thanks!

Matt

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

RE: swimming pool

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

technically, yes. However...

You may be dealing with a situation where the fire risk is substantially lower 
than the risk of some kid hanging off of the sprinkler pipe while goofing off 
with their friends.

I have seen a pool where it was the AHJ that specifically required NO heads 
anywhere over a pool because they are impossible to maintain. (municipal 
facility)

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2022 2:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: swimming pool

A sprinklered swimming pool having water slides, stairs and platforms.
Wouldn't those over 4 feet wide be obstructions requiring additional sprinklers 
underneath? What is the general opinion?
Tony
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,l5KJoyK3KEPe0IbQP_VBNMoouNhmxWQFMi5tPsO2F0jhiE1Bjbmhjuequ_8I_aMXEEUuA8ibOryEnibtSxt8hA4uIAXl08O7Ry7HOY14OoOG3YL6dsKN=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pre-Action Calculations

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

How many interlocks you got?

Matt


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jim Jordan via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jim Jordan 
Subject: Pre-Action Calculations

Maybe I have been doing it wrong for the last 15 years, but twice 
in the last year I've been instructed once by an FPE and once by an AHJ to 
calculate a pre-action system as a wet system vs. using the area increase for a 
dry system, and the most recent engineered drawing I've received for a project 
has the pre-action ran as a grid system. Am I mistaken in my perception that 
these systems should be treated and calculated as dry systems? 

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

 

 


--
This e-mail originated from the e-mail server at Dunk Fire  Security

AR Alarm LIC: E 05-046●Regulated by the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators 
and Private Security Agencies●1 State Police Plaza Drive●Little Rock●AR● 72209● 
501.618.8600. AR Fire Suppression License # FFS-085; OK Fire Alarm License 
#1690. This email, and any attachments contained in this message is for the 
intended recipient(s) only, may be privileged, confidential, protected and/or 
proprietary. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an 
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, 
forwarding, printing, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this communication in error, please notify Dunk Fire  
Security at 479.750.1833 immediately and delete this message from your 
computer. Thank you.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,e8K-9mSmxazOwuTGbZs7rQ06yU5INpFRBhv674r5Hy7_GGWKBo-7JU-gK_fLWFXuirVhlPf4_MrfA3tmi2e8jb7UVjbi9V1u6KEbQo21FWyrcTd_3B0g7XoS=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Maker Space

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Do you have any info on what exactly they will be doing?

There is a "maker space" at my kid's elementary school that could probably 
still work for light hazard.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:10 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Maker Space

 
 

  I am working on a project where an existing building (Light Hazard) is being 
converted to an Innovation Lab and Maker Space. I thinking that this is going 
to need to be upgraded to Ordinary Hazard. Not sure at this time about 1 or 2. 
What have others been doing with these spaces?
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE 
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
 
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,e9j9Zu3wFOWyDZ9IzCr6jshun2ezZw4mVMOmpdkcJlyF9zL_uoifoJv0yI_rcnoanbkTtE8H66cRoYcKZqEAiLpAcEn0J5muAZyDm_wnPTUc6yhn4wGVLwPIjjVM=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Exposed CPVC pipe and residential upright sprinklers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

They are a newer product... maybe have not been added to the install guide yet? 
Have you called a manufacturer?



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
130 w 9th Ave
North Kansas City, MO
913.526.7443

sent from mobile device



 Original message 
From: Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum 

Date: 1/21/22 12:34 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: Exposed CPVC pipe and residential upright sprinklers

I don't see an option for using residential upright sprinkler on exposed CPVC 
pipe in any of the manufactures installation manuals.  Am I missing something 
or is QR uprights my only option?


Thank you,

Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager

TOTAL Mechanical
Building Integrity

W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Ph:  262-522-7110
Cell: 414-406-5208
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.total-mechanical.com%2f=E,1,I79na4vKieqBXg17CUMFaePStL2KXgTmBoYikkWtWeTtJqyhOiHQLHhQ2rtupf4r38iP9BHKPW0hbJzkUVKbAxh6xRxyjVUqHAtLtFRyAfhm8_QzwLBhzg,,=1



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,xt49ULo4tYlgvw1vORviyWzmlujjY-48Ho1ZcNNth-NanVn_BNMx1jespAVxgSbR4bzvjHcrpEb8Ri99uEu-OzE4enl9EIFnCoRYu3-F7DSnj-zP=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: ESFR obstruction shift

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Allan,

I am not sure I follow how you are applying the OH spacing rules to ESFR 
listings. These sprinklers are still covering 100sf each on average, and the 
spacing adjustment is spelled out specifically in NFPA 13. The discharge is not 
designated by coverage area, it never goes up or down depending on the head 
spacing.

I agree that the shorter gap gets more water than the longer gap, but it seems 
that the longer gap has been found to perform ok?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP 
Subject: Re: ESFR obstruction shift

How I see this, when the distance between sprinklers varies, the more demanding 
distance is what drives the required minimum discharge pressure. The shorter 
distance gets over discharged but the longer distance gets the application 
called for in the design. So these sprinklers need to be pressurized for 110 sf 
operational area, not 100 sf. I think you are in trouble if there is a 100 sf 
limitation imposed somewhere that is not countered and accepted by using a 
hydraulic design for 110 sf per sprinkler.

A somewhat similar, but perhaps more defendable, condition to this occurs when 
two rooms each having 130 sf/sprinkler designs, but as 10 x 13 in one room and 
13 x 10 in the other room, have the dividing wall between the rooms removed. 
The design in each room worked on its own, including up to its wall, but now 
the design is technically 11.5 x 13 where the wall used to be. It is defendable 
when one considers each sprinkler as having its own operational area, but that 
concept is not normally accepted and has been shot down here without 
discussion.   

Allan Seidel

> On Jan 18, 2022, at 10:50 AM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Matt,
> 
> I haven't dealt with that situation in real life, but have in theory had 
> several conversations about it. I am in agreement with you that this should 
> be allowable per the code language. You never exceed 110 s.f. and the average 
> ACTUAL FLOOR AREA (not SxL) does not exceed 100 s.f.
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:22 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ESFR obstruction shift
> 
> No - since we are moving along the line, when one space goes from 10 to 11, 
> the space on the other side goes from 10' to 9'
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matthew J Willis 
> Subject: RE: ESFR obstruction shift
> 
> Are you not creating a 10x11 situation since you are moving every other 
> sprinkler?
> 
> If so, you may be violating the 100 sq ft per average requirement for moved 
> and adjacent?
> 
> R/
> Matt
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: ESFR obstruction shift
> 
> I am looking at a warehouse layout where we can get a very nice head pattern 
> by laying the heads out 10ft by 10ft, and then shifting the ones that land 
> near joists 1ft along the line as allowed by NFPA 13.
> 
> The only issue is that we have to shift every other head. Making a 9ft - 11ft 
> pattern along the branch line. As far as I can tell, this meets the letter of 
> the code, but it seems like a stretch.
> 
> Has anyone come across a similar situation where so many heads needed to be 
> shifted to avoid roof structures?
> 
> Matt
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http
> *3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-fires
> prinkler.org=E,1,l1exGGqk0cDcPNoSdqRWtD1YmZdqStCzx0CUF-Olhi1rqB9Iz8F
> n6d7eBTNXNMfF8T-7GZY94qom2OweTyV4Gyin1hiL-CJ82tDF4yhwF7g0ofhpr4fwsNalR
> ZM,=1__;JSUlJSU!!Ba8_KKAT!eogk1pEssHmJtaZHhoNM1xMOrahW4a40OEoiC7x
> HQPIDjpwV0fnvj8Sfjpv8d1bFGzI$ 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http
> *3a*2f*2flists.firesprinkler.org*2flistinfo.cgi*2fsprinklerforum-fires
> prinkler.org=E,1,faagUYTvRqNofSbZjC709kxTbRDQVTelhUkbtQ0AWq4V349KeRL
> ZVnCRia1Vjt6yQqBjB_beLshOylNEy-3N0UIJJJFK

RE: ESFR obstruction shift

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

No - since we are moving along the line, when one space goes from 10 to 11, the 
space on the other side goes from 10' to 9'

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: ESFR obstruction shift

Are you not creating a 10x11 situation since you are moving every other 
sprinkler?

If so, you may be violating the 100 sq ft per average requirement for moved and 
adjacent?

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: ESFR obstruction shift

I am looking at a warehouse layout where we can get a very nice head pattern by 
laying the heads out 10ft by 10ft, and then shifting the ones that land near 
joists 1ft along the line as allowed by NFPA 13.

The only issue is that we have to shift every other head. Making a 9ft - 11ft 
pattern along the branch line. As far as I can tell, this meets the letter of 
the code, but it seems like a stretch.

Has anyone come across a similar situation where so many heads needed to be 
shifted to avoid roof structures?

Matt

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,l1exGGqk0cDcPNoSdqRWtD1YmZdqStCzx0CUF-Olhi1rqB9Iz8Fn6d7eBTNXNMfF8T-7GZY94qom2OweTyV4Gyin1hiL-CJ82tDF4yhwF7g0ofhpr4fwsNalRZM,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,faagUYTvRqNofSbZjC709kxTbRDQVTelhUkbtQ0AWq4V349KeRLZVnCRia1Vjt6yQqBjB_beLshOylNEy-3N0UIJJJFKTWvWeUpRcWUx-0A,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

ESFR obstruction shift

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I am looking at a warehouse layout where we can get a very nice head pattern by 
laying the heads out 10ft by 10ft, and then shifting the ones that land near 
joists 1ft along the line as allowed by NFPA 13.

The only issue is that we have to shift every other head. Making a 9ft - 11ft 
pattern along the branch line. As far as I can tell, this meets the letter of 
the code, but it seems like a stretch.

Has anyone come across a similar situation where so many heads needed to be 
shifted to avoid roof structures?

Matt

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

RE: Thread connection holding on one thread only

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

If I recall from my book-learning days, there is a pretty well established 
minimum thread engagement that provides the full strength of a threaded 
connection. (maybe 3?). That may also only apply to bolts though.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 8:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall 
Subject: Re: Thread connection holding on one thread only

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


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

Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services

American Fire Sprinkler Association

kh...@firesprinkler.org

214-349-5971


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

> Dear Forum Members
>
> I have a case where 1.25" NPT pipe nipple was connected to 1.25" BSP 
> (as per British standard) pipe.
>
> Sprinkler System in interstitial space.
>
> There was only 2 threads engagement.
>
> After about 15 years somebody touched the a pipe and the connection 
> disengaged.
>
> I would appreciated the members opinion on the allegation that even 
> one thread engagement is sufficient providing sufficient strength.
>
> Dan Arbel
> Dan Arbel Risk Engineering Ltd
> Mail: d...@riskmanage.com
> WEB SITE: 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.riskmanage.com
> =E,1,rOBCJWaUiWX-Zi-j03j48v-ojODJ4zDjCTCn-XcTQUWSVSZzQRanv2vrdqlUogX
> nkOECEYOqMT2eMuzN6PVEfyuVyVF6Hoz4BiV1VyGvBRCcljgZH2U,=1
> Mobile: +972-52-6611337
> Tel: +972-4-8243337
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,RvPpy3ldS
> C8kzu280ouAOq2QKBzNGfMu7REiocN-XOdCtouKzXB4EaUtnbHa1UoPns-R2H1fzQj-fW-
> oIX3YW0Doh9ZL84fg3cNaQ0q1OQ,,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,wikZY07kLJSV87o86Ivs1Jsxm4l75jKdQbbfbZ7tVZifvQRGY33Wh20_IAQ7wACFTF9yFLpxM-xqELTjxDST6UJ7dCl0WTqJP_LkvfP8qA,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mixing ESFR Sprinklers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We always calc a mix if one is present. Sometimes they drive an over-discharge 
that increases demand, sometimes they don't. Be sure to try every combination 
(4+0, 3+1, 2+2, 1+3, 0+4).

We have even found that calculating a 4-line group that crosses 2 systems can 
create a higher demand if you pressure balance them at the riser. I don't know 
if it is technically a requirement to do that, but it seemed like a good idea.

As Travis mentioned - it can be much easier to just split the systems at the 
k-factor change. It just depends on how much material can be saved vs how much 
the design time will cost.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Jamie Seidl 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mixing ESFR Sprinklers

How do you guys calc these systems? Just the K22 section and the K17 section 
separately? Or a combo? I think there are situations where having one line of 
K17s (at 52 psi) in your remote area would be the "worst-case" scenario because 
that 52 psi would drive some overflow in the two lines of K22s (that only need 
40 psi at that height). Or do you actually split the systems (zone boundaries) 
so that there isn't a system that has both types?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 3:48 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Jamie Seidl 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mixing ESFR Sprinklers

Yep, typically end up with K22's down the center at the peak, with a K17 
sandwich to the outside.
Jamie Seidl

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 1:41 PM Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Here is the situation:
>
> Building has 40'-8" Maximum Ceiling height at the ridge, the building 
> is designed with K16.8 ESFR's.
>
> Can the areas that are over the 40'-0" maximum ceiling height be 
> designed using K22.4 or K25.2 ESFR's and be approved?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Hairfield
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cg
> i/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!a7NwbGit-6dyv1Yq8Jg4tE
> ZyjB-DjWMrCPViH_HpelfxKczficVerWb6qDNJu50YskU$
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!a7NwbGit-6dyv1Yq8Jg4tEZyjB-DjWMrCPViH_HpelfxKczficVerWb6qDNJu50YskU$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,IOrAbg4P-PYiyesETXEEkcTYQi7t_OaVQxx6Dc4UqAFvHGTpfrF6_tWviQcn961DYnjMXrTuNXUzmoiJR1_7eqTYZ-JQMXv4rsFu_IHhmr1GDQ,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Best Common Practices

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We have done it opposite way before. It can be a little tougher for hanging, 
but that all depends on the structure. Especially if you have a concrete pan 
that you are putting anchors into... you can basically attach anywhere. (as 
approved by structural engineers, of course!)

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2021 9:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Best Common Practices

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

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com=E,1,R3B5NDpugW8sRvEs23BRJavCvnaKYQ-C6M9WyoYrVjVBZ_4hQGr-k3O1dfATQe11ad6IsP_mq1FS5TgoS2M4to7kMIdBaHn4Hf-VLTGvD5EP_IXAWQ5NtKU,=1
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,tXGFfMBcv2MuQiLTkCv7EDy14TYZQr4-G2alolwxPtjZCeGMiCEndFKYbwP3H2rG8zeyDirA36tX896WjatAPBosPsF1vBOtM9Ngeg_dZMtbZEjhtmUWMHVCug,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Ammunition Storage

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I think that small arms ammo is mentioned in the annex commodity list.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:56 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum 
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Ammunition Storage

What the would the commodity of ammunition be classified as in NFPA 13-2013?

Mike
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,LfmqSl6rlqcEM_2eXKxEgfJk7cDhckcUVl7ioGINvNbvt0OX6EU4OnZKTqoDtAOGtnYKZLoHY72-VrU6dWze1LNpKshrmZ18cgKckDeURNRCBI_eFTDWZQ,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Gridded dry system

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

If you really wanted to use something like this, I could see maybe only 
connecting to each loop one time? As it stands, I also agree that it does not 
really meet the spirit of the looped main. My thought is that the water filling 
the system has multiple possible routes to take (like a grid). I could imagine 
this system having variable water delivery times depending on how much water 
ends up trying to go through the opposite side of the loop.

If a head in the line at the peak activates, you could potentially have water 
circulating through both outer loops before arriving to the fire.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:01 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; rich...@diboco.com
Subject: RE: Gridded dry system

Gridded System - parallel cross mains connected by multiple branch lines 
causing sprinkler to receive water from both ends.

Looped System - Multiple cross mains tied together to provide more than one 
path for water.  Branch lines are not tied together.

You don't have parallel mains,  You don't have cross mains tied together 
either.  I would go with Kevin Hall's answer.  The intent of a gridded system 
is a single sprinkler can receive water from two directions.  Therefore, it 
seems to be more of a grid than a loop.

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Senior Engineering Manager MFP Design
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,DYDWJd0ADISejFDKcI8IU_cUd8JsNiAI-MFGHw0gQjhRWxkKqN9GxRyvGscUOQkf0HQ0rdSA1QUp92fIv5RYWtZjshkd5YTyIIlJF3UwKsL8pMR3=1

Send large files to us via: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.hightail.com%2fu%2fMFPDesign=E,1,WbXGhdWYK2I2xoQwJu_k7yT3Av1kUR9hAtyJ8CVfglSRsaJXZXzSs0PcVoWcyIQYSU2CN5G_uD9QkSc0tycOJ2YUQ9gNbm_ht_arzMwRo4M_HNS_2TOQ-7lThaQ,=1

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Richard Carr via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:56 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Carr 
Subject: RE: Gridded dry system

With the center fed main and not two outer mains with lines fed from both 
mains, I would not call it a grid, no matter what you call it, I like the 
layout and should not be anything code wise to prohibit it.

Thank you

Richard M. Carr, SET
Project Manager/Design
Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
325 Jackson Loop Road
Flat Rock, NC  28731

rich...@diboco.com
828-696-3400
828-696-2288 Fax
828-708-9118 Mobile



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:42 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall mailto:kh...@firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Re: Gridded dry system

The operating sprinkler will receive water from two directions. That meets more 
of the definition of gridded than it does loop.


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


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

Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services

American Fire Sprinkler Association

kh...@firesprinkler.org

214-349-5971


On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:38 PM Richard Carr via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 wrote:

> I think you could call it a looped dry system if it will make you feel 
> better.
>
> Richard M. Carr, SET
> Project Manager/Design
> Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
> 325 Jackson Loop Road
> Flat Rock, NC 28731
>
> rich...@diboco.com
> 828-696-3400
> 828-696-2288 Fax
> 828-708-9118 Mobile
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> mailto:sprinklerforum-
> boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of Ed Kramer via 
> Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:31 PM
> To: 
> 

anchors for seismic areas

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I am looking at selecting concrete anchors for a project with seismic 
requirements, and I am curious about the various approvals that are out there.

I have seen various types of approvals: ACI 355.2; ACI 318; ICC-ESR; UL 
203/203A; FM approved, UL listed

As far as I can tell - the ACI and ICC-ESR approvals meet NFPA requirements, 
but does anyone know about the others? Some product websites claim that they 
can be used in seismic areas since they are tested in accordance with UL 203. 
Many are FM approved, but the FM approval just says "approved for supporting 
pipe hangers" and not much else. Does anyone know if those listings actually 
meet the code intent?

Thanks!

Matt

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

RE: Break Tank

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

FM also has some guidance in its data sheets. They are more conservative in 
their design criteria though.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Ammeson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 6:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Ammeson 
Subject: Re: Break Tank

Section 14.5 of NFPA 22.

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 6:24 AM Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>   I have never designed a system with a break tank, however I am 
> working on one project where this may be a viable option. Is there any 
> good information one designing a system with one of these?
>
>
>
>  Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
> Stonington, CT
>
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
>
> 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
>
> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,MZtTRA5O-
> 0XeSF1ZmN-6ChA3PXBGZUYKm4R2RJF4wfKTHNwxKJ1Ropp3A-M69qZt5jah8wONBFTCwCC
> CyDCeQB-J-K3czfevzvkOMKNhusPtyp2c=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,VCeF4LLHfqfBDwO302E5KSi_FJyJQnG-CxYAWuRP_-02WJ7x5hjM-8VClqyq6aj44xZhJHzMf3jeWULorDxgwGIO6UVjK3sX6ktsZJhw4GOeh2g1rqGovP7gTVo,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Back Up Fire Pump

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

It might also depend on the pumping ability of the fire department? How much 
pump can they drive up with?

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; John Irwin 

Subject: RE: Back Up Fire Pump

Might come from the requirements of IFC Section 914, etcpending height.  
Just another place to look anyway.

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer


Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:56 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin 
Subject: Back Up Fire Pump


Starting design on a 35 story residential tower. Engineers plans show two 
identical fire pumps. Client wants to know if we need two fire pumps. I want to 
answer him with the code reference below, but experience has taught me that it 
may not be as simple as this ... Am I missing something or is it this cut and 
dry?


NFPA 20, 2016: 5.6.2 Fire Pump Backup. Fire pumps serving zones that are 
partially or wholly beyond the pumping capability of the fire department 
apparatus shall be provided with one of the following:

(1) A fully independent and automatic backup fire pump unit(s) arranged so that 
all zones can be maintained in full service with any one pump out of service.

(2) An auxiliary means that is capable of providing the full fire protection 
demand and that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.




John Irwin

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Jk1MX2NDuD3-9UNu84KFII2NUyJJa8X8q0CYdUtEEOPg0QsXD0B1uasiwuTQsbl1Yk4KdZwCaDrDuUkSkTD_r5EJHhwZQ5ZDLgUH1UW19amfILSt1cvUeTQ,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,3NuGkRwGyvsanwRlbBoQlN4Mby8qOpX0kgxqFgrAGxn_Vt7uCFfOmYcNUb29F6CVmhr3NSg3NkJTuagq2OPyuo2XCWBinWVzhS-rZW5s=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Transfer Switches

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

At that point it is probably a discussion to have with your facility insurance 
carrier...



(not that I wouldn't sell them a full diesel motor backup if they asked real 
nice! )



Matt





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:48 AM
To: Richard Mote ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark Phillips ; Richard Mote 
; st...@protectiondesign.com
Subject: Re: Transfer Switches



Not a code requirement but less expensive that complete product loss.







Sent from my mobile device

Please excuse spelling, grammar, and auto correction.



Mark Phillips

Branch Manager

Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm 
Inspections



832-101 Purser Drive

Raleigh NC 27603

Phone: 919-779-4010

Fax : 919-779-4014

Cell : 919-268-7587

Email : philli...@pyebarkerfire.com

Web : 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pyebarkerfire.com=E,1,sP8puY5rWtdm-dIYv95PjYwkAu5WOERngCxq_3Ro1bRBk4wGAmJXKK41TqcLyZhAOajD6KmGE91-I9CKuntD7Ce0nNtU1UobpCkV9W_3iJdDpT7kJMEguAY4amE,=1





From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:24:16 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

Cc: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>; 
st...@protectiondesign.com 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>

Subject: Re: Transfer Switches



[EXTERNAL]



This is a building within a building a 60,000 sq.ft. steel building with a 
27,700 sq.ft. freezer. The emergence generator is to protect several tons of 
ice cream from having a melt down. If they size the generator to handle the 
fire 150 hp fire pump load it will double the price he says.





-Original Message-

From: Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

To: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>

Cc: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>

Sent: Thu, Aug 26, 2021 8:15 pm

Subject: RE: Transfer Switches



To paraphrase, you're asking if it's required to connect a gen set that is 
installed in a building that isn't a high-rise building or some other essential 
facility where there is a code requirement for emergency power, correct?  In 
other words, a voluntary generator with regard to the code set.



Assuming that's the case and there isn't a formal interpretation from the AHJ 
regarding the reliability of the power supply, I would say no.  The code will 
require an emergency power supply or not.  If one is required, then the FLS 
systems have to be on that, but if the secondary isn't required by code then 
it's up to the owner (and let's face it, that's certainly a good idea if the 
generator is sized for the fire pump).So there MAY be something in the code 
that requires this, but only if it's a mandatory generator.





Steve Leyton



-Original Message-

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum

Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:04 PM

To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Cc: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>

Subject: Transfer Switches



Got a email from a customer with the following question. I'm on the road with 
no access to my books.If an emergency generator is installed on a building, is 
there anything in the codes that would require it to be connected to the fire 
pump.

RichardL. Mote CET



Rimrock Design Services,LLC



PO Box 36

Middleburg, PA 17842



Mobile 570-541-2685



EMAIL rimrock.designservi...@gmail.com





___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,qqmHC90XY8uf9k-0SwKefgYEP5z1I40_V0CW2m450ETsEE_8QimrKWs3yG1jCyNq4c7KWjHFI-zHoPZoqhwOe2x8VHbICGX5dgsKw3yRI_Dl5qTUDHvTEDgEqkc,=1

___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,7cfoQktSUYcbNEtvC5x0_aifyIy3oPN5hFeNYP0I98zKbQw0GwDoXXkRW_1_M_fLdy4j2Y0Wsr8CTRHyz_YehrphUoeI2eNc7nIPa6qwOZCMWbPzevzD__nrLpk,=1

Re: Transfer Switches

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I don't think it would be necessary to connect the fire pump. As Steve 
mentioned, there could be a lot of factors. But, my first thought would be no.



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
m 913 526 7443
o 913 888 0647
f 913 888 0618

Sent from mobile device


 Original message 
From: Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 8/26/21 7:24 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Mote , st...@protectiondesign.com
Subject: Re: Transfer Switches

This is a building within a building a 60,000 sq.ft. steel building with a 
27,700 sq.ft. freezer. The emergence generator is to protect several tons of 
ice cream from having a melt down. If they size the generator to handle the 
fire 150 hp fire pump load it will double the price he says.


-Original Message-
From: Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
To: Richard Mote ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Thu, Aug 26, 2021 8:15 pm
Subject: RE: Transfer Switches

To paraphrase, you're asking if it's required to connect a gen set that is 
installed in a building that isn't a high-rise building or some other essential 
facility where there is a code requirement for emergency power, correct?  In 
other words, a voluntary generator with regard to the code set.

Assuming that's the case and there isn't a formal interpretation from the AHJ 
regarding the reliability of the power supply, I would say no.  The code will 
require an emergency power supply or not.  If one is required, then the FLS 
systems have to be on that, but if the secondary isn't required by code then 
it's up to the owner (and let's face it, that's certainly a good idea if the 
generator is sized for the fire pump).So there MAY be something in the code 
that requires this, but only if it's a mandatory generator.


Steve Leyton

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 5:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Mote 
Subject: Transfer Switches

Got a email from a customer with the following question. I'm on the road with 
no access to my books.If an emergency generator is installed on a building, is 
there anything in the codes that would require it to be connected to the fire 
pump.
RichardL. Mote CET

Rimrock Design Services,LLC

PO Box 36
Middleburg, PA 17842

Mobile 570-541-2685

EMAIL rimrock.designservi...@gmail.com


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,xsDfg13sH1rVvmFMge6n6ESXNOcF7Aca3kOIxUdskrpsjtdnop9kzorj-4lCqWb_3RXhvTDT1GxRmHzFJpZrGXuA5-4AVYrUIxODsAAJcpVEji8q7A4Wy1fiw_0,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Z3O7tW2PNyEduWAolb9hYJTCVvCZkRz0UXTMEuDB860Gxgoq6YXV45C7kLfPL5QStFnGk6YaBPgH2SNK6FIiGt8oIlfb5pLRdcaRWRk3acZp=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,gtHuOSaDm9oH_sBnzIEoOrHaUQZtEz8yuoByShgc9Z3JcckJmAUMNl3NzKRuIoyZylS9V3MhObMflOvnKDFBl26stp88HDZ7lS3EHKHsgXaBPdDcybSoyFjm1HkV=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Pump Backflow

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

For the jockey piping - I wonder if the engineer meant to say that you could 
pressurize the portion of the piping between the backflow preventer and the 
fire pump with the jockey pump. Maybe have an additional check valve after the 
BFP, but before the pump. Then when the pump first activates, there would be a 
certain amount of water present in the impeller with positive pressure to 'get 
things moving'. It seems like an interesting idea, but I don't know if it would 
actually help or not (I have never tried/heard of anything similar).

I don't suppose the school has the budget for a break tank?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 8:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Fire Pump Backflow

I never had this problem before, but it looks like a Deringer 20 backflow has 
lower opening pressures.  You may also consider something like several smaller 
Watts 2000B-FP in parallel, depending on the flows you need.

I don't think piping the jockey differently would help, but let me know if you 
get a good explanation on that one.



Skyler Bilbo

1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.wenteplumbing.com=E,1,h2okMwFsjIDCQhmya-Kx06mz3tFZupKU7w05xn3QZHOB0--IU_VdrTM1lonijtBzoi9cjzdvmsUyOm6BPXv89zxI0Sy1rmwwqd6UERe8cHOeY704KFPtZmmvJLg,=1


On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 6:19 PM Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> What is your site elevation AMSL?  Have you tried to operate the pump yet?
> While we typically don't run pumps below 0 psi, it can be done by 
> figuring in by also accounting for air pressure.  While not 
> recommended, as long as you are not cavitating the impeller, the system 
> should work.
> I had a similar situation on an alternate water supply (seismic) 
> ground level pool surface that was roughly 1' below the pump inlet. We 
> discussed it with an engineer, and he said we could figure on 
> approximately 14 psi of additional pressure (PSIA) acting on the 
> surface of the pool.  When we tested it, it worked without a hitch.
> Once you pass the opening spring pressure, BFP's typically drop in 
> loss to a point.  PSIA may give you enough pressure to make the system work.
> I've used this principal on subsequent projects where site conditions 
> didn't allow for positive pressure on inlets.
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fkimray.com%2ftrain
> ing%2fpsia-vs-psig-whats-difference=E,1,1F4X6eSJbL6wWFwR4iXZRTYNAiR7
> HF08Yy5JnLooBVZA57cbQmgLJwq64vjS1eFxGteVWO42Z-0h1HnLUCwn1YZ09gVFjllwZH
> gzhwiVkHoYuomKVSLvcw8,=1
> Jamie Seidl
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 4:25 PM Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, we have pottable water being taken from the same tanks. This is 
> > a rural high school and this is their own water system that feeds 
> > the
> school.
> > So I need the backflow for that reason.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > *Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*
> >
> > [image: Burtell Fire_Small]
> >
> > Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*
> >
> > 116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101
> >
> > Email: j...@burtellfire.com
> >
> > Web Site: 
> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.burtellfire.c
> > om=E,1,pJTgzEU_XFuYlvmpK9o1iCkZypABzB5IoHk4OjCOEBIFUd5Kd7miOas9TZo
> > Q49uebildsyzmQwps1LkQanSB6JH52W2b0TlXfuspQ_4TVeeFMQ,,=1
> >
> > *“**The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness 
> > of
> low
> > price is forgotten.**”*
> >
> > *NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is 
> > intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This
> e-mail
> > transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail 
> > transmissions or other information attached to it, may contain 
> > confidential information
> that
> > is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of 
> > this e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for 
> > delivering
> it
> > to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
> > disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of 
> > this transmission or any of the information contained in or attached 
> > to this e-mail is
> strictly
> > prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail transmission in error,
> please
> > immediately notify us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the 
> > original e-mail transmission as well as its attachments without 
> > reading
> or
> > saving it in any manner.  Thank you.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 1:40 PM cliff--- via Sprinklerforum < 
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Joe,
> > >
> > > Why would you need the BFP if you have storage tanks?  Are there 
> > > other systems being fed from the same tanks that 

RE: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I have seen it go both ways.

Generally in our area, if the conveyors are about waist high, they don't 
usually need sprinklers under them. Some AHJ's allow/require paint stripes 
under the conveyors so you can clearly see where you are not allowed to store 
things. Others require fencing to keep trash from piling up. Others want the 
letter of the code enforced and require sprinklers under all conveyors over 2' 
wide regardless of height.

We always make sure we talk to the fire department, and the tenant/owner. 
Sometimes they (or their insurance) are more stringent than the fire department.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mario Berrios via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 11:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mario Berrios 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

May be check NFPA 15:7.2.3; 7.2.3.3.;fig a.7.2.3.3.1.a.

mario berrioscowprop...@aol.com

-Original Message-
From: Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 

To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Tony Silva 
Sent: Tue, Aug 17, 2021 12:25 pm
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

I think it's reasonable if there is no fuel load beneath the conveyors. 
Probably depends on the configuration and height of the conveyors and if there 
are any safeguards put in place to ensure there won't be anything place under 
the conveyors in the future.

And by safeguards, I don't necessarily mean that there has to be physical 
barriers that prevent anything from being placed under the conveyors. It could 
be based on the practices and procedures of the facility. Keep in mind that 
operation of many of these facilities is heavily reliant upon knowing exactly 
where every box is at all times (aisle, row, rack). It's unlikely that they 
would just be stacking random boxes under the conveyors.

I'm not sure there is a good code section to lean on to back me up. But then 
again, the code isn't always reasonable.

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tony Silva via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tony Silva 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conveyors

An ESFR building has conveyors over 2 feet wide and some even over 4 feet wide. 
The owner/tenant is of the opinion that sprinklers below the conveyors are not 
required as there are no hazards below, regardless of the width of the 
obstruction.

Is this a reasonable conclusion?

Tony
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3dZ_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A%26m%3dXv7zrjjG8VZ_DYq3lqYhUUJD9WGqss3j3SKkwQzgZbk%26s%3dVxEDODYb_3vCChKQ454TozHo8O11_loBKZvgkVywXOs%26e%3d=E,1,Ez9Z52D9ydeWSwcJA3rcUNkxcko4YwvHe_vhnr8lAz03HVhMbxZXyy3Svf3XbU70AFFuVTxXcUSpGOCZzem-MjnjfrpXW5UUrhKmioELsYQOWzSiiWGmrkKeOA,,=1
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,NHkepjOm3Z--zqJWnxO2XimHuCiBlm2--vqs-98_zUiONslni4ncSZZAmLmwDkp7HhYx57jIoC5RnFg0GLdfk0mPcgTJX_JyoHfmNAY7J6MZ=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Yz3gu5OLqZPc8Vmk4GvOwFlQ9Tjwwd4I4-7nxgtLpFr18bf_7XFell-N5u3DjIV29Q64AltfArOXjKOxNDKJQeCSHs2eeKZB6n49PN0cqZldjQ,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

One thought to your point -

A 20 foot hard pipe drop has the advantage of also dropping 20 feet. You will 
gain a substantial amount of pressure from the elevation change that should 
more than overcome the flow demand of a light hazard pipe schedule standard 
coverage pendant.

A 20 foot equivalent drop does not have the same hydraulic advantage.

It seems like you should be able to use flex drops on a pipe schedule system. 
The ones that I have surveyed and calculated always come up with plenty of 
safety. That does not mean I would be ok making substantial changes to the 
hydraulics without a close examination at a minimum. 

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 5:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: Re: Flexible hose head connectors on a pipe schedule system

I'll be devil's advocate. Pipe scheduled systems don't have limits on drop 
lengths and I've seen a few scheduled warehouse systems with 30 to 40 ft.
roof decks with sections of office spacing below at 10 ft. with pendents 
feeding them. So if you can do it per the pipe scheduled method you should be 
able to do it with a shorter 6 ft. flex hose with the same equivalent feet that 
you might find in a hard piped system.

JH

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 11:07 AM Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Can flexible hose head connectors (I.E. - "Flexheads") be used on a 
> pipe scheduled system ? Since calculations were not performed due to 
> it being a scheduled system, the friction loss would be superfluous, 
> correct ? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Sean Lockyer
> AIT Life Safety
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,yJy0FkmWv
> 8kAJnTMsneav8pMYCXQyB51SLZNS6LoNvcWkygfvZGinfj8b8hSd1vKMMaxWK8DPJRtJW1
> RinlHD5v5CnYW6HpqRbi2sK9qGsnk8r1tgA,,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,qqPjQ536SLPWlZ6fljifsKteUsfO-D3vceU1ulLIpavUOfR6x8WCalfKvRdFsgup6SEESABKWeFtBmXyhbjWSbAsnn0BdIMROrZQszUa3x0G5kcfQEhYLKe6Nw,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FP Suction Control Valve

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

If you are exceeding 877gpm, the building is probably already gone - or some 
burst pipe is taking up all of the water anyway. At that point, torching your 
diesel motor is probably going to be a lesser concern. Best case scenario is 
that someone drove their car into a standpipe, and a busted 4" is draining the 
pipes down. Someone would probably find out about that quickly enough to shut 
off the motor (hopefully!)

I am personally not a huge fan of suction control valves. That is just one more 
item that has the ability to shut off sprinkler flow to two entire apartment 
buildings. Unless the water company is worried about city-wide damage the water 
system, it seems like the greatest hazard/cost would be the buildings and the 
people in them. I would lean toward a more simple system.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: RE: FP Suction Control Valve

I should have rambled a little more..
 750 gpm pump runs down to 20 PSI at 877 gpm (117%).  Worried should water 
demand exceed that and cavitate the main and loose cooling water to the engine. 
 Then we loose the pump house and the buildings.  Residential areas are 
compartmentized so not as much worried about 2-4 heads going off but concerned 
about parking garages, standpipes and hydrants.  Told local FD Capt. We would 
augment and ring hydrants per 291 and also placard stairways but wanted a fail 
safe to protect pump for down the road.  FD is onboard including their outside 
PE.
TD


Why are you wanting to install the suction control valve? Was it requested by 
the FD or water supplier? 

I would be concerned about removing the PRV without knowing all about what is 
downstream. It would be just your luck that some contractor got a variance to 
build the mains out of pool-noodles that burst at 110psi...

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: FP Suction Control Valve

Good morning Campers.  Looking for advice and comments.

I have an existing diesel driven fire pump in a prefabricated pump house 
installed in 2012 serving 2 apartment buildings.

I first tested this pump in 2017, had 13 hours on it, ran fine but we ran out 
of water at just about 100% capacity.

Spent the day with the water department a few days later checking underground 
valves, flowing a few street main's hydrants, basically came to the conclusion 
that this is all we got.  Wrote up a report, suggested they hire an FPE to see 
if the pump's tested capacity meets requirements, how did this happen, what 
about the hydrants off this system, stuff like that.  I think I stirred the 
sleepy caldron a little.

Didn't hear back from the client until this spring.  Apparently they changed 
ITM contractors and the new one didn't pan out.  They had a balcony fire May 
2021, gas grille, 13R system with no attic protection, non-completed attic 
separations and fire walls, etc.  Fortunately they had a response so quickly it 
never made it to penetrate the eaves and soffits and was extinguished between 
the 5th and 6th (top) floors.  Local FD must have had a field day with a Q20 of 
about 800 and closest city hydrant ¼ mile away.  Waiting for incident report to 
review.

 

So back to my query.  It's a xy pump house.  All welded sch40 and painted.  
Not the greatest build as there's a 6" BFP vertically installed right off the 
incoming service with elbows turning it around and down to the floor to feed 
the pump.  Just a few spacers in the piping so no room for slipping in this 
device unless something gets removed or moved.  4-15 of #20
(2013) says between the pump discharge and check and I get that but also defers 
to the mfgr. for direction.  Looking at the various offerings most are a little 
vague on placement and even one says after the pump discharge valve.  Without 
major surgery, I have 2 spots to slip in this 20" long device.  I can remove 
the relief valve between the discharge increaser and pump check and put it 
there 'or' I can remove the tee feeding a 6" storz and check located between 
the discharge valve and the city bypass.  The former will allow me to test 
through the device but the latter will not.  I don't believe either of these 
appurtenances are necessary and I will explain (he's still rambling?  
Jeepers..).  The engine is a small JD inline 4 running 3000 rpm, single ECM, 
max. speed is 3300.  Churn is 155 at 3025.  I haven't physically done it but if 
I extrapolate to 3300 I get 170 psi.  I'm below
175 so I think the PRV can go.  If I opt to remove the storz I can but testing 
this pump will have to be via the 3 hydrants it serves, in addition to the 2 
buildings.  I honestly don't know why the engineer (small E) had a storz 
included as this 

RE: FP Suction Control Valve

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Why are you wanting to install the suction control valve? Was it requested by 
the FD or water supplier? 

I would be concerned about removing the PRV without knowing all about what is 
downstream. It would be just your luck that some contractor got a variance to 
build the mains out of pool-noodles that burst at 110psi...

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: FP Suction Control Valve

Good morning Campers.  Looking for advice and comments.

I have an existing diesel driven fire pump in a prefabricated pump house 
installed in 2012 serving 2 apartment buildings.

I first tested this pump in 2017, had 13 hours on it, ran fine but we ran out 
of water at just about 100% capacity.

Spent the day with the water department a few days later checking underground 
valves, flowing a few street main's hydrants, basically came to the conclusion 
that this is all we got.  Wrote up a report, suggested they hire an FPE to see 
if the pump's tested capacity meets requirements, how did this happen, what 
about the hydrants off this system, stuff like that.  I think I stirred the 
sleepy caldron a little.

Didn't hear back from the client until this spring.  Apparently they changed 
ITM contractors and the new one didn't pan out.  They had a balcony fire May 
2021, gas grille, 13R system with no attic protection, non-completed attic 
separations and fire walls, etc.  Fortunately they had a response so quickly it 
never made it to penetrate the eaves and soffits and was extinguished between 
the 5th and 6th (top) floors.  Local FD must have had a field day with a Q20 of 
about 800 and closest city hydrant ¼ mile away.  Waiting for incident report to 
review.

 

So back to my query.  It's a xy pump house.  All welded sch40 and painted.  
Not the greatest build as there's a 6" BFP vertically installed right off the 
incoming service with elbows turning it around and down to the floor to feed 
the pump.  Just a few spacers in the piping so no room for slipping in this 
device unless something gets removed or moved.  4-15 of #20
(2013) says between the pump discharge and check and I get that but also defers 
to the mfgr. for direction.  Looking at the various offerings most are a little 
vague on placement and even one says after the pump discharge valve.  Without 
major surgery, I have 2 spots to slip in this 20" long device.  I can remove 
the relief valve between the discharge increaser and pump check and put it 
there 'or' I can remove the tee feeding a 6" storz and check located between 
the discharge valve and the city bypass.  The former will allow me to test 
through the device but the latter will not.  I don't believe either of these 
appurtenances are necessary and I will explain (he's still rambling?  
Jeepers..).  The engine is a small JD inline 4 running 3000 rpm, single ECM, 
max. speed is 3300.  Churn is 155 at 3025.  I haven't physically done it but if 
I extrapolate to 3300 I get 170 psi.  I'm below
175 so I think the PRV can go.  If I opt to remove the storz I can but testing 
this pump will have to be via the 3 hydrants it serves, in addition to the 2 
buildings.  I honestly don't know why the engineer (small E) had a storz 
included as this house it atop a hill in the woods ½ mile away from a city 
hydrant and these buildings.

 

OK, done rambling.  Loose the PRV or keep scratching my head?

 

Let's go Red Sox!

 

Tom Duross

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,mmPokZ5kJYxxqn-qLWYOa8oByvhphYn0IWPvP-rwhJfnI61REB-9wquqpynEEdKJl0X271lXhFcIkVejTI97f_-715aBoh48om2v3jREiFtX-eV7C0mR3iGd=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Automated Rack picking system

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I don't think NFPA does, but FM does: 8-24.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: Automated Rack picking system

Does NFPA have a standard that covers protection for automated storage and 
retrieval systems?

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phaserfire.ca=E,1,sOZa8rUpfaqnl0WKJB08ZyMcvL2iEQNxA7lO7C1kQ8BDhhwHjG2Gj9_UM-UjcoSkTzBhEPUFGMsHRPKZ3_CqutUxYNskFniO5VSFnJOyNZ2yjA,,=1

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,y1Ge1N19oxD-DmVBYRfPXFZhFSdgIaSyQJKcg0Lg9jKhQY0t8flt2fd1dlO59eXWzCJUMf8KSCz9edTwB4zLPtc5CKSu49y6spx4CmvFNcqAdiyE=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

That is a great reason why you want to get your system water tight asap. When a 
soaked worker comes out of the closet with a soldering torch and a story about 
a sprinkler that "went off for no reason" - you will have a heads up before you 
spend hours trying to find an open outlet. 

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2021 2:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BRUCE VERHEI ; Dane Long ; 
Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage

From an old fire guys perspective I’d be more concerned with accidental head 
breakage than water dispersal.

Best.


> On 07/01/2021 3:01 PM Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
>  
> Thanks for that clarification.  I missed that.
> 
> Pete
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Dane Long via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 12:51 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Dane Long ; Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
> 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to 
> Storage
> 
> Peter,
> 
> One thing to emphasize is that it says 400ft3 not ft2. So, the thought is if 
> you have mechanical equipment like a furnace, you're not really going to have 
> much room to store anything in this closet. An example would be a closet with 
> an 8ft. ceiling can only be 7ftx7ft. This is 49sqft or 392ft3.
> Your minimum discharge is going to automatically be the 7psi, so you're going 
> to be flooding the closet anyway.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dane Long, AET
> Engineering Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
> P:    785.825.7710
> F:    785.825.0667
> A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 10:36 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
> Subject: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage
> 
> NFPA 13 (2019 edition) states the following in two sections:
> 
> 9.5.5.4 Closets. In all closets and compartments, including those closets 
> housing mechanical equipment, that are not larger than 400 ft3 (11 m3) in 
> size, a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling level shall be sufficient 
> without regard to obstructions or minimum distance to the wall.
> 9.5.6 Clearance from Deflector to Storage.
> 9.5.6.1* Unless the requirements of 9.5.6.2, 9.5.6.3, 9.5.6.4, or
> 9.5.6.5 are met, the clearance between the deflector and the top of storage 
> or contents of the room shall be 18 in. (450 mm) or greater.
> 
> Section 9.5.5.4 states "a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling 
> level shall be sufficient without regard to obstructions or minimum 
> distance to the wall."  Does 9.5.5.4 allow a sprinkler to be less than 
> 18 inches from the storage in a closet?  Section 9.5.6.1 does not 
> specifically say that
> 9.5.5.4 is an exception to the 18 inch storage clearance requirement.
> 
> However, if the storage less than 18 inches from the deflector is considered 
> an "obstruction", then it would seem that 9.5.5.4 would allow storage that is 
> less than 18 inches from the sprinkler deflector in a closet.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Pete
> Dept of VA
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> mp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C171fd521855d42ea5bbf08d93cb07d43%7Ce95f1b23abaf45
> ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C637607551271236540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
> C3000sdata=W3YDQ67bNbkjs1e471XyWxEEvY5bleyBqDOI5FjJ9ak%3Dres
> erved=0
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> mp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C171fd521855d42ea5bbf08d93cb07d43%7Ce95f1b23abaf45
> ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C637607551271236540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
> C3000sdata=W3YDQ67bNbkjs1e471XyWxEEvY5bleyBqDOI5FjJ9ak%3Dres
> erved=0 ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,erCvG8NFI
> RKPx1FGM-u52cSaMbeXKr9pA3uPTzUI4t4G_zQAMSbpr3W89ckLiPP_P8EB8MBMy0n4uHR
> ge6Hr0Rk08y8YKrCH5sVZ4OSB2VBIP0_LlGWMb-ECH-s,=1
___
Sprinklerforum 

RE: Sprinklers in stairways

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I think there was a detailed discussion about this in the forum not too long 
ago if you check the archives.

If I recall correctly - the outcome was that sprinklers are required at every 
level in your situation. 

The combustible construction requirement was intended to refer to the structure 
of the stairs and shaft (steel stairs, wood shaft in your case). The notes 
about limited combustible surfaces being allowed was introduced so that a stair 
shaft of non-combustible stairs and structure would not require sprinklers if 
it had a layer of sheet rock on the interior. (specifically steel studs + 
sheetrock shaft, steel stairs)

Of course - I also frequently see AHJ's that do not require sprinklers at every 
level with a steel stair/rated wood+sheetrock shaft.

Soo maybe? It would be a good idea to contact the AHJ, but if they asked 
for sprinklers at every level, you would probably be stuck with it.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bruce Hermanson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 5:58 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: bherman...@tristarfire.com; 'Fpdcdesign' 
Subject: RE: Sprinklers in stairways

The wood framed walls, but I am being told they have layers of drywall on them 
to create this 3 hour fire rating.
Bruce

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 6:24 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Re: Sprinklers in stairways

 
 

  Is there any combustible construction within the stairway?
 
 
 
 Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 
Stonington, CT
 
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080)  (ofc)
 
860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)
 
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559)  (cell)
 
 
 
 

 
 
>  
> On Jun 24, 2021 at 6:17 AM,  mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  We have a wood framed building where the stair shaft is made of wood 
> with
drywall that gives it a 3 hour fire rating. The stairs are steel and concrete. 
I have been asked if we need to provide sprinkler heads at each level or just 
at the top and below the lowest landing. We are currently in the 2013 edition 
of NFPA 13. I am a bit confused on the wording in Section
8.15.3.1 where they reference sprinklers beneath all stairways of combustible 
construction. Section 8.15.3.2.1 references non combustible stair shafts having 
non combustible stairs with non combustible or limited combustible finishes 
requiring sprinklers only at the top and under the first accessible landing. I 
would be interested in the forum's opinion on this. Bruce Hermanson President 
TSFP Holdings Inc.  (734) 454-1350
(tel:(734)%20454-1350)  ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
(mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)   http://lists
.https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,27zBpeuXhEULl0L1rgR0jrZJmM-V-ACaE0G1Bve4xuUTj-tiTpyPpX_4Avk02s5IAK7gH2g9kZX_xVbZoJZy12gJs4qiFVM6RDuOBJQsxu8HHK-yB0yySg,,=1
  
>
>  
 
 
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,HBKaVgAsm-CB9ok1DM8UC85sjJonpL6tLFS0adSay_Sssd0sjWDKB4WjGq7d8ZJkBU3lCbgPN-I7oSkJQPY6fMONLdx6jbuvUn0lclnhRCsBGyE,=1

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,xyWCMAS1OzkDcapjpjjpPBGOkib4PgfaT_GDcSvdDgpLZuaVifd8u2tGFm10E_VhY177Ql8Jlo0gLzt4EJw9hkwkM6ETPVaJ4N57TnRmHFFaGaCT9dg,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Calculating Parallel fire pumps

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

What is the goal of having 2 pumps? If you want full redundancy, could you just 
calculate the system one pump at a time? It seems like having them both running 
would be a better-case scenario that would result in added safety. Are they 
trying to get by with 2 smaller pumps?

I think AutoSprink might be able to do it. You would want to confirm with 
AutoSprink (MEP CAD), but I am pretty sure that we have calculated multiple 
source systems with it before.

I don't suppose your quantum expert is also a pump vendor?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 9:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL 
Subject: Calculating Parallel fire pumps

We have a project in one of the Arab states.  We are following a little bit of 
the UFC and some of the local codes.

The owner wants two pumps selected at 50% of the required capacity instead of 
one pump as we would normally provide.  His thought is that pump 1 comes on and 
runs at 50% of it's rating and then pump two comes on and runs at 50% to meet 
the total system demand.  Yeah, I know, don't laugh.

And we've tried to talk them out of this arrangement since it will not work as 
they expect but someone who is thinks they are an expert in Quantum 
Inter-Planetary Fire Protection Hydro-Physics thinks this is a great idea.


We use HASS for hydraulic calcs and it does not have the ability calculate 
using two pumps in parallel.

Can AutoSprink or Hydracad calculate this kind of pump arrangement?


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




NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,UOX-iwkiNtxi6q8KlNBiL45QsTVPBtn3ETYP3KvtGsQS2rjRYJH4hYDy99c9T7rVBUfYz4P5b9UsJ0IR03DG5JV81y4xVheLpkcis6az0WapiyoL49sETkyjgA,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Corridor issue

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

What if you replaced all of the corridor heads with QR to use the QR reduction? 
It might be more cost effective than a major system modification if the calcs 
don't work for the SR.

Also - since the system was approved as-is, is there a concern that it won't 
work?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:15 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: RE: Corridor issue

Can you change to ex cov sprinklers?  That may be the easiest of options and 
not have to fight or defend your choice.

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,JYnCI9VlBrhtE26tqNyPY8hFXLyCLBcjVQJZMbF9fAZeLZhlDRPDwWu6nv12jATvRgRIaAs1eT9gF5Z6zzGBcvnaNXSCRo0f22LRJcAAPkzHGg,,=1

Send large files to us via: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.hightail.com%2fu%2fMFPDesign=E,1,ORlJZCAQbS_rBHadk_y5cF9PNvL5Am592VtoiNwoVh16PRLHV2Ryo9xYh6jZFbeJSLWoodytOBc3m9OQETsX3kRLFN1ujV5jqj-i4mslGiCLe3Vewg,,=1

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:14 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Corridor issue




I am doing a renovation of the main corridors in a multi-building complex. 
Standard response sprinklers for any new sprinklers to match the existing to 
remain. Hydraulic calculations are required. There are 2 section of corridor, 
about 35 ft each, that are 16 ft wide and will need two rows of sprinklers. 
Each section has 6 sprinklers as opposed to 3 if the space was 15 ft or less. 
These encompasses 70 ft out of the total 760 ft of corridor being renovated.



NFPA 13 (2016) gives design criteria for corridors with a single row of 
sprinklers. However, these two areas have 2 rows, so the calculations would now 
have to be the full 1500 square feet. That does seem like overkill.



Has anyone run into this before? How did they/would they handle it?



I have my recommendation, based on “engineering judgement” (which I will post 
later), but I want to see what others have done.



Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)

860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax)

860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell)







___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,EVc9cgx26qK0X1WYZuwsiNObynSpIbFI0yq7OlYHv6GJLahTuV5Ed8Nyd7k-G6RZ8HEwokaqv1ecj7hEOA82etCUG_h56RfJ-7eHvpjsdY4XOBGW=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,FlE5YLOpkKagKNQFK3r94L6wy9oIDJPYdBxEy-lEuhen6dmF2b5y08ZRVVHvYPrnOowrDv_mcsBJmlmjniX0g30fN3HTQYIDmlfNDSnZ5_OkuA6Te92N=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Flow Test for SFR

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We have received requests for Fire Flow verification before. It often happens 
because the comments are tossed in with our plan review ("be sure the hydrants 
work!")- or because they contain the word "fire"

We charge to perform them and do it under a separate agreement. We don't design 
or install the system, so there is nothing we can do if it does not work.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Owen Evans via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 8:54 AM
To: Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Owen Evans 
Subject: Fire Flow Test for SFR

Has anyone had an AHJ require a fire flow test for a single family residence 
situated in a metropolitan area? Not for the purpose of calculations but to 
ensure the municipal water delivery system could handle  the 500 gpm required 
(1000 gpm per California Residential Fire Code minus a 500 gpm credit for 
having fire sprinklers). This is a waste of time and money. It takes 
approximately four weeks to get done by water company, at a cost of $500. Has 
anyone argued against such a requirement, and how? I tried but was met with 
“because I wear a badge and I say so”. The general didn’t want to argue with 
AHJ, he decided to pay to avoid any further delay. 

Owen Evans



Sent from the all new Aol app for iOS
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,76MLTkg9djjJHmQGgaYytmPkBSzwoyDVRXVZQqxM-ByKAyRDBzWnTjdsDc1NBpQjX5w1aBLbge5S_7q1LIcoskZavY7Wp-he48p4XYs52g,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: 13 / 13R IN SAME BUILDING?

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

It should be possible with the appropriate fire separation. Usually 2hr, but 
might be more depending on how the lower level is classified. It would likely 
require a pretty solid dive into IBC (or other enforced codes) and consultation 
with AHJ.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BILL MENSTER via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum 
Cc: BILL MENSTER 
Subject: 13 / 13R IN SAME BUILDING?

I have a fire station retro-fit project in Michigan.  The A/E has specified 
NFPA 13 design for the entire facility and 13R design for only the second floor 
of the 2-story section which is a sleeping area.  This 2-story section is wood 
frame construction with attic space.  The A/E is using the 13R design to avoid 
requiring sprinklers in the attic space (which would require a dry-pipe 
system). I believe this is wrong but am having trouble finding code reference 
to make my case.

To phrase this another way, is it acceptable to classify a part of the system 
as 13R?

Any input is appreciated.

Thanks

Bill Menster
WFM Consulting
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,p1jtY20R0DBDKyxlxs7T8SsJ5iH4hJe0bMh4fadIS9co9p7aUCCJ_pNkBesP6OQNAu1ebMHPHtsGGYVg92i6UdA8K6YX8YYSj0d7-go_C-Qp5u0,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FDC & Pump Suction

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

If you just cant get the FDC moved, maybe add a pressure regulating valve or 
relief valve to prevent system overpressure? Not the most-best way to go, but 
better than blowing the system apart?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Morey ; Brian Harris 
Subject: RE: FDC & Pump Suction

Is cap it and put one on the building an option?  Generally that's what we'd do 
in that scenario as there isn't much else you can safely do because of the 
compound pressure increase potential with a fire pump.  Presumably you have to 
put a test header somewhere, just add an FDC as well?  Of course then hydrant 
distance comes in to play as well.  

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



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: FDC & Pump Suction

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

8.17.2.4.8 (2016) States the FDC cannot be located on the suction side of a 
pump. If a pump is being added to an existing system and the current FDC is in 
the yard what is the best way to handle this?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Oa95dsu6TI9Hj7kAeXEmYhi-WKVOTMpEuNpYZClEf07ApkGuVdkxvIwISy803Y3I$
 

Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Oa95dsu6TI9Hj7kAeXEmYhi-WKVOTMpEuNpYZClEf07ApkGuVdkxvIwISwwwknZk$
 

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Lpx3tcRLpwiaxhRN_jgQvczpWoBVrpZ-_cMaxqSwti-hybygSBkkctPb9h9BqHqASuUDRZpIpde_X8ZfGbcUopm8WVscaRNi-wydT9N_rQ,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Same size orifice in a room

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I don't think you are going to find that. You are not allowed to vary the 
k-factor along a branch line for the purposes of hydraulic balancing, but the 
heads do not all have to be the same.

FM may recommend against it though - you might check data sheet 2-0

Matt 


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

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

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,BlHMjOaxmKSFT48qnXqVYsvIk7-uXHLtqAx_cNceEogjNceIIpXgusszAQlFBLcczQ89OUhWAiTACrOYUqwOYtMG4OIDfWHd1_kh9LnAOw,,=1

Send large files to us via: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.hightail.com%2fu%2fMFPDesign=E,1,D4uRXY13t4LGXsM7WZDD2po2h5DpP_f3iqBsMDhCjMUEllwxKdoUDnZ-KSSSEDqfsYTugjxInANrOZVo8i0YSv88B5ZXypC5zHOYeppPTkuQ=1

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,LRCy8kfzWKjvhmghR8M0z10hlUrcpvFMH-ELeqp9FPyV8p5mjEr_RS2xWrm2-0abX49BJj8LrUYD5zqd4yEvGm2IWlujrXNrlZelTeqhvSFUbcb9HxtJLTXU5BId=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Standpipe Testing

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

It might not be a real fast approach, but is there some reason that you could 
not have the standpipes pressurized to 200 psi before the inspector arrives? We 
frequently hook up the test pump and then go about moving-off/cleaning up until 
the little pump reaches the pressure. If you don't have enough time to get it 
pumped before the inspector comes (ask for an afternoon appointment?) - we have 
pumped the systems up partially the day before so that they are close to the 
test pressure but not excessively high. Then you don't need as long to top them 
off. Just be sure you have a helper/day laborer keep an eye on the gauge!

I suppose it would just depend on how much big pump rental or nitrogen tanks 
would cost VS a couple hours of small pump babysitting.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 7:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Standpipe Testing

Fill completely with water; then connect a high-pressure nitrogen cylinder and 
quickly jack the system to 200 psi. Have seen this method used before to test 
large warehouse systems where it is very time consuming to pressurize the 
system(s).



This information is provided as a courtesy only. Design and installation 
requirements for fire protection systems must be independently evaluated by 
qualified design professionals and approved by all authorities having 
jurisdiction.





Cary Webber CFPS Director, Technical Services

Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.

1470 Smith Grove Road, Liberty, SC  29657

Tel: 864-843-5161







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Tom Duross via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 6:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Tom Duross 
Subject: Standpipe Testing



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.





I'm wondering if anyone here on the list can help me with some estimates.







I have 3 elevated roadway standpipes to pressure test and flow test.  All set 
with the flow testing part.



My question is pressure testing.  Never did this part before.  I can use the 
public hydrants to fill to street pressure.  No problem.  Static on grade is 
about 75# as I have a couple of pumps in the area I test annually.

Standpipes are about 50' above.  I need to figure out if I need to rent a pump 
capable of reaching 200+ psi or how long will these 2 little ½ and ¾ hp hydro 
pumps I have will take.  This is all witnessed and the plan is hydro for 2 
hours, walk and check everything, drain completely, hook up the pumper and pull 
the trigger.  Can't make the fire guy stand there for 2 hours while the little 
pump hits 200 plus 50 feet.







If I took each of the standpipes, calculated their volume (close to a mile in 
total), figured in all the expansion joints, pipe to the double wye's, air 
vents, low point drains, dual FDC's, etc., and came up volume.  Use fire

hose to reach static.I take my little pumps at 4 or 6 gpm, decreases as

pressure grows obviously, I need to figure how long these will take to reach 
200-225#.  Thinking hours.  So maybe I need to look into rentals but I need to 
know what size I need.







Ideas?







TD



___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.firesprinkler.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04%7C01%7Ccwebber%40reliablesprinkler.com%7Cb04786256ce84af2331908d9006213d0%7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244%7C0%7C0%7C637541243514932628%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=Aocxodu2%2BJTWSNVMGv1oYTfxkRJbfSHxNqQ0Dgm306s%3Dreserved=0
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,VlOMff7TCcuQ2f977vAVqleh7tz_-_6jNNLhdOT35T1lYl6m-dPVk4atb4gMnwq0loUo6VY_SgCfcc4OPxtUBATpR8-R_iUUGj9xGQReFS3Y50qleL8,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: "Calculating" a Pipe Scheduled system for Backflow Retro

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We have done it with a survey and calc of the system. 

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: Re: "Calculating" a Pipe Scheduled system for Backflow Retro

Any takers? Does anyone retrofit backflows onto pipe scheduled systems?

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:43 PM J H  wrote:

> Hello All,
> We're retrofitting a double check into an existing pipe scheduled system.
> In looking at NFPA 13 (2019) edition 19.3.2.1 in order to do this we 
> just need a hydrant flow test and then subtract the friction losses of 
> the double check and the friction loss due to elevation of the highest 
> sprinkler from the flow test and make sure the leftover pressure is 
> greater than the value of 19.3.2.1. Is that correct?
>
> JH
>
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,29r2XxEqlHBo3nq7rLVlT9kH_K32MEjIGiQgl1foHyElJRhDf6crebV3tdMGLhtNfl-c1Ox5adwGR1LCgH9fb5lnhgvweQJ2l2LSaASw1OX5knp_S5XB=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Old sprinklers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Is there also a stand-alone sprinkler system, or are those the only 4 heads in 
the building?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2021 9:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Thomas Reinhardt 
Subject: Old sprinklers

Question for the group. I recently did an inspection at a very old McDonalds 
restaurant in town. During inspection found 4 sprinkler heads piped off 
domestic  protecting the rear corridor leading the exit access. I found nothing 
in the old file showing this installation. I do realize that maybe when it was 
built that the code may have warrant this protection. Usually I see this in 
residential building where the basement store room has one or two heads. Any 
thoughts. Thanks

Tom Reinhardt
Skokie Fire Prevention Bureau
Plan Review/Fire Inspector
7424 Niles Center Road
Skokie Fire Department
Skokie, IL 60077 847-982-5342
thomas.reinha...@skokie.org


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Kyxi0IswWwD5FpUs_cImkdjJRvTSorD0upYS-jzozJaKfjYghTSr9uSadsfLiNi-EV_3FL7OIQiVK3UZ2y-g8fFY520QBJUlPMx1NFzRjaajY5YFYJjNYsbKUeNq=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Grooved joints in pump suction main

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I am not aware of any prohibitions. We use grooved when we can. For whatever 
reason (tradition?) gate valves seem to always be flanged, so we frequently go 
flanged just due to availability.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 4:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: Grooved joints in pump suction main

We've got this pump house...  Took over the design from a civil engineer and 
have been in repair mode for a couple weeks.   The original concept used a 
pre-engineered and all-inclusive pump house but the assembly won't be accepted 
by the state agency with jurisdiction because it hasn't passed the CA seismic 
testing gauntlet and is thus, not considered a pre-engineered/pre-approved 
structure.   In the course of revising this to slab-on-grade building, the 
pumps go from sitting on frames that are part of the floor assembly to 
skid-mounted and we have to furnish housekeeping pads that are currently really 
tall.   Since pump suction is 10" and we need a flex coupling near the floor 
and we have a 10" flanged ell on top of two flange x groove pieces, the CL of 
pump suction has risen to about 3'-8" above the floor requires a 19" concrete 
pad.   If I can attached the suction main directly to the flex coupling at 
about 12-14" above the FF, we can cut nearly a foot out of this housekeeping pad
  so the question is:

Is there any statutory prohibition or observation of good practices that 
precludes using grooved fittings and control valves on a pump suction main?  
For whatever it's worth, this is low pressure, 2,500 gpm at 54 psi pumps with 
high static of about 70 psi.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,NnQzlWnaYQG_1baqspRog4lZipjuu1qC-vaxML0zbRemLsolrdJFec-BaDtdud3LEqPl4vB4cPX1BnecsWRo2SV6VuCOY0YZdoos_gO38Aa3vxYvQiV_rUsl-t5x=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Best Pressure Loss RPDA

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Just to clarify - what flow range do you need for this project? Will this 
device be required to flow hydrants and a residential system?

How bad do you need that PSI? Could you put two BFP's in parallel? You could 
have a 3" rp that will get  you 6psi of loss from 100 to 300, and an 8" next to 
it that will get you -6psi from 300 to 1000.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2021 6:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Steve Leyton 

Cc: 321 
Subject: Re: Best Pressure Loss RPDA

Yep...I think that is the reality. I'm going to go back thru the calcs and see 
if I can flag some high velocities or losses that a compound loop might 
mitigate...otherwise, it is what it is.

John W. Farabee
561-707-5150
 

On Thursday, April 1, 2021, 08:32:39 PM EDT, Steve Leyton 
 wrote:  
 
 5-6 PSI in an RPDA may be pushing  your dreams a bit too much, but the C500 4" 
is 7-8 psi in H and N configurations between 150-300 gpm.  

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 2:57 PM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: 321 ; Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Re: Best Pressure Loss RPDA

Yes...they specify OS Valves. They also go with the RPDA because believe it 
or not...there is no place in the Florida Keys that is greater than 1700 feet 
from Salt Water. They a rightfully concerned about Saltwater Intrusion into the 
water system.
ALL of the potable water in the Keys originate from Navy Wells just South of 
Florida City on the end of the Florida Peninsula and pumped all the way to Key 
West.
The downside for low flow requirements of residential systems (13D/13R) on a 
multi building site is that we usually have one central RPDA that feeds 
Hydrants and buildings. They are low loss at flows beyond 500~600 GPM but 
"Kill" Hydraulics around 100~300 GPM. I usually end up plugging in a 12 PSI 
loss for RPDAand when I have 45~50 PSI to work with in a 4 Story Building 
it costs me a pipe size as opposed to a DDCA.
I was hoping to find something that flows around 200 GPM in that size with no 
more than a 5~6 psi loss.

John W. Farabee
561-707-5150
 

    On Thursday, April 1, 2021, 05:37:25 PM EDT, Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:  
 
     
 

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

 
 
>  
> On Apr 1, 2021 at 5:29 PM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  M400 or c400 Sent from my mobile device Please excuse spelling, grammar, and 
>auto correction. Mark Phillips Branch Manager Fire Sprinkler Design, Install, 
>Inspections Service, Backflows, Fire Alarm Inspections  832-101 Purser Drive 
>Raleigh NC 27603 (x-apple-data-detectors://6/0)  Phone:  919-779-4010 
>(tel:919-779-4010)  Fax :  919-779-4014 (tel:919-779-4014)  Cell :  
>919-268-7587 (tel:919-268-7587)  Email :  philli...@pyebarkerfire.com 
>(mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com)  Web :  
>https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pyebarkerfire.com=E,1,NQ83xqdqnojPqCLDhKz9UdapEk3e5FX5VVbywyQ7_99R7qnM3mclusU4DTEHtxGh9BMk57W6XvDtYyHNybzmWYOgSA1cFQlkm9VYPMRPOw,,=1
> 
>(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pyebarkerfire.com=E,1,Zq0alLpbIsu6oiYhSEwzWGIjpXZWZTtm2F573oDvjapSGmJI-vxPl08-fBVZaX2Jn_be4JXobL62B_ETuje5amL8YHRZF8a-yEwTr7qHhs0I0Ssz=1)
>   From: Sprinklerforum  
>(mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  on behalf of  321 
>via Sprinklerforum (x-apple-data-detectors://8)  
>(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Sent: Thursday, April 1, 
>2021 5:26:26 PM To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>(mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)  mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  Cc: 321  
mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>  Subject: Fw: Best 
Pressure Loss RPDA [EXTERNAL] - Forwarded Message - From: 321  
mailto:tcf...@bellsouth.net)>To: Sprinklerforum  
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org)>Sent: Thursday, April 
1, 2021, 04:57:40 PM EDTSubject: Best Pressure Loss RPDA What is the lowest PSI 
loss RPDA Backflow that anyone has found in 6" and 4". I'm doing several jobs 
here in the Keys that I need to feed residential buildings and Ordinary GP 1 
situations. Per Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, all Backflows must be RPDAs 
and have Os Gates. I like and have used the Derringer but they are almost up 
to 12 PSI loss at residential flow levels. Thanks in advance, John Farabee | 
Certified Lower Keys Plumbing and Fire | C:  561-707-5150 (tel:561-707-5150)  | 
F:  305-294-
2462 (tel:305-294-2462)  ___ 
Sprinklerforum mailing list  Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

RE: IEBC and NFPA 14

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I believe that the IEBC references NFPA 14 for how to install standpipes. So it 
should be followed.

How the standpipe is required to be installed depends on who approves the 
installation. If IEBC is new to an area, it would be a good idea to discuss 
with the approving authorities.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jose Anibal Castillo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 8:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Jose Anibal Castillo 
Subject: IEBC and NFPA 14

¿Would a legislation that has adopted the international existing building code 
(IEBC) for the first time would be required to comply with nfpa 14 for a high 
rise building.?
Thanks in advance.

José
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,nKnWkoYT1N2Wel5LgzShrybCWWaBRVclEeGMOdfKflCcNxzK-QgrRjSBXOjKhMVaHFidxiXV8wyTZGeySkqaXDPPWHv3OH9EFHgk65_n_gU,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Question regarding protection of sprinkler heads in Sugar Refinery

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

When you say product recall - do you mean that the bags might damage the sugar?

You could use paper bags also.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Michael de Gabriele via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 7:28 AM
To: JD Gamble 
Cc: Michael de Gabriele ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding protection of sprinkler heads in Sugar Refinery

Hello JD
thanks for the response.
I did mention this to the client, but thinks that the presence of cellophane 
bags and tie wire may cause an issue with product recall.
Also we will have several hundred sprinklers as well have you ever come across 
this issue before in dusty environments?

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:23 PM JD Gamble 
wrote:

> Bag them? Like an overspray situation (NFPA 33)?
>
> Get Outlook for iOS 
>  =E,1,pLLfxrKS9zgPg1AY_BBrpUb6WE9w0AiXapOPeGHJ-lz1eygRYHfZmbJuSzDPytIHD
> iS4TSyH-2ICwBE5qUKdhoxdaSJZ9KzDZgTwZqF-3Hu1pI1uR8oM_GZQww,,=1>
> --
> *From:* Sprinklerforum 
> 
> on behalf of Michael de Gabriele via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 30, 2021 6:20:35 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> *Cc:* Michael de Gabriele 
> *Subject:* Question regarding protection of sprinkler heads in Sugar 
> Refinery
>
> Protection of Sprinklers within Dusty / Dirty Environments
>
> Hi All
> Hope this correspondence finds you all well.
> My name is Michael de Gabriele. I am a fire protections engineer 
> working in Melbourne Victoria,
>
> I am currently working in a Sugar Refinery, in which we are proposing 
> to protect the existing raw sugar store and white packaging store.
>
> The question has come up with respects to protection of the sprinkler 
> heads in this environment.
>
> The raw sugar store where they store piles of unrefined sugar in this 
> warehouse is prone to clogging the sprinklers (like all other 
> equipment in this area). My advice to the client was more strict 
> inspection and maintenance in this area, as well as place metal guards 
> to try and minimize buildup around the heads.
>
> The white packaging store although not as dirty as the raw sugar 
> store, has fine dust particles throughout. I am not as concerned in this area.
>
> We don't want to re-invent the wheel as im sure there has been many 
> acceptable solutions as to minimising buildup on sprinkler heads.
>
> Your assistance and comments to this issue is much appreciated.
> Happy for you to email me direct on mpdegabri...@gmail.com or post on 
> this forum
>
> Hope to hear from you soon
>
> Kindest Regards
> Michael de Gabriele
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,C3q0gso1o
> 8HrGzAZ4lV1jOvIz5o6s7liWdqdZ_hgND9Ac3-6fEqaYqNALj4zWD1KKvS44tMbFZkoGKF
> 448eh24zLHGFU5DyR3m6ruvMQka37rA0,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,rIf8Q0PxUUz3eXK6c7GTPSn6AOuoesOVKiK3WgqIws3LYpOLhlaQ9OYuLStnFG3UJdiXkRHnEMAMCRwd7DXwvK3PR2BqDI6kcyuMT5qHrA,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

flex drops on return bend

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I am looking at a library that is protected by a pre-action system with 
pendants on return bends. I was thinking about using flex drops in the drop 
portion of the return bend for ease of testing and center of tile. The flex 
drops are listed for use in dry systems - so I can't think of any code reason 
not to do it. Has anyone used flex drops in pre-action or dry systems before? 
Any issues?

Matt


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

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

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We have not traditionally added anything. In our experience, the underground 
contractor provides drainage similar to a dry barrel fire hydrant/

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson ; Jamie Seidl 

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

That has been my experience in the jurisdictions in which I have been present 
too...

Spencer Tomlinson, PE
Owner, Fire Protection Engineer


Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Jamie Seidl via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:27 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Jamie Seidl 
Subject: Re: Does a remote free standing FDC require a valve pit?

We've typically installed a ball drip in gravel similar to a french drain at 
the low point.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:17 AM Dewayne Martinez via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I see a trend starting in our area where the architect is specifying a 
> remote free standing FDC without a valve pit when the check valve can 
> be placed inside the building. Upon talking to my field superintendent 
> he was concerned that some check valves let multiple gallons of water 
> through whenever a system is drained and refilled and that the remote 
> pipe may eventually fill up and freeze.  We were toying with the idea 
> of installing a return bend in the FDC pipe downstream of the check 
> before it leaves the building to help prevent this.  A  ball valve 
> would be installed between the return bend and check to drain out the 
> pipe.  Anyone else have insight on this?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dewayne Martinez
> Fire Protection Design Manager
>
> TOTAL Mechanical
> Building Integrity
>
> W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
> Pewaukee, WI  53072
> dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
> Ph:  262-522-7110
> Cell: 414-406-5208
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.total-mechanica
> l.com%2f=E,1,R9zrlIaEZ9vaZiIcRztkLduwp7DrKr42EblswETMytunzgC9UA4lMQj
> IvWasFlnU4VhZmNZQAXe-EDJXf4z7YrIG9yZa2HcaIP24yJKP5fA,=1
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkl=E,1,e-AgWVVXLayMpVl
> dAfJParzxMUsn2FPm6KpLr8BsraQ5-a6XAXUE8EikU9jxNZeOvXuVVe2qQvpBxd97fNq5Q
> mEIZepST3C98iy_1O_WGw,,=1
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fer.org=E,1,lqSW9
> K3JOSeKAXfnUq8yldXJtaQgThfNohnp1WmlsXuLrAjqptjOS3XfiiFMKD7P95QKxgp4Ybv
> fRPyRw7eIkOB3axK98LyXZ0AMyIcK0AoKsQ,,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,RgflZ5j90TUs7SeAUSobVAPiIrJKF7uqYHVRnBCKd351BxY1vaLP7ffYsNegxena3mxet1AFfHcjPz9s9tRwcrxZxc017DHymT1a9e9WynvgxxQ,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,cRRK84O9ztzn1fyJo2ZneQDRuMz-w9mc86dmVMAg7mJYVdfkQrhjp5prP6HbDNVPtZgALfzZGaB8hXZZpsDxPduFwdDzADDqxIGY_g9Nb7StWTbG5AljGXE5=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

standpipe protection

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

2016 edition of NFPA 14 section 6.1.2.2.4 says "where additional standpipes are 
needed to meet travel distance requirements in non-high-rise buildings, 
protection of piping is not required."

Is that intended to apply to standpipes near horizontal exits also? If they 
were closer to the stairs, they would not be needed. So technically they are 
there in order to meet travel distance requirements... so, no fire rated 
enclosure required?

Matt

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

RE: Hotel or Condo

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I would imagine that it depends on whether or not the residents are transient. 
As I understand, the whole idea of the closet exemption for hotels is that 
someone who is staying for a day or two will not let a closet pile up full of 
junk. Check the code sheet to see which R 1/2/3/4 the space is classified as?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Hotel or Condo

When does a hotel room become a condo and are there any sprinkler omissions 
allowed? Looking at some review comments for a project we were asked to take 
over and the first 8 floors are "hotel" rooms and the next 11 are "condos".. I 
know NFPA-13 is clear on closets and bathrooms for hotels & motels but I don't 
see anything that talks about condo's.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com=E,1,_XAU4owOKfUycPby-BF5kmjyc9p66GxSYnCoqQQys3BKtAldPCwsCll9hJbGJAN3CsT3ZZORaqM2S8lXAdg2xo8eHEN0aPGbuVxij6ITl5JBb5F9ZX_XOYM,=1
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,DXlO9DA_9Az12SN1gpPiP_AScW1YfCQ9NpW1JQKoQwcr1m0gtmsh7hN7BlyaAcfzyCS0nWJ2i5UfGSDJKNdlTW7iRXvvrgAIt8OGsTlPue38FRWy=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: MORE ACTIVITY WEIGHING IN

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

When I have looked at it (usually for pre-engineered metal buildings)- the 
lbs/sf is just the weight of the water-filled pipe divided by the are it 
'covers'. Similar to the coverage of a sprinkler head. 

Each structural member then has an allowable point-load formula based on how 
the connections are spaced and how much load it can handle.

Most of the PEMB designs I come across have a 5 lbs/ft "collateral load" 
design. We have never had a sprinkler system exceed that.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 1:23 PM
To: Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Vince Sabolik 
Subject: Re: MORE ACTIVITY WEIGHING IN

Offices.

I'm looking for a table that an architect or engineer would use to figure roof 
loading.
I don't think they're that detailed.


On 2/16/2021 2:17 PM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote:
> What is a typical system?  Protecting flammable liquids will be a lot more 
> than an office building.
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,LWPOkuQfKyi4ROGqKcnbYQjv2Y6W-GC52ALx7gZ_ozT4hvUsEfdfMFU1zDo69tl0F8jhudt85K7GliMneCJSs-0mA2XIq4vv7cNfCaG8A7EfttrZ5KDqiwaXUQ,,=1
>
> Send large files to us via: 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
>
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Vince Sabolik via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:16 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Vince Sabolik 
> Subject: MORE ACTIVITY WEIGHING IN
>
> Hello forum -
>
> Does anyone have tables of how much weight per square foot a typical
> sprinkler system adds
> to a building?
>
> thanks, Vince


-- 

11351 Pearl Road /  Suite 101
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Phone 440 238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876Cell 440 724-7601

/
Vince Sabolik /

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,NPrDsZFoJHdeIk_5-R2AUIsPqjilTuTkcD587y6E7Dx0b5oQNOxLX8krqo5dLEReyOSkeIodEc43NE1QVoQjLFnVHztKtqX9EhY213_EzJPT69DC=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Existing Dry System

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

To the original question - I would not expect that 901.4 would apply to the 
parking level if they are planning to gut the building and get a new CO. If 
their new code approach removes the need for the sprinkler system on that 
level, then it would not be a 'required system' so it would not seem to be 
covered by 901.4. 

I am always amazed by the various ways that architects can skin a cat - and I 
can't claim to know all of them, however there does seem to be at least one 
code-compliant way to get rid of the sprinklers on the lower level (if the 
building construction matches up)...

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Zachary Siegrist via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 1:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Zachary Siegrist 
Subject: Re: Existing Dry System

That is my understanding as well Matt.
Fire area separation IBC 707.3.10
Fire wall separation IBC 706.4

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:27 PM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> I was thinking that it was 2 hours to be a separated occupancy in the 
> same building, but 3 hours to be classified as separate buildings?
>
> Of course, I cant find that code section now
>
> Matt
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 1:18 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Kevin Hall 
> Subject: Re: Existing Dry System
>
> The building code requires a 3-hr separation to consider the spaces 
> individually.
>
> Kevin Hall, M.Eng, P.E., CWBSP, MSFPE
> *Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services*
>
> *American Fire Sprinkler Association*
> p: 214-349-5971
> w:
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org;
> c=E,1,gBFrPI4RvmQJHpfzP0sijlsi_qHHUj88C0BhBuIqSIYUrBAAkFs8sep6QG-_kqgq
> xYr3GwKcZrs8Mc4UZSIehiD2rrvMjrrSrFJUV0B4tiSirOw,=1
> <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
> <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-a
> fsa-/
> >
><https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>
>
>
> *Be a Member, Get a Member*
>
> We’re introducing many new programs to help meet your team’s business 
> needs. AFSA is offering a six-month trial membership for contractors 
> and a 12-month trial membership for municipal AHJs. Let’s help 
> potential members see what they’re missing! Current members who 
> recruit a new contractor member will receive a $100 gift card and the 
> new member gets a free webinar.  Let’s grow stronger together! Join 
> AFSA <
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.firesprinkler.o
> rg%2fjoin=E,1,FDGC9I1ogQXrTByuRyy1Yu3cRIqzCP7i7J2tCOGIo2fyCf67RxVG2J
> toa9pMSUH01ALdXhTdcm_vG_tGBZDg67eFoJ_cHFZYUvLj2VL8FYFLMnCLfki5HCg,
> o=1
> >.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:53 PM Dane Long via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> > We did an apartment years ago that was S-2 on the first floor with 
> > R-2 above. We ended up sprinkling it throughout. You have to be 
> > careful because there are a few requirements in the IBC you'll want 
> > to check out. I'm guessing a 2hr fire separate is probably 
> > requirement. You also might want to check out 406.6.3 (2015) and 
> > 903.2.10 (2015) to make sure you don’t meet any of the exceptions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dane Long, CET
> > Engineering Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
> > P:785.825.7710
> > F:785.825.0667
> > A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> > 
> > On Behalf Of Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:19 AM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> > Cc: Thomas Reinhardt 
> > Subject: Existing Dry System
> >
> > Question for the group. I have an existing three story B occupancy 
> > with an open parking underneath. The only sprinklers is a dry system 
> > protecting the parking area only. The building is going to be 
> > converted
> to a R2 occupancy.
> > The whole residential area will be sprinklered with a 13R system. 
> > The architect informed me that he will remove the  dry system from 
> > the parking area. I have reviewed open parking facilities before, 
> > and am aware that sprinklers are not required.(S-2). I say that the 
> > system must remain. I'm using the International Fire Code Chapter 9 
> >

RE: Existing Dry System

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I was thinking that it was 2 hours to be a separated occupancy in the same 
building, but 3 hours to be classified as separate buildings?

Of course, I cant find that code section now

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 1:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall 
Subject: Re: Existing Dry System

The building code requires a 3-hr separation to consider the spaces 
individually.

Kevin Hall, M.Eng, P.E., CWBSP, MSFPE
*Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5971
w: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,gBFrPI4RvmQJHpfzP0sijlsi_qHHUj88C0BhBuIqSIYUrBAAkFs8sep6QG-_kqgqxYr3GwKcZrs8Mc4UZSIehiD2rrvMjrrSrFJUV0B4tiSirOw,=1



   


*Be a Member, Get a Member*

We’re introducing many new programs to help meet your team’s business needs. 
AFSA is offering a six-month trial membership for contractors and a 12-month 
trial membership for municipal AHJs. Let’s help potential members see what 
they’re missing! Current members who recruit a new contractor member will 
receive a $100 gift card and the new member gets a free webinar.  Let’s grow 
stronger together! Join AFSA 
.


On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:53 PM Dane Long via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> We did an apartment years ago that was S-2 on the first floor with R-2 
> above. We ended up sprinkling it throughout. You have to be careful 
> because there are a few requirements in the IBC you'll want to check 
> out. I'm guessing a 2hr fire separate is probably requirement. You 
> also might want to check out 406.6.3 (2015) and 903.2.10 (2015) to 
> make sure you don’t meet any of the exceptions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dane Long, CET
> Engineering Technician | Bamford Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc.
> P:785.825.7710
> F:785.825.0667
> A:   1383 W. North Street  Salina, KS  67401
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:19 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Thomas Reinhardt 
> Subject: Existing Dry System
>
> Question for the group. I have an existing three story B occupancy 
> with an open parking underneath. The only sprinklers is a dry system 
> protecting the parking area only. The building is going to be converted to a 
> R2 occupancy.
> The whole residential area will be sprinklered with a 13R system. The 
> architect informed me that he will remove the  dry system from the 
> parking area. I have reviewed open parking facilities before, and am 
> aware that sprinklers are not required.(S-2). I say that the system 
> must remain. I'm using the International Fire Code Chapter 9 section 
> 901.4, which relates that fire protection systems shall be maintained. Any 
> thoughts.
>
> Tom Reinhardt
> Skokie Fire Prevention Bureau
> Plan Review/Fire Inspector
> 7424 Niles Center Road
> Skokie Fire Department
> Skokie, IL 60077 847-982-5342
> thomas.reinha...@skokie.org
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,1nWn4me-B
> I2hAlPFENvWtXxPrGYChOyUMZA3gDMlu3KSdNXhu9MZD0fKpC-8kypfdtKkaeF8TRhpmpX
> 1lOpHVyUYfA9SYkdZVc5rk4dMzIU,=1
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,7NKTHOFEe
> 4Gq7eEjw0a4t0eb6APq_fsizWr709b-Q74hhyxZd3IGiGoVQdd1CA70wiqRNQM2UjLuaNB
> m5Q11k1g_QRAVUOBUfVKUBjxr4JB7m6M,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Ve2GG5Hoin9VCATLo2IQsdzod65dn440fK5AE7ZaFqkvXAS3r5Q8oiPl-GCQshCiroj3u3BhhBP6DBxo0wIojNuCg5sv__CEVIC4mkFd92s,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing Dry System

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

One approach that I have seen in a similar situation:

If the are not separated enough to classify as 'separated' (2 hr, I think?) 
then each area must be protected according to the portion that requires the 
most protection - so 13R for the lower area. Which would basically be 13 for 
the lower area, since it is outside of the dwelling unit areas.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2021 12:19 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; John O'Connor 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing Dry System

I think the OP is the AHJ. 

I just want to say that I think it's cool that a plan reviewer/inspector would 
come here to get the industries opinion about something like that. We are all 
on the same team.

Looks like Dane beat me to it, but I do think there is a fire separation 
required. Also, why someone would remove an existing fire sprinkler system? Is 
the maintenance becoming a problem?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John O'Connor via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John O'Connor 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Existing Dry System

You may want to run this by the AHJ.  His requirements will trump the 
architect's.


John R. O'Connor,  SET,  RME

National Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
2601 Elm Hill Pike, Suite J
Nashville  TN  37214

Office 615-885-1301
Fax  615-885-7505
Cell 615-519-1118
jocon...@nfspk.com

In God We Trust

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Thomas Reinhardt 
Subject: Existing Dry System

Question for the group. I have an existing three story B occupancy with an open 
parking underneath. The only sprinklers is a dry system protecting the parking 
area only. The building is going to be converted to a R2 occupancy.
The whole residential area will be sprinklered with a 13R system. The architect 
informed me that he will remove the  dry system from the parking area. I have 
reviewed open parking facilities before, and am aware that sprinklers are not 
required.(S-2). I say that the system must remain. I'm using the International 
Fire Code Chapter 9 section 901.4, which relates that fire protection systems 
shall be maintained. Any thoughts.

Tom Reinhardt
Skokie Fire Prevention Bureau
Plan Review/Fire Inspector
7424 Niles Center Road
Skokie Fire Department
Skokie, IL 60077 847-982-5342
thomas.reinha...@skokie.org


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3dZ_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A%26m%3dKDx4qSNGFJHpv0Coku0i9pKpkxL0vEX70lpxsEIzWuo%26s%3dBCBEUlDzVl4D8GGgUkXKLHw4uRKJkuse7LZSCTmTMe4%26e%3d=E,1,IMrb7IMEJdMDhDBPW0QNCpGL_5qIIzm7VVb64fLGd6yRk869jtvPcd66G0YA8TFnldm_qU0H1DJVpYfGL2kGpzPVdOYkIU02j6c15mirpktMVMmVOBEHeR95kDWo=1
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3dZ_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A%26m%3dKDx4qSNGFJHpv0Coku0i9pKpkxL0vEX70lpxsEIzWuo%26s%3dBCBEUlDzVl4D8GGgUkXKLHw4uRKJkuse7LZSCTmTMe4%26e%3d=E,1,vkrHjIvmLmqfJIpzvw0jRYEH07mqZMxKSWqVJScBliE7UPU8jpPcoUNGu3gcyqsLhQNmC4PVoEyksrr4eowMsDi1MCg69BBYFuXSyMFu1kWawxYXLKtpgJqETzQ,=1
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,46TvO956kwYXN3zp8Xcmr-4pZTQyEHgSxPxbINQI7Iiza2SlLubboCIQYzR8Xk5hPHd3JM-amgqlWS8bgjm0CWuLvnaKL2OxCgHmOzu-=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Distilled Spirits

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The production area (distillery) is listed in the 13 annex as OH2. The storage 
would probably be NFPA 30.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 12:25 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; trilliumf...@cwisp.ca
Subject: RE: Distilled Spirits

If you are over 20% alcohol, I believe you go into flammable liquids stuff. Try 
over in that direction.

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,OWMzZSRhKB4XqBaXs-PlCGH6HcuM6Ok_Q5bhLJVaaA28325NKVd28IqxTiQZ3a7TpNkIc7RNsSlyeSsUDFKCSXM3PZlBnhjZ7Aw23QjecC7Rpi8RFDWXvwRBhmo,=1

Send large files to us via: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 11:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
Subject: Distilled Spirits

Can anyone direct me to design criteria for the manufacturing and storage of 
distilled spirits ( Rum)?



Any info would be greatly appreciated.



Thank you



Troy

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,Em7J0PeoiwFnWUKftG9NGBT6Gf9_ZW6_YjrI8pq-jlRyZUO6UlxtpNQUdey-ogrxKS3qPoy90Ad_7_uJqP6QLfiZUdO3aG-QfQjO9s288GU,=1

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,OFxEpnsL7-F1epzxBqoITLrv1x2gmS1P8eNzedF-nx9ttDqrqw4GZNpIaoDFklyM6SgFZuE6A2qBOtk-aXch6KGSwgXWHUKJvXO8mjyLyvQ75RE,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Just to make sure I understand the applications - 

- Roll paper storage classification is more for bulk storage of giant rolls of 
paper that will be used to make paper products, 
 - the "tissue products" classifications with their various wrappings and 
cartons (group A/Class III) is geared towards consumer goods that are shipping 
for purchase/sales distribution

Is that the general idea?

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2021 10:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

Following up - the 2019 edition of NFPA 13 has similar language:

Table A.20.4(b)
Tissue products plastic-wrapped: exposed - Group A nonexpanded Tissue products 
plastic-wrapped; cartoned - Class III

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
John

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

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,6R2lVTs1zpAXBw9d49G57NLQSZxQsZWtXkkcBKWkYNwE1oWLKWwyoYBlpBUQVIxwkUx6tKyVKP0HJIAUZB9CtB3LghbeFZjJwA2Ut8-IlewIVDUoByQ,=1
<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
   <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>

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


*Expand your design department in 2021!* AFSA is taking its popular two-week 
Beginning Fire Sprinkler System Planning School on the road. From San Diego to 
Tampa Bay and stops in between, our technical experts will teach the basics of 
system layout based on the 2019 edition of NFPA 13. Space is limited. Enroll 
today at
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.firesprinkler.org%2fschools.=E,1,CkNDea30BW_p5PaehQxMO3eRwHYTkGmF9RG7CK-Tg6pAjv26sHa5xbez5VcvdrA3_bNOdsviMED4IPcjgtTOFLPwHIsX1h8miGVMY5w-Mm_pvxE,=1


On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:50 PM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Yes, the plastic is the material first exposed to the fire/ignition source.
>
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 8:43 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mike Hairfield 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic
>
> I just found this in NFPA-13 2013 Table A.5.6.4.1 that Paper products, 
> uncartoned and plastic wrapped is Group A Plastic Commodities.
>
> Is this correct?
> Mike
>
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> on behalf of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 8:38 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: RE: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic
>
> Sorry - just looked at the NFPA 13 criteria for tissue. I don't see 
> any options to fit those criteria.
>
> Maybe they could store it in boxes? Have you looked into FM criteria?
>
> Matt
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 7:32 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: RE: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic
>
> Depends on the packaging. If it is in boxes, class 4? If it is loose, 
> then maybe lightweight rolled paper?
>
> Matt
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 7:30 AM
> To: Sprinkler Forum 
> Cc: Mike Hairfield 
> Subject: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic
>
> Has anyone designed a warehouse of Tissue Paper wrapped in Plastic 
> maximum storage height of 25'-0" high in a building that is 38'-0" high.
>
> I couldn't find any design criteria in NFPA-13 for this commodity.
>
> Mike
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.
> com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com*2Furl*3Fa*3Dhttp*253a*2
> 52f*252flists.firesprinkler.org*252flistinfo.cgi*252fsprinklerforum-fi
> resprinkler.org*26c*3DE*2C1*2Ct20xtsAN2fnCefyqXmvkS-nQ3SE6sM_TjpEeIefY
> 982173jJisfF0gnSPTjjK-

RE: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

When I run into situations like this I like to do 2 things: 1 - make sure the 
general building structure (wind bracing/roof steel,  RTUs, primary lights, 
etc.) meet the ESFR criteria so that if they put racking back in, they don't 
have to re-do the sprinklers. 2 - make sure the owner and GC are fully aware of 
the situation and get the AHJ to sign off before installation. 

Is it overkill? - probably, but does it meet the installation/obstruction 
listing of the ESFR heads? ... no.

In cases where the AHJ will not allow the increased obstructions, we have just 
replaced the ESFR heads with standard spray. Then they have a regular sprinkler 
system with regular obstruction requirements. When/if they go back to high pile 
storage, they can just change out the heads.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 11:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

WE have a warehouse space that is protected with ESFR sprinkler heads, the 
space is being used by an indoor tennis club.

The want to add some additional HVAC and some of the new ducting would obstruct 
the ESFR sprinkler heads.

My question is do we still need to work to the same obstruction rules for this 
application, fire load is minimal we would be delivering 1200gpm rather then 
the 150gpm required, just seem like overkill.

Opinions please

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.phaserfire.ca=E,1,AGCea9wP63DF1POuOPV0we_y0lGgtZS844Cq-xCo5nAqJjINiXjubtBmzx0afkv5F-dzXGlNOcaK49V4fPqy4GpXWiFI9pc1Su4tsMQhhWsSUJzN-kyfVpzb=1

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,eA9yYFeWNp1fiYHIW7yhJsBVrWb8DV25i19DdeCokAl6v01n82sXpTHIHr0U6EHp9h5B9oKc0Zzwsnay23IpXmN8Z6DZXfYZzF2KuhVJPDEwVQ,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: listed pressure relief valve

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I might be reading their literature incorrectly - but it seems like the 175psi 
is the only listed option?

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Michael Walters  
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 11:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: listed pressure relief valve

I believe this might be what you're looking for.


https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.testandrain.com%2fdownloads%2fpdf%2fSellSheetM7000-7200.pdf=E,1,a9zLphExaJEq_sD_p5XOrjuqzNK3q3XySpW-siShhhI1JoCPfXobwD5U6uHhfQuyzu-afRacVZzJc-3gGuki1r3L4I-DpqYaUm0fLrsvtg_RJskvaFBc36kDABRZ=1


Michael Walters
Designer
Vulcan Fire Protection
2600 D State Route 568
Carey, Ohio 43316
419-396-3535 Office
419-396-7581 Fax
419-721-4202 Cell
micha...@vulcanfireprotection-oh.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: listed pressure relief valve

Does anyone know of a ½" listed pressure relief valve that comes set higher 
than 175? The brands we typically come across are available in other pressures, 
but not listed.

Thanks!

Matt

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,RXfWiD5tB-SurW9Uuw33VjbY9EF3XldeXAmoEHQFnMnCmDx2jY-IV0KZBU0MtZpSv84QQtasOCkp5Ez9zzI6d-CeizHwEBgEE1U1nhA8UrrWdcSSCRXpaTSRgU4,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

listed pressure relief valve

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Does anyone know of a ½" listed pressure relief valve that comes set higher 
than 175? The brands we typically come across are available in other pressures, 
but not listed.

Thanks!

Matt

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

RE: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Sorry - just looked at the NFPA 13 criteria for tissue. I don't see any options 
to fit those criteria.

Maybe they could store it in boxes? Have you looked into FM criteria?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 7:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

Depends on the packaging. If it is in boxes, class 4? If it is loose, then 
maybe lightweight rolled paper?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 7:30 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum 
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

Has anyone designed a warehouse of Tissue Paper wrapped in Plastic maximum 
storage height of 25'-0" high in a building that is 38'-0" high.

I couldn't find any design criteria in NFPA-13 for this commodity.

Mike
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,t20xtsAN2fnCefyqXmvkS-nQ3SE6sM_TjpEeIefY982173jJisfF0gnSPTjjK-gsBcgCDttdBZ5wCNlenc3lLrE-5VYGP3hDF4vF4P2ooM20hmbs=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,8KpP5AWYv4mbPvNfMmcC-f0c-2hpcMfM1MZnsfUgfVMgTytPhbTXTbGCb-OmcrqB6c1ggfUF8z8ITrxEdflDFWAUcbd-pyAcsbmlgzc9vx9LQ4cU6_IuQNWzYw,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Depends on the packaging. If it is in boxes, class 4? If it is loose, then 
maybe lightweight rolled paper?

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 7:30 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum 
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Tissue Paper Wrapped in Plastic

Has anyone designed a warehouse of Tissue Paper wrapped in Plastic maximum 
storage height of 25'-0" high in a building that is 38'-0" high.

I couldn't find any design criteria in NFPA-13 for this commodity.

Mike
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,t20xtsAN2fnCefyqXmvkS-nQ3SE6sM_TjpEeIefY982173jJisfF0gnSPTjjK-gsBcgCDttdBZ5wCNlenc3lLrE-5VYGP3hDF4vF4P2ooM20hmbs=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: schedule 7 pipe?

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Pete,

For the record:  "go Pack!!"



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
m 913 526 7443
o 913 888 0647
f 913 888 0618

Sent from mobile device


 Original message 
From: Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/24/21 3:54 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'" 

Cc: Pete Schwab , John Denhardt 
, Larry Keeping 
Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?

The original question is actually very interesting. You mentioned Schedule 7 
pipe and I bet pretty much everyone that read that immediately thought of 
listed flow pipe. Until there is a requirement to standardize the ID's there 
will not be an appetite to put "Schedule 7" in the standard in my opinion. 
Using it through the listed option is more preferable the thinner the wall 
gets. I do like the ability to use a non-listed product simply manufactured to 
the appropriate ASTM standard. Helps with some of the oddball sizes and 
galvanized. For many years, we have used "Schedule 7" and "Schedule 30 - listed 
threadable thinwall" as our standard compared to 10 & 40. Granted we do more 
plastic than steel but we have installed quite a bit of these listed steel pipe 
products. We have not experienced major issues with these products. We have 
never used the "Schedule 7" 6" pipe nor used "Schedule 5".

The cost difference in a competitive environment cannot be ignored.
My opinion and not that of any organization
Go Bucs

Pete Schwab


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Larry Keeping via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Larry Keeping ; John Denhardt 

Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?

Good morning:

I have been reading through this e-mail chain and I noticed a couple of 
references to the ASTM A-53 pipe spec.
I stand to be corrected, but out that in all of the data sheets that I have 
ever seen, for "Schedule 7" or for any other listed sprinkler pipes, with wall 
thicknesses less than Schedule 40, are to the ASTM A135/A795 specs.
The only data sheets that I am familiar with that meet the ASTM A53 spec. is 
for Schedule 40 pipe.

Larry Keeping

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: January 20, 2021 5:13 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: John Denhardt 
mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org>>
Subject: Re: schedule 7 pipe?

Warning! This email came from outside your company.

Matt - fully understand the position you have.

To answer your initial question specifically, I have heard of *no* push to 
change NFPA 13 with regard to piping material.

Thanks,
John

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

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,54mkPtnCRUVU-xbAsJBMTh3ZKyFwGJILb8zpfC3LuWYPkztqnp-2fJdKf_rNEN_2bA9DHa3o369BZmYKlP9VWnccMpuLPiVOvhq-peYbAZ52-SFbZeI,=1
<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org>>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa->>
<https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/<https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg>>

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


*Expand your design department in 2021!* AFSA is taking its popular two-week 
Beginning Fire Sprinkler System Planning School on the road. From San Diego to 
Tampa Bay and stops in between, our technical experts will teach the basics of 
system layout based on the 2019 edition of NFPA 13. Space is limited. Enroll 
today at 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.firesprinkler.org%2fschools=E,1,bMIWhNdml9LtBLD7VLKCHJbSbhOS7lIjdmPATqmCJUOtcKtz7l5DL1qTJBWrFoin7dlw1GuEbH-61UkhcEfUDSYe4DNIW3l9Ik2Y1tTsiVNn=1<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.firesprinkler.org%2fschools=E,1,VNmPvWAFOZM_t0ZIy7l8scFqYk1uyt_n7tBM3UfiadnNtqlgdsTzdYLXL_egc2JCfNtGUShIbSBCDBugHsfglqmVkCTPxy1Mh-slwJcyyCRV7Q,,=1>.


On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:03 PM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

> There is no doubt that thicker pipe lasts longer.
>
> However, when the owner of a warehouse specifies schedule 7 piping for
> the sprinkler system in a hard bid, the installing contractor will be
> using schedule 7.
>
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
>

RE: schedule 7 pipe?

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

There is no doubt  that thicker pipe lasts longer.

However, when the owner of a warehouse specifies schedule 7 piping for the 
sprinkler system in a hard bid, the installing contractor will be using 
schedule 7.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Lucas Kirn  
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 3:34 PM
To: Matt Grise ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?

Matt,

Having seen many cases of failed sch. 7 pipe over the past 10+ years I would 
tell anyone willing to listen to stay far, far away from it. Pipe schedule is 
the most basic form of corrosion/leak protection. The thinner the pipe, the 
shorter the lifespan.

I have also seen several instances where a GC or property owner came back and 
tried to sue the installing sprinkler contractor because the system started 
leaking after less than 10 years - through no fault of the contractor. In my 
opinion installing an inferior product exposes your company to more liability.

Lucas Kirn, PE

Engineered Corrosion Solutions
(314) 415-1387 | 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fecscorrosion.com=E,1,xpOWPXSiPcfMjrQXW0481anSuS-LAdKXY8Csy9gBfPzMFPZQ61fHBTnx1JPCTU5vcUquYUcmx0Hs_Eg8_66rAgyi9fc2BhzVgD_0ACnhMOXX6-GkecLttgY,=1

-Original Message-
From: Matt Grise  
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:58 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: schedule 7 pipe?

Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM A53) 
schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow" 
piping options?

Matt


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

RE: schedule 7 pipe?

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I was looking at NFPA 13 - 2019 16.3.2 "when steel pipe referenced in 7.3.1.1 
is used... ...minimum nominal wall thickness for pressures up to 300psi shall 
be in accordance with Schedule 10..."

Does this require that thinner pipe be listed?

I was curious if the listed s7/s5 products are any different from plain ASTM 
A53 pipes.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: schedule 7 pipe?

Keep in mind, NFPA 13 states piping or tubing that meets Table 7.3.1.1 is 
acceptable.  Listing is NOT required.

*NFPA 13 - 2019:  7.3.1.1 Pipe or tube shall meet or exceed one of the 
standards in Table 7.3.1.1 or be in accordance with 7.3.3.*

Thus, as long as any piping or tubing material complies with one of the 
standards listed in Table 7.3.1.1, it is acceptable to use.

I have not used much schedule 7 steel pipe in my career.  However, I have heard 
many horror stories with this steel pipe.

Thanks,
John

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

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,bWryeR7tZ1O1dLjO_NhXR7V9rqsGxiLcfcfxT61KfaRhT9d0vtjwLH8mf5H5b3CwfLZsk5y7lN7JEH9NkkBgwe6xh-RXiPwz27rNQL7VVbhK0GqIrDj-jw,,=1
<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
   <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>

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


*Expand your design department in 2021!* AFSA is taking its popular two-week 
Beginning Fire Sprinkler System Planning School on the road. From San Diego to 
Tampa Bay and stops in between, our technical experts will teach the basics of 
system layout based on the 2019 edition of NFPA 13. Space is limited. Enroll 
today at
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.firesprinkler.org%2fschools.=E,1,qs9LkaxPeR7tDIQVW9-azgrqbr53d67A6UYAwcltYiDIbtUt4GfBVOY5w9T6n83ucR00o4SIsFz_q3_gR4EGrMhmFr-YMwlwqmHdCnLepyggICEUFCpe-zlJxUU,=1


On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:58 AM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM 
> A53) schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow"
> piping options?
>
> Matt
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,7rii8OKXA
> UAY3sTqr74qkb_8u6tIjZP00BTkd2h-2502Sweaf0f3SP94B6veam2pdmTDTc3twqER3RP
> e1aQyyUnqyk7j-P2PXtCTbxR8HeD3w1x7AqViLzPK=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,MYY-2t_MWoEpGuIZq0hFfqzvPlgneE0QsS5c3SP_vYWPZ6OR1IsDv33M31SO90CHonz-mxqtB8VHDR5dwDD-w_5SpIWGm-s2zq52hKU0Ijw-irZH5p4l160-FmM,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

schedule 7 pipe?

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM A53) 
schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow" 
piping options?

Matt

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

Re: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

What is the battery chemistry?



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
m 913 526 7443
o 913 888 0647
f 913 888 0618

Sent from mobile device


 Original message 
From: Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 1/14/21 12:15 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" , 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

I can't tell you the exact dimensions for specifications because it's in 
pre-design.   It's right next to the building, but several hundred feet from 
the existing preaction areas and riser.

-Original Message-
From: Prahl, Craig/GVL [mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: RE: Stand-Alone UPS protection design

Steve,

Can you provide a better description of this unit?  How far from the building 
will it be located?

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

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Stand-Alone UPS protection design

I'm engaged in a conversation with a project team where an Uninterrupted Power 
Supply is being added to a local small-scale broadcast facility (NPR 
affiliate).   The control rooms and studios are already protected by preaction 
and this battery stack is being added outside the building and a ways away from 
the existing preaction areas.   The two candidate designs are to extend the 
preaction or use a pre-engineered wet-chem system and I'd love for any and 
everyone who has experience with this type of hazard to chime in on whether 
there is a preferred or "best" practice.   My feeling is that a wet-chem system 
is the way to go and the most common practice - can anyone verify or do I have 
that wrong.

Fire away please...

Steve L.


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.com%2fv3%2f__http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__%3b%21%21B5cixuoO7ltTeg%21RBqeKKjG60wNEVmjtlo8VtJ_60JAV9CUPjj0pGiQ2Zgf2T3xTnT90OKuOqUcJqL9Og%24=E,1,BShkYLUD1RLgiLgDZGfVDk05i6BwISef9l7ExjaBxbFy7ewEqpj8ib6K71px8n-sK6S7gUdeT6GDk8c14yvp5IoHcjSWkVv9opvRudfz_gA,=1



NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information 
that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or 
distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify 
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,1rqBO1RPcsDBQA_1RsOtIDA7HU6n8bYXLlak9kAhj6-rYZ6SR1DJhaMaJIcjiMN_90Zer0oMKr5S7rwTWXfdqEEzeg7GgEUMA-uY0WvKVUPOs8w8=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

potential freezing in ESFR system

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

we have a GC who wants to hydro test a pendant ESFR system before they have 
heat in the building. They want to fill and test during the day while 
temperatures are over 40F, and then drain the system before it gets cold again.

I thought it did not sound like a great idea, but I can't necessarily find any 
code or rule that specifically prohibits the plan.

on the same note - if a pendant ESFR warehouse were going to be left cold and 
drained, would it be required to pull every head?

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

Re: pump suction presure

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

 Minimum suction pressure is usually set by the manufacturer. Most that i have 
seen require 0.5psi at the inlet flange. You might check with your vendor.



Matt Grise
Alliance Fire Protection
m 913 526 7443
o 913 888 0647
f 913 888 0618

Sent from mobile device


 Original message 
From: Steven Jenkins via Sprinklerforum 
Date: 12/4/20 3:57 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steven Jenkins 
Subject: pump suction presure

We have an existing horizontal split case fire pump and ground level water 
storage tank.  The storage in the protected building is changing, and the 
amount of water needed for fire protection is going up.
We are changing the tank to a “break tank”, but even then there is not much 
water left in the tank after the required supply duration, only a few feet left 
in the bottom of the tank.
The pump is right next to the tank, so not much loss due to friction in the 
connecting pipe.
With the tank full, before the pump is turned on, the gauge on the suction side 
reads about 15 psi, due to the height of water in the tank.  When the pump is 
running at 150%, this drops to about 7.5 psi.
At the end of the required duration I will only have about 1.5 psi of head from 
the height of water in the tank.  So if I lose another 7.5 with the pump on, 
the gauge would read -6 psi.
Is this a problem for compliance with 2019 NFPA 20, or since the pump is 
already running does this make the negative 6 psi gauge reading OK?
2019 NFPA 20 4.16.3.2
Thanks,
J
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,RlkXKAWo6ZlPf_bG-f0LkV21ehSgFRDZ6-TFjgt5Jgak7uhWo7aNTTCr6ArVZLQihucEVoSPp5CE7E01VV15l89RKNJxRkYHFl_EKVMnxUP7WEhc-w,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Domestic Demands 13R

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

What if you just brought in a separate fire line? Then you would not have to 
include any domestic at all.

I doubt that is an option here, but it points out that we were never worried 
about the domestic demand in the other buildings.

Matt 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 2:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: e...@bamfordfire.com
Subject: RE: Domestic Demands 13R

Section 9.6 (2016) says "Domestic demand  FOR THE BUILDING BEING CALCULATED 
shall be included . . ."  I took the liberty of adding capitalization.  I 
assume the intent is to include the added friction loss caused by the domestic 
demand in the private part of the UG system.  So you might be able to argue it 
doesn't matter how many buildings take supply from your 4" UG because we only 
calc 1 building at a time.

Ed K


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:53 AM
To: philli...@pyebarkerfire.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: RE: Domestic Demands 13R

Correct.  However, they may be expected to have domestic demands.  That is the 
plan reviewer rationale in one particular case.


Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com=E,1,umP7HYAtk6Ii5UiY-vM31D_dOfpYgPD8KFbQDJHPpWAL-rAF2b_14DJ29E65sh91NS3AtJ1PSETRfBpfpVQhCLkLWn7eXPPOGFVgI-KVUVTu=1

Send large files to us via: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
LinkedIn: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D=0

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

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fferguson.com=E,1,OQis2ZB1Du6ULY7Bo1EYPOl7CMNmdwaiPnZnA2so1pB8QRsC2DiuD8dOMI3Nvl0OuDxuRu5tEWwqn5soJeMtXcHFCMoxQTTVjCCL4D01DWnC47LZHDf-QNZl=1,
 click 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ferguson.com%2faccount-registration=E,1,pn3svgM1ASv0uW5R_Jbtq7wKdhFM-wXViWqoNV0Q15bcpppyjpWMg7EdaKWUZeqWwKV4ZytbiK7D5_PffwOmqkaygE0_OfN-8jCD0NG4Ewcfu9J-4mxAS4bxDZjl=1
 to register.* **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for 
on-the-go access to your favorite 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fferguson.com=E,1,_EJmlLlkAYkLFgagwvPBoxSWct7MCxPPiYVXblELlS7CBRDEgQjbtpSjQbEKKJ7dYxl2TCF9_JOvAVSp_0itAL5gcJXULBu7Nm34-1HevJ5iUINnVleM=1
 features. 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com%2fhq7bgesq7f%2f1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12%2fexternal%3femail%3dtrue%26a%3d6%26p%3d2591775%26t%3d517003=E,1,8oXcNE-Jv2ZeNvkGToKkTPLamcDdjmXa62_Kz8hshLP-qtpZEg9QXlSf-rMo8loYKRzuTUUJvenNhzvdeQwRCaThQs8cyX1yVb9y5ds2njVOAnU0qQ,,=1
 or 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com%2fhq7bgesq7f%2fn1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12%2fexternal%3femail%3dtrue%26a%3d6%26p%3d2591775%26t%3d517003%2a%2a=E,1,FroRDb_DWz1iNSIeQgmYe2xex2N6uSF9qqYfnePhskBI1dJjDBRpG-gCrtg6didS5yj-q4G8jG92bA1zmNS1dCagtb4325n8XH189aQsnZ2lQR4VCVzSSa8,=1

From: Mark Phillips 
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 9:51 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Travis Mack 

Subject: Re: Domestic Demands 13R

From a practical perspective all of the apartment building would not be 
expected to be on fire at once.

That was how a plan reviewer once explained it to me.


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

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

832-101 Purser Drive
Raleigh NC 27603
Phone: 919-779-4010
Fax : 919-779-4014
Cell : 919-268-7587
Email : mailto:philli...@pyebarkerfire.com
Web : 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pyebarkerfire.com=E,1,-dh3jyKjf-3BsgHZMqB9ZMdDPx4-Ko3T36t5hva8XhH8EmOBiay4dYEWZVPdBnGv_JM627jWS7BiYQckCOGjyYKa05BrceMXn9R839x2B3Bzrr894tqgrMg,=1


From: Sprinklerforum  on 
behalf of Mark Phillips via Sprinklerforum 

Sent: 

RE: Domestic Demands 13R

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I agree - we are starting to make assumptions about the design basis of the 
civil/underground water system.

13R 9.6 says "for the building being calculated"- not 'along with all of the 
other buildings that might use the same underground supply'

The handbook goes on to say "If there are multiple buildings on a project, the 
domestic demand for the other buildings is not required to be added to the 
building being calculated."

In all likelihood, the underground supply is designed to comfortably provide 
domestic water to the planned development, along with water for one fire 
sprinkler system at a time. I don't know that for sure, but the code/handbook 
seem to say that I don't need to worry about it.

Matt 


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

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


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

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


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

> It is a new complex.  I agree with #1 for sure.  #2, while I see the 
> logic, it just seems like that is way overkill for a project.  
> Including a
> 2500 gpm domestic demand in a site loop really seems excessive.  If it 
> were a 13 system, you would include a 100 gpm and wouldn't even 
> consider the other buildings on the site.  That is where the rationale 
> of including all seems to escape.
>
> Again, we have AHJ's requesting both ways.  I am wondering how others 
> handle it and what you have run up against.
>
>
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> 3356 E Vallejo Ct
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
> NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
> mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mfpdesign.com;
> c=E,1,NsuL16-COemCmEuWet3wqa5ZBTLR4rVK8PqyCc6NrR_7GPQD7GGXtoBIj6dWo61G
> u6sTvDCIAbFjnX9npXWed_KzEbVRAuslA6jJhmj-8VqRIcPeBPkn5b1L6OWQ=1
>
> Send large files to us via:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.h
> ightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4
> df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C6363790166773421
> 80=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0
> LinkedIn:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.l
> inkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108
> d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C63637901667734
> 2180=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D
> =0
>
> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of 
> low price is forgotten.”
>
> Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material
> quote?  Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
> *If you do not already have an account with 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fferguson.com=E,1
> ,cmUReZNLzKVt3SoXXEjQVHY7xJXHFcTKByHHVxBViMcNzhZ38H0ywOUf33E3Dfz7VP_Uu
> BgCw00TX2FyVgXmdAh834jHJC6-N3Uu3bxOknZgGQ,,=1, click
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ferguson.com%2
> faccount-registration=E,1,nDJfb1l4ZUoqmsX7YX4X3NVvYyAcEvaEIWN04eru2C
> vaWjlGxownvjuiWnFVY0UnpwKeKdNsEKMeQkjA2a2rXRx6KOBHeVEgVbs42gj-v2Thrnr47ppF4r3E=1
>  to register.* **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for 
> on-the-go access to your favorite 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fferguson.com=E,1,23iAvjLtA0ozLwgasjvs3i8isbf8KsFF4bKa-WvPOXNXUu5J6JJXnjilw08QRKBSnI0jgTt_CEXCIMBiaWp71UAOXm_BlVC_hWwOX9mf98nPRvODIw,,=1
>  features.
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffergusoncommunicati
> ons.us.newsweaver.com%2fhq7bgesq7f%2f1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12%2fexternal
> %3femail%3dtrue%26a%3d6%26p%3d2591775%26t%3d517003=E,1,qthBtg7zw3f4H
> JNFiQdREq7QAafgZ8AXcyrJPThh7GILcvJo8MQkmKnhTw2tIV3MOwemPwPIzhbiA7xx-CV
> Szcqj70iZzWy5kBVj_F8iFrSNO48Kag,,=1
>  or
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffergusoncommunicati
> ons.us.newsweaver.com%2fhq7bgesq7f%2fn1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12%2fexternal
> %3femail%3dtrue%26a%3d6%26p%3d2591775%26t%3d517003%2a%2a=E,1,AjlUphw
> BkkgJW0MxRDMLeDQPh0YgOZSVinn8IYKXaUKd8jHoGOQqjg7riXSz-LLR8cy9jc83zwu5p
> adLDKXfgUaD7kKmvBowkzqIEgK7ydp6iyGRTDFC=1
>
> From: Hinson, Ryan 
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 9:59 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Travis 

RE: Self-storage Lockers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The issue we had was that the original prints did not show the half-high 
lockers. By the time the 4x4 [previously] full height lockers were split in 
half, the system was installed OH2. There was no way to get it up to EH2, so 
the excessive shielding had to be addressed with sprinklers.

I do agree with your EH assessment though.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall 
Subject: Re: Self-storage Lockers

That design seems excessive. Based on all of the arrangements I've looked at, 
it's generally Extra Hazard (Group 2) due to the unknown commodities and 
extensive shielding. No sprinklers in the lockers as it is not an accessible 
space.  Just the sprinklers at the ceiling level designed to discharge 
0.4/2,500.

*4.3.6* Extra Hazard (Group 2) (EH2). The following shall be protected with
EH2 occupancy criteria in this standard:*
*(1) Spaces with very high quantity and combustibility of contents*
*(2) Spaces with substantial amounts of combustible or flammable liquids*
*(3) Spaces where shielding of combustibles is extensive*


With a complete owner's certificate, this can probably be adjusted to a lesser 
hazard by the EOR.

Kevin Hall, P.E., MSFPE
*Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5971
w: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,AbxN4uTzSxzMTnYtnVoOlxsxgtcNk0uPJ1707KUhHLds7390G9E_ReDSAJodpDU7eG0lKQhnBqML2g4KaeTdVdVQEuBAdys9fx2I_gZo=1
<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>
   <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>


*Don’t miss another issue!*

Sign up to get your exclusive copy of the industry’s leading membership 
magazine *Sprinkler* *Age* delivered straight to your mailbox, inbox, or both! 
Subscribe 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsprinklerage.com%2fsubscribe%2f=E,1,azD8GVOFSP585qJj_OBMMRRHGTGltlDukZFU-fTEElkigktRN229DYvv2kN5E5ESVnbt57BqoprEvhqSoPjLkAyLElXpzdS4BJMx7LMN=1>
 now to get the latest information you need to know and never miss another 
issue.


On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:52 PM Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Maybe you should have suggested to the ahj that it needed a total 
> flooding inert gas system with optical detection as the primary 
> protection system with a  6% AR /AFFF deluge system for redundancy. 
> You just never know when someone might leave a box of Bic pens in 
> their locker (Flammable liquid stored in plastic containers).
>
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 11:07 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Matt Grise 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Self-storage Lockers
>
> We just recently had this come up - had to put a head in each one. We 
> drilled a hole from hallway to hallway and stabbed groove weld pipe 
> through there. Then send in your skinniest squirrel to set the 
> coupling, hanger, head, and guard.
>
> Matt
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:03 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: John Irwin ; Kyle.Montgomery < 
> kmontgom...@aerofire.com>
> Subject: RE: Self-storage Lockers
>
> I have done a lot of these in many jurisdictions and never protected 
> the lockers. I have not been asked about it yet.
>
> I do protect the 4x4 or 5x5 lockers that are full height.
>
>
>
> John Irwin
> Quick Response Fire Protection
>
>
> "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of 
> low price is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:58 PM
> To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
> Subject: Self-storage Lockers
>
> I'm looking at a project that is your typical self-storage building 
> but with a feature I haven't dealt with before. There are some lockers 
> that are 4' x 4' x 4' cubes stacked on top of each other. Just two 
> high, so there is
> 128 cubic feet of storage space in a 16 square foot area. It's not 
> really accessible for people, since you'd have to crawl into the lower 
> one or climb into the h

RE: Self-storage Lockers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I already have a public input form ready for the 2025 cycle!

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps 
Subject: RE: Self-storage Lockers

Maybe you should have suggested to the ahj that it needed a total flooding 
inert gas system with optical detection as the primary protection system with a 
 6% AR /AFFF deluge system for redundancy. You just never know when someone 
might leave a box of Bic pens in their locker (Flammable liquid stored in 
plastic containers).  

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 11:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Self-storage Lockers

We just recently had this come up - had to put a head in each one. We drilled a 
hole from hallway to hallway and stabbed groove weld pipe through there. Then 
send in your skinniest squirrel to set the coupling, hanger, head, and guard.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin ; Kyle.Montgomery 

Subject: RE: Self-storage Lockers

I have done a lot of these in many jurisdictions and never protected the 
lockers. I have not been asked about it yet.

I do protect the 4x4 or 5x5 lockers that are full height.



John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:58 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: Self-storage Lockers

I'm looking at a project that is your typical self-storage building but with a 
feature I haven't dealt with before. There are some lockers that are 4' x 4' x 
4' cubes stacked on top of each other. Just two high, so there is 128 cubic 
feet of storage space in a 16 square foot area. It's not really accessible for 
people, since you'd have to crawl into the lower one or climb into the higher 
one, but it is obviously accessible for storage. Construction is noncombustible.

Are sprinklers required in every one of these lockers, upper and lower? That 
seems logical, but I just haven't dealt with this scenario before.

-Kyle M


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2CGuUPi9UtYccz6OTPyF3Pb7RpxyY168llvvVfYOc513nE2aGjBAf2XYb77HfRpWmcJF9n1oBlSdEi0hSx-2D0YVQrv92GfDqiEv0JtWDFz04SigCas-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3ddLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg%26m%3dpHtFAFg5BKi2s6vpmleJ4Z2kU115waM8H-M9wonDPkY%26s%3de1UTI4mgt8x8IXzYmfm0X5EJiLXxDFnYKg7EX7vDM9o%26e%3d=E,1,LK2NdGm6TZsD0OlI_QnxYv5QXcPTs07V116or0ornaHzyVRy7CwPOre5FFmJwXKNbmSRIZE4T9ZOgHMPsgHkJi13plfS-dD7sxqol7_1FBHorktVWOw,=1
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252flists.firesprinkler.org-252flistinfo.cgi-252fsprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org-26c-3DE-2C1-2C6he3OU-2DDEaM3FeB8fk1PjSBF-2DuXvDr0cNDl-5FCG9jNQbgqslVJeFB0934t9ZuSJT-2D5UriTWBStO2pWvX8Hgq8jJBxEBTseAg2SA9tYpM303xCySs-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3ddLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg%26m%3dpHtFAFg5BKi2s6vpmleJ4Z2kU115waM8H-M9wonDPkY%26s%3dtSdXj1ydkVL9obt7zUdDz1dycQzzLIHGZ4vsUoQpICc%26e%3d=E,1,lj2TPKUb4TyN9_UFvvaqGikoLETuNhXN2Ui125hv3uH6OjOacW5TxVbS30ctSAUFlygas4gcxc1k0xURM-y80Et_tExZpk3rx22KAwhyMbaQmqzMRyY,=1
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dwn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA%26r%3ddLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg%26m%3dpHtFAFg5BKi2s6vpmleJ4Z2kU115waM8H-M9wonDPkY%26s%3dLKEl33S1E1_TCw8JELDp2MUXJUMJC6iF6BZcXJvB_PQ%26e%3d=E,1,W8a7liV7z5ibk1ECLb4vcNUXLi2gRRZvDOYlkz0lYTJHFDgb6ZSQMeg-dktCv6XruZoiQprRKeH5s9PT2gni_5Pi6HCa8CszfDIREEJDuCKOk9KhehQa=1
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler

RE: Self-storage Lockers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We just recently had this come up - had to put a head in each one. We drilled a 
hole from hallway to hallway and stabbed groove weld pipe through there. Then 
send in your skinniest squirrel to set the coupling, hanger, head, and guard.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin ; Kyle.Montgomery 

Subject: RE: Self-storage Lockers

I have done a lot of these in many jurisdictions and never protected the 
lockers. I have not been asked about it yet.

I do protect the 4x4 or 5x5 lockers that are full height.



John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection


"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price 
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:58 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: Kyle.Montgomery 
Subject: Self-storage Lockers

I'm looking at a project that is your typical self-storage building but with a 
feature I haven't dealt with before. There are some lockers that are 4' x 4' x 
4' cubes stacked on top of each other. Just two high, so there is 128 cubic 
feet of storage space in a 16 square foot area. It's not really accessible for 
people, since you'd have to crawl into the lower one or climb into the higher 
one, but it is obviously accessible for storage. Construction is noncombustible.

Are sprinklers required in every one of these lockers, upper and lower? That 
seems logical, but I just haven't dealt with this scenario before.

-Kyle M


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,GuUPi9UtYccz6OTPyF3Pb7RpxyY168llvvVfYOc513nE2aGjBAf2XYb77HfRpWmcJF9n1oBlSdEi0hSx-0YVQrv92GfDqiEv0JtWDFz04SigCas,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,6he3OU-DEaM3FeB8fk1PjSBF-uXvDr0cNDl_CG9jNQbgqslVJeFB0934t9ZuSJT-5UriTWBStO2pWvX8Hgq8jJBxEBTseAg2SA9tYpM303xCySs,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Code requiring inclusion of possible concurrent flow

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Just out of curiosity - is there a need for a code requirement? Is someone 
arguing that the flush flow should not be included? What is their argument?

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Kevin Hall via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kevin Hall 
Subject: Re: Code requiring inclusion of possible concurrent flow

Section 9.3.2 was added in the 2019 edition of NFPA 13R and could apply to the 
demand in addition to the design sprinklers:


*9.3.1 For systems with common domestic/fire mains serving more than one 
dwelling unit, domestic demand for the building being calculated shall be 
included as part of the overall system demand unless provisions are made to 
prevent the domestic waterflow on sprinkler system activation.*


The 2019 edition of NFPA 13 has language that may also be applicable:


*5.1.3.3 Where a single main less than 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter serves both 
fire systems and other uses, the non-fire demand shall be added to the 
hydraulic calculations for the fire system at the point of connection unless 
provisions have been made to automatically isolate the non-fire demand during a 
fire event.*


It would be the owner's or owner's agent's (engineer of record) responsibility 
to make any applicable water supply adjustments per Section 4.2.


Kevin Hall, P.E., MSFPE
*Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5971
w: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,wbgTYHloiNxiWDn7-NSKarSa62rx2UW6IoPm_4deb2WA3KYBcBmqGLVP_MhWkvzwTnkMTZSi_Ww33t_lNm4Sjhb60la0g3vFbXWZNOS6fWUy=1



   


*AFSA Summer Sale!*

For a limited time only, AFSA is offering members up to 50% off its on-demand 
recorded webinars! Featuring the most sought-after thought leaders, AFSA 
On-Demand offers a superior learning experience with ability to earn CEU and 
CPD credits anytime, anywhere. Visit
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.firesprinkler.org%2fondemand=E,1,5LQxIcYcZko4KclCK-5cAlLTbByUKkDDYMNbLKvDMz7jZtX08fLey0c8aHCJC9fRG-zfrKfAp47HJOPdY-0PPBUWa8IlRjC9UBU4cSAbgNPkUuDcraOj=1
 to learn more.



On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:28 PM Hinson, Ryan via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> We have run into a dock FW system design where multiple automatic 
> flushing valves are being provided on the system to prevent freezing 
> by automatically flowing water at temps below 40°F to the order of 300 gpm.
> Though this flow should absolutely be included in the system demand 
> flow, I am having difficulty finding code direction requiring its 
> inclusion in hydraulic demands other than where NFPA 13R systems may 
> have to account for concurrent domestic flows.
>
> Any code sections come to mind?
>
> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET**  \  Burns & McDonnell Senior Fire 
> Protection Engineer, Fire Protection Engineering Group O 952-656-3662 
> \  M 763-688-4045 \  F 952-229-2923 
> rhin...@burnsmcd.com  \  
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fburnsmcd.com=E,1
> ,ZpBEidnKG9tOXc2OTKNbxlh80x-PILXlw8nAuFRIlnar8jKYHisGc0dqXch_1o4KV6knf
> oIPDhIAhnwIL93BUiETBIn3Q4vB_9kvGjeFlC0D5lmiAZAZvftsarGu=1<
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.burnsmcd.com%2f
> =E,1,3fUZpdbznKKM-n3MA6QF5FU7QVLPx3MGDe-ZbtXxBYLD0EsYAu5WdsVMW9WVm00
> 7FkW7kQKl1n1HTXRjjfQYpBKKnhCD_-z8u6SSBX_Qao3eR0xfv9R1PFXTgg,,=1>
> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 500  \  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 55437 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler
> .org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,QLLQKJcFm
> dZINEDYCz8Bc0jptph0H9zOfU4puWQ8nnYA4solenjKjRmrqw4TZxNmea2rAKiiv8lI0gW
> 95tAzqJYkvZHwN1vTJJKeGmjzLEirHkA,=1
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,U81m2mCV1SusNS_u4crFHzd1lTv3TLTjInbi6sSSsg43uA03ON0PU-vX_yY7Y6bBMxSYSSmDMEFKzuUaa2uVesrfvej9kCq-hQ8Q3bjqzQ,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Window Sprinklers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I would ask - what would the lower sprinklers do?  It seems like higher level 
sprinklers would go off first and then prevent the lower ones from operating. 
As you mentioned, they are not listed for that application.

I have had the discussion before: If you want a fire rating, and a window, you 
have to make some compromises.

Matt 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 8:56 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Joe Burtell 
Subject: Window Sprinklers

I have an architect that wants to put additional window sprinklers below a 
horizontal mullion. I am absolutely against this idea as it's not listed or 
approved for this. Has anyone run into this situation?

Best regards,

*Joe Burtell, SET, CFPS*

[image: Burtell Fire_Small]

Phone | Fax | Mobile| Text *406-204-4653 <++1-406-204-4653>*

116 N. 11th Street | Billings, MT 59101

Email: j...@burtellfire.com

Web Site: 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.burtellfire.com=E,1,vvE4-kU04XJEa_TSCBo0ppTnt4kM3l2UkAFdXCRt9jYvyMUd7t3lfyicebE_9UnUpPK7VlmMuNbbBd1sgVs1sh_SdFltZGgbg7aSBk0CH54,=1

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

*NOTICE:*  The information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended 
only for use of the individual or entity named above.  This e-mail 
transmission, and any documents, files, previous e-mail transmissions or other 
information attached to it, may contain confidential information that is 
legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail 
transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, 
distribution, copying or other use of this transmission or any of the 
information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If 
you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notify 
us by return e-mail transmission and destroy the original e-mail transmission 
as well as its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner.  Thank 
you.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,4XutUpAyQHtgkgggcC_ewWR-8b_kwAj6fPtokaVQBmhGppOUZULGRM4TFOkVvWbvdoyrGmCpdfUcXNx9cKIU_6ahRX9AJcDr_J5Z_vFcIqXndjQyY9BH=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Or the reading on the pump inlet gauge.

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of cliff--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: cl...@fire-design.com
Subject: RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

Brian,

I may be looking at this too 'simply', but wouldn't your suction pressure be 
the static pressure at the flow test location plus or minus any pressure gain 
or loss for any difference between the elevation of the flow test and the fire 
pump suction?

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President

Fire Design, Inc.
600 W. Bypass Hwy. 19E
Suite 202
Burnsville, NC 28714
Ph: 828-284-4772
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

We're replacing a pump in an existing system and the pump vendor wants to know 
the pump suction pressure. Since we didn't do the original system and I know 
nothing about it what is a practical way of determining the pump suction to 
tell the vendor?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com=E,1,fPKVA9LmYVAFj6wU2zue-sxj1lKPEyBR0IzSMOfmWQhkdfzW0pVPQNqdtRfwfotu1CJ1r199FT_xVT4xdVMuvik2UUqvDIqIumxKh1EZuYxd1ikkKAbfTUIf9RSb=1
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,2XVMi2XSjpSC7MmxwbU-ge6SgOeyVoED5yFk21X5XiqzrUzFct2caDe_kBj1TqAbrNNIk2M5SL45K0rQhTUXHHqepHh5ofHFNfzY7x7CGz1mmtI5dRvA6adSKXqI=1


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,uMbFsjP2z9AB49BH0INlualK0jXC3SU0BL_2Amex0iJQsHKld3qPCkPpeMLYyobzZ_IexI7TdTwTCYKY-ZscqOautAyn9z9OWCFyp8GUB8C0P8tsTL4Mi6A,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

You might ask them why they are asking. Some vendors want to know the estimated 
max churn pressure to see what type of casing or fittings they will need to 
provide. 

Matt 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 10:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Pump Suction Pressure (NPSH)

We're replacing a pump in an existing system and the pump vendor wants to know 
the pump suction pressure. Since we didn't do the original system and I know 
nothing about it what is a practical way of determining the pump suction to 
tell the vendor?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbvssystemsinc.com=E,1,xMharANwK8N25JfPlI8o20LphS16JuxGAdRPR9e70vyiVbuN_5rQu7487ZhPkdD9j5ylMa6s4AxvgQA4Zy5_T6Ao5fHoy2IiHSIpXKLOs8fw=1
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,2MD1jObi7-fDJ0_nri2BKomyodRhm0lM6JSC7aCdecSYtVICIbTwbBkPLE4rIRTcaGXO79V0oZX57CV7hWco96hSGfliQdLdXv8-ZUiarsxOzA,,=1
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Pump or Fire Pump

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

what kind of changes are you making to the system? Is this a case where a 
previously approved application is still approved?

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Reed A. Roisum, SET via Sprinklerforum 

Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Reed A. Roisum, SET 
Subject: Pump or Fire Pump


I have a project where there is an existing domestic pump and water storage 
tanks.  They used to serve both domestic and fire protection in a group of 
buildings but are no longer being used for domestic but fire protection only.  
The pump is not a fire pump.  Does it need to be?



There is a building 1,000 feet from the protected buildings that houses the 
pump and tanks.  The pump charges a 3” underground that supplies multiple 
buildings that each have their own backflow assembly and riser.  In my mind, it 
is basically the same set up as a municipal system, but instead of doing a flow 
test at the hydrant outside of the building to find my water supply, I look at 
the pump curve and design back to the pump.  The other thought I had, was that 
this system is now to supply water only for the fire protection system so now I 
need to demo that perfectly adequate pump and replace it with a red one to meet 
the codes/standards.



Looking at NFPA 13, 2016 edition, Chapter 24 Water Supplies, they list 
acceptable water supplies for sprinkler systems…

One acceptable arrangement is “A connection to an approved public or private 
waterworks system in accordance with 24.2.2”.

24.2.2 seems to just require that you are connected to a “reliable waterworks 
system”.



Just wondering if my existing tank and pump arrangement could be considered a 
reliable private waterworks system?  I guess that is up to the discretion of 
the AHJ?



NFPA 13, 2016 edition

Chapter 24 Water Supplies

24.1 General.

24.2 Types.

24.2.1* Water supplies for sprinkler systems shall be one of the following or 
any combination:

(1) A connection to an approved public or private waterworks system in 
accordance with 24.2.2

(2) A connection including a fire pump in accordance with 24.2.3

(3) A connection to a water storage tank at grade or below grade installed in 
accordance with NFPA 22 and filled from an approved source

(4) A connection to a pressure tank in accordance with 24.2.4 and filled from 
an approved source

(5) A connection to a gravity tank in accordance with 24.2.5 and filled from an 
approved source

(6) A penstock, flume, river, lake, pond, or reservoir in accordance with 24.2.6

(7)*A source of recycled or reclaimed water where the building owner (or their 
agent) has analyzed the source of the water and the treatment process (if any) 
that the water undergoes before being made available to the sprinkler system 
and determined that any materials, chemicals, or contaminants in the water will 
not be detrimental to the components of the sprinkler system it comes in 
contact with

24.2.2* Connections to Waterworks Systems.

24.2.2.1 A connection to a reliable waterworks system shall be an acceptable 
water supply source.

24.2.2.2* The volume and pressure of a public water supply shall be determined 
from waterflow test data or other approved method.

24.2.3* Pumps. A single automatically controlled fire pump installed in 
accordance with NFPA 20 shall be an acceptable water supply source



I couldn’t find a definition of ‘waterworks’ in NFPA or IBC.

BTW, 2018 IBC is applicable.



Any help or code/standard references are appreciated.



Thank you.

Reed Roisum



Reed A. Roisum, SET | KFI Engineers | Senior Fire Protection Designer | Fargo, 
ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
KFIengineers.com
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Uprights in non combustible concealed space

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Agreed. You might request a reference to the code that is being enforced. I 
always say "how can I be sure I am doing it right until you tell me what the 
rule is? I would not want to accidentally fix it wrong."

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Richard Carr via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Carr 
Subject: RE: Uprights in non combustible concealed space

The AHJ should enforce the code not make it up, code does not prohibit the 
sprinklers to remain above the ceiling.

Richard M. Carr, SET
Project Manager/Design
Diboco Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
325 Jackson Loop Road
Flat Rock, NC  28731

rich...@diboco.com
828-696-3400
828-696-2288 Fax
828-708-9118 Mobile

[cid:image001.jpg@01D64575.4316B4A0]

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:21 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin mailto:jir...@quickresponsefl.com>>
Subject: Uprights in non combustible concealed space

We installed temporary upright Protection in a partially occupied building 
during a major renovation. We then came back and dropped pendent heads in the 
new ceiling. We left the uprights above the new ceiling. Fire inspector says we 
need to remove the uprights now. Is there a basis for removing these? I realize 
they are not required but are they permitted to remain?

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

RE: Protecting A 500 Degree 12' x 10' Oven

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Sounds like a dry system.

has anyone looked into the issue of introducing a spray of cold water into a 
box that hot? Has the manufacturer given any advice on it?

Also - would a fire inside the oven be any hotter than the oven's operation? 
What are they cooking in there? Are the walls of the oven fire rated or 
insulated? Could the oven just be shut off, closed, and allowed to burn out?

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Re: Protecting A 500 Degree 12' x 10' Oven

Local AHJ is requiring it to be protected.


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:00 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: Protecting A 500 Degree 12' x 10' Oven


Is protection needed inside the oven? I don't think you are required to put 
sprinklers inside equipment.



Matt





From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 11:58 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Mike Hairfield mailto:fsl...@msn.com>>
Subject: Protecting A 500 Degree 12' x 10' Oven



How does one provide sprinkler protection in a 500 dregree 12' x10' oven?



TYCO makes a 650-degree sprinkler head  but how do you handle the heat on the 
system?



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

RE: Protecting A 500 Degree 12' x 10' Oven

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Is protection needed inside the oven? I don't think you are required to put 
sprinklers inside equipment.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 11:58 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Protecting A 500 Degree 12' x 10' Oven

How does one provide sprinkler protection in a 500 dregree 12' x10' oven?

TYCO makes a 650-degree sprinkler head  but how do you handle the heat on the 
system?

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

roll paper storage

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I am looking at an office supply store that keeps copy/printer paper on shelves.

The paper is for wide format printers - on rolls that are about 48" tall x 8" 
in diameter. The rolls are in bags, two bagged rolls go into a heavy cardboard 
box. If you have ever had to change the paper on a wide format printer... that 
is what we are dealings with.

Question - is that enough packaging compared  with rolled paper to consider it 
a class 3 (or 4) commodity, or should it still be protected as rolled paper? 
The rolled paper examples I always see are large bulk stacked supplies that are 
almost entirely paper that could unwrap during a fire. Has anyone run across a 
situation like that?

Thanks!

Matt

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

RE: Fertilizer Storage

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Don't forget about the fire in West, Texas!

"The facility caught fire on Wednesday, April 17, 2013, and roughly 20 minutes 
after the fire was first reported to emergency dispatchers the site 
exploded.[21]
 At 7:50:38 p.m. 
CDT (00:50 
UTC, April 18), as 
firefighters were attempting to douse the flames, it exploded with the force of 
7.5-10 tons of TNT" [Wikipedia]

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 11:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton ; Brian Harris 

Subject: RE: Fertilizer Storage

Fertilizers by themselves are inert and not uniquely combustible (generally 
speaking).   But they are HIGHLY reactive and the families include oxidizers, 
phosphates, chlorine compounds, ammonia compounds and other chemicals.  Taken 
together, any two highly reactive compounds could be disastrously explosive or 
subject to spontaneous ignition.   I've never fire protected a fertilizer 
warehouse and can't offer any specific code advice, but for this design basis I 
would seek out an FPE with a strong chemical engineering background.

In 1994, I was working for a firm that provided FP consulting services to a 
large format home center - let's call it Big Orange.There was a fire at a 
store that started in the vendor return area, when an employee put a bagged 
garden product next to a boxed one on a shelf.  Within a few hours, the 
chemicals reacted through their packaging and ignited; fortunately, the fire 
was contained to the RTV area by a sprinkler.   I've been afraid of that stuff 
ever since...

Steve Leyton

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 8:06 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Subject: Fertilizer Storage

We've been asked to quote a new warehouse for a lawn care business. The largest 
portion of the building will be warehouse that will store 
fertilizer/seed/lime/insecticides stored in paper/plastic/synthetic burlap
bags on wooden pallets on racks. Per A.5.6 & Table A.5.6 (NFPA13 (2013)) it 
says fertilizer is outside the scope of NFPA-13. This is the first time I've 
come across something outside the scope of NFPA. I assume we need to turn to 
the IFC?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
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

RE: Fertilizer Storage

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

It would probably depend on what the fertilizer is made of. If it is ammonium 
nitrate based - NFPA used to have a code for that , was incorporated into NFPA 
400.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 10:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Brian Harris' 

Subject: RE: Fertilizer Storage

Or maybe one of the other many standards in the NFPA family??  Been awhile 
since I looked into fertilizer storage.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 8:06 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>>
Subject: Fertilizer Storage

We've been asked to quote a new warehouse for a lawn care business. The largest 
portion of the building will be warehouse that will store 
fertilizer/seed/lime/insecticides stored in paper/plastic/synthetic burlap
bags on wooden pallets on racks. Per A.5.6 & Table A.5.6 (NFPA13 (2013)) it 
says fertilizer is outside the scope of NFPA-13. This is the first time I've 
come across something outside the scope of NFPA. I assume we need to turn to 
the IFC?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
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

RE: mattress storage

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Usually exposed, expanded group 1 plastic. NFPA 13 and FM have some protection 
criteria.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
Subject: mattress storage






I need opinions on mattress storage warehouse in furniture store. I have a 
furniture store with a 8000sqft storage area with mattresses stacked on the 
floor to a maximum height of 12 feet.

Mostly foam mattresses.

Any idea where I would start to look for the design criteria?

Any guidance would be appreciated.


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

RE: mattress storage

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Group A (not 1)

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise 
Subject: RE: mattress storage

Usually exposed, expanded group 1 plastic. NFPA 13 and FM have some protection 
criteria.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 8:00 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc. 
mailto:trilliumf...@cwisp.ca>>
Subject: mattress storage






I need opinions on mattress storage warehouse in furniture store. I have a 
furniture store with a 8000sqft storage area with mattresses stacked on the 
floor to a maximum height of 12 feet.

Mostly foam mattresses.

Any idea where I would start to look for the design criteria?

Any guidance would be appreciated.


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

Re: ESFR spacing

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I may have mis-stated the scenario.

The sprinklers along the wall would be 5-0 from the wall as allowed by code. 
The next line of sprinklers would be 10-9 away, with 9' spacing along the line 
as allowed by code...if the line was moved to accommodate an obstruction. What 
the code is saying is literally that this setup would be allowed (safer?) if I 
went back and added an obstruction to force the line shift.

That does not seem logical. It sounds more like a quirk of the wording that was 
adopted when the code was written or perhaps an old "that's the way it was 
always done" similar to the system size limitations.

Clearly someone thought - and is willing to stand behind - the spacing if an 
obstruction is present. Would the system become less safe or non-code compliant 
if we went back and removed the obstruction after installation?

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: ESFR spacing

Any argument to what should be equivalent to the standard doesn't matter if the 
standard blatantly doesn't allow it (unless you are a PE and want to sign off 
on it, and get the AHJ to do so, as well).  Feel free to try and change the 
standard.

By your logic, you could take the small room rule, which would apply in a 16 ft 
x 50 ft room and say that it will also apply in a 31 ft by 50 ft room.  But it 
doesn't apply (the room is too big), even though the situation is similar.

I think the center of what you are trying to argue is that a fire that starts 
against a wall, as opposed to the middle of the room, between two lines of 
sprinklers, will set off fewer sprinklers, closer to the fire.  If you would 
like to pay for the testing, prove it out, and forever change how we space 
sprinklers off a wall, go ahead.  In the meantime, you cannot blatantly go 
against one very specific section of the standard (sprinkler spacing off a 
wall) by loosely applying a shift allowed for an obstruction between two rows 
of sprinklers.  If you do decide to try and change the standard, please make it 
so that we can apply the small room rule everywhere as well (9 feet off every 
wall!)...



Skyler Bilbo
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=1Ot_QzTy6mc49_wnkJ-aKoPIBtkivO1gI=0B1MzybbUMAWgNWRUNW03MkcyNkh4c0d4VXZMS0ZuQ2cvVzlFPQ]
1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com<mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>
www.wenteplumbing.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wenteplumbing.com=E,1,kMBIvj0RHolH_CFu2no3qCz8YEWk16aumxKRlqwB5DNCS6zZmkuAddI_HsMwb2Ww4g1LroNROTCSc22nnMAlDagsicCiCl6aocnpCkJG=1>

**new** 
www.beplumb.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.beplumb.com=E,1,uTJVv8AeVanqKuHXzaFjI9wzzgZ3T8k29FQXIOkpP4RN00vYCMi7GG7gnnLkYho6yPQz0On9bm9xuNBFL1gcfFn4solxJFLH871aD-LiPlKB5A,,=1>
Like us on facebook <http://www.facebook.com/justbeplumb> for updates


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:04 PM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

The situations causing the shift are not the same, but would the resulting 
protection level be the same or better? If it is ok to shift the sprinklers for 
an obstruction, is the protection less effective to shift without an 
obstruction?



Matt





From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:58 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Skyler Bilbo mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>>
Subject: Re: ESFR spacing



Matt,



My main concern with your application would be that the section you are 
referring to doesn't apply to the situation you are describing.  You can't 
apply a rule to spacing off a wall that is meant for offsetting a line due to 
an obstruction.  Two different sections/situations.  You say you are within the 
spacing rules, so your ceiling height must be under 30 feet (to allow up to 12 
foot spacing) and your protection area must be less than 100 square feet.  
Otherwise, it sounds like you will need to add a line of sprinklers.







Skyler Bilbo

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=1Ot_QzTy6mc49_wnkJ-aKoPIBtkivO1gI=0B1MzybbUMAWgNWRUNW03MkcyNkh4c0d4VXZMS0ZuQ2cvVzlFPQ]

1700 S. Raney Street

Effingham, IL 62401

217-819-6404 Direct

217-347-7315 Fax



sbi...@wenteplumbing.com<mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>

www.wenteplumbing.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wenteplumbing.com=E,1,fMOJw-u9vO1cg2hQ70XOiDVI5HOly82F_VAfD1uIna8ShJw4st0wpSq11Ktj3z-JgwCVem-HbVCX4I9PFqrsiwVUCVJz4oZoM_TAkMl0jZdRAfaWKW6Bcv1OYEmo=1>



**new** 
www.beplumb.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bepl

RE: Covered Parking in 13R

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

One other thing to watch – if they are considering the S2 and R occupancies to 
be separate buildings based on a horizontal assembly – IBC 510.2 requires that 
the lower areas have sprinklers – no NFPA 13 q’s needed. I got hung up on that 
one recently.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:15 PM
To: '321' ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Art Tiroly 
Subject: RE: Covered Parking in 13R

Check with the AHJ. I’m not sure you can change from 13 to 13R in the same 
building. You can use residential rules in a 13 system of course. Do you have 
combustible concealed spaces in the residential?


Art Tiroly
ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
216-621-8899
216-570-7030 cell



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of 321 via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:02 PM
To: Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
Cc: 321
Subject: Re: Covered Parking in 13R

I think so. I have 2 just like this that I am figuring this way13 R 
upstairs NFPA Parkling downstairs.


John W. Farabee

561-707-5150



On Friday, May 29, 2020, 05:50:22 PM EDT, Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:



Residential use above a parking garage changes the occupancy requirement to a 
mixed use and NFPA 13 design criteria is required. Therefore protect the 
garage. Am I on the right track here?





Art Tiroly

ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly

24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143

216-621-8899

216-570-7030 cell







From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:55 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Irwin
Subject: Covered Parking in 13R



I have a 3-story, 13R building. Type IIB construction. On the “engineered” bid 
set, no sprinklers are shown in the covered parking area. This area is inside 
the footprint of the first floor, with 2nd floor units being located above the 
parking area. There are no garage doors and the parking spaces are not 
separated. To sprinkle or not to sprinkle?







John Irwin

West Coast Branch Manager

Quick Response Fire Protection

www.quickresponsefl.com

Office: 844-9QUICKFL

Cell: 727-282-9243

Main Office: 20545 Independence Blvd. Unit G Groveland, Florida 34736

West Coast: 15201 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 113, Clearwater, Florida 33760

East Coast:   3133 Skyway Circle, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida 32934

24 Hour Emergency Service Available 1-844-9QUICKFL





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




[Avast logo]

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

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

RE: ESFR spacing

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The situations causing the shift are not the same, but would the resulting 
protection level be the same or better? If it is ok to shift the sprinklers for 
an obstruction, is the protection less effective to shift without an 
obstruction?

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: ESFR spacing

Matt,

My main concern with your application would be that the section you are 
referring to doesn't apply to the situation you are describing.  You can't 
apply a rule to spacing off a wall that is meant for offsetting a line due to 
an obstruction.  Two different sections/situations.  You say you are within the 
spacing rules, so your ceiling height must be under 30 feet (to allow up to 12 
foot spacing) and your protection area must be less than 100 square feet.  
Otherwise, it sounds like you will need to add a line of sprinklers.



Skyler Bilbo
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download=1Ot_QzTy6mc49_wnkJ-aKoPIBtkivO1gI=0B1MzybbUMAWgNWRUNW03MkcyNkh4c0d4VXZMS0ZuQ2cvVzlFPQ]
1700 S. Raney Street
Effingham, IL 62401
217-819-6404 Direct
217-347-7315 Fax

sbi...@wenteplumbing.com<mailto:sbi...@wenteplumbing.com>
www.wenteplumbing.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wenteplumbing.com=E,1,fMOJw-u9vO1cg2hQ70XOiDVI5HOly82F_VAfD1uIna8ShJw4st0wpSq11Ktj3z-JgwCVem-HbVCX4I9PFqrsiwVUCVJz4oZoM_TAkMl0jZdRAfaWKW6Bcv1OYEmo=1>

**new** 
www.beplumb.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.beplumb.com=E,1,9gFtBXS3ytL8pTkU2xdZlYzI4c1hRGIkZu4MBn7vLI_4FxajPMdpBsvxfsyVi-NYlpiaOwZ_ObRIGoRHpTTlOs0yZltoHH6X_SFW_ABSaSO55Q,,=1>
Like us on facebook <http://www.facebook.com/justbeplumb> for updates


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:33 PM Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
NFPA13 talks about shifting ESFR heads to avoid obstructions, but is there any 
concern with moving them when there is not an obstruction (within the spacing 
rules).

We have a situation where a small wall bump-out effectively spaces some ESFR 
heads over 10’, but less than 11’ – along with all of the other requirements. 
The spacing shift meets all of the NFPA 13 guidelines, except that there is no 
obstruction that causes it.

Are there any concerns with an application like that? It seems like it would 
perform as well or better than if there WAS an obstruction….

Thanks!

Matt

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,_zw39OmJiH9r7e6B_XatZAmevw3_rqkeRLMZ-Kk-zSrUSX7wNcjRDcaOykoMc-0ZLpUUKWyDODx3dT44C-jcq9CHQtQkiDQ0kh4kMAbkPwNLhYBK=1>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

ESFR spacing

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA13 talks about shifting ESFR heads to avoid obstructions, but is there any 
concern with moving them when there is not an obstruction (within the spacing 
rules).

We have a situation where a small wall bump-out effectively spaces some ESFR 
heads over 10', but less than 11' - along with all of the other requirements. 
The spacing shift meets all of the NFPA 13 guidelines, except that there is no 
obstruction that causes it.

Are there any concerns with an application like that? It seems like it would 
perform as well or better than if there WAS an obstruction

Thanks!

Matt

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

RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The NFPA13 annex and handbook address this directly.

NFPA 13 A8.15.1.2.1 “minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not 
limited to cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping… …should not typically be 
viewed as requiring sprinklers.”

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
Subject: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

We have a fairly good sized school project. Plumber ran ABS drain piping.  
Electrician has some cabling not in conduit.  Inspector is stating the space is 
now combustible and requires sprinklers above all ceiling areas.  Has anyone 
run into this and how was it resolved?

Drawings and specs do not indicate sprinklers required above ceiling spaces.  
But the GC is trying to force it down the contractor’s throat if it is required 
and of course it is now holding up the job.

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

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

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

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

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

RE: flex heads touching stuff

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

That is what I thought – but since I could not (quickly) locate text that said 
touching was ok, I just pushed the flex drop a little so it was not touching.

It was one of those things where I thought the AHJ was wrong, but it took 
virtually no effort to comply.

Any idea where it might be written that touching is ok?

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 2:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: flex heads touching stuff

What I have been taught and read, no sprinkler unrelated material can be 
supported by the flexible sprinkler drop.  The drop may touch other material as 
long as the other material does not place a load onto the sprinkler drop.

Thanks,
John

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4h8r7hdtsr6154/AFSA_L.png?raw=1]
John August Denhardt, PE
Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services
American Fire Sprinkler Association
m: p:
301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w:
firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffiresprinkler.org=E,1,uyFy-4keuh87OY7v-gINdA6k8xVMLxeg7jP9BDYI3GMX3yOZA0VMC_pr4N6AoW41XeLaRg951Qun8W-X4F7zWxf9_VdGYGFPnj9Ywg0s5gBnq9XYr5tk=1>
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/facebook_sig.png]<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/>
  
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/twitter_sig.png] 
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>   
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/linkedin_sig.png]
 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/>  
 
[http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/184235/dev_images/signature_app/instagram_sig.png]
 <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/>
Help AFSA “Sound the Alarm” about sprinklers!
AFSA’s charitable partner the American Red Cross is educating millions through 
its Home Fire Preparedness Campaign. Help us support the inclusion of fire 
sprinklers in their messaging.  Donate 
today!<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.redcross.org%2fdonate%2fcm%2fafsa-pub.html%2f=E,1,lIyrb9HbY3KXvbGrrF1af-eotTwkymBGPjgWCsMgKbO__IVXS9Yv4x9N4ddPg-4sKQOQJFq5Bl2THPLiYS52FBSei1KlrDrrvJvXbG4V_31fCWlgkNUR5Q,,=1>


On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:28 PM Bob Knight via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Isn’t the purpose of using the flex so that it moves with the ceiling?
Supporting it apart from the ceiling seems that it would defeat the purpose.

As far as touching anyting, that may be an AHJ preference, but not a listing 
requirement.  Ask for the code/ listing reference that is being cited.


Thank you,

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

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 1:20 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Michael Hill
Subject: RE: flex heads touching stuff

We have been told by one jurisdiction that we must support the flex so that it 
does not rest on the ceiling. I haven’t seen anything to back that up either, 
but was easier to comply than to argue.

Mike Hill

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:09 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: flex heads touching stuff

We received a comment on an above ceiling inspection that flex drops are not 
allowed to touch anything above the ceiling. I have not seen any information 
requiring that. Has anyone seen anything similar?

Matt

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flists.firesprinkler.org%2flistinfo.cgi%2fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org=E,1,y4eW48yXtsnpmXMI3w3UlfwKxv_VhQStNZIgIQ3kEq6rRKVvMQQ7kh30N1FX5amCxl974-WIeBXqzfQQQAwo5dd1uN7hLvWCuSd32oh9C2OE=1>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: flex heads touching stuff

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

That was my general response. It was faster to push 5 flex drops a inch than it 
was to request a code reference. It still seemed a little odd.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 2:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Michael Hill 
Subject: RE: flex heads touching stuff

We have been told by one jurisdiction that we must support the flex so that it 
does not rest on the ceiling. I haven't seen anything to back that up either, 
but was easier to comply than to argue.

Mike Hill

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:09 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: flex heads touching stuff

We received a comment on an above ceiling inspection that flex drops are not 
allowed to touch anything above the ceiling. I have not seen any information 
requiring that. Has anyone seen anything similar?

Matt

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

flex heads touching stuff

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We received a comment on an above ceiling inspection that flex drops are not 
allowed to touch anything above the ceiling. I have not seen any information 
requiring that. Has anyone seen anything similar?

Matt

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

RE: Fabric canopies

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The text says:

“…are constructed utilizing a noncombustible frame, limited combustibles, or 
fire retardant-treated wood with an inherently flame resistant fabric overlay 
as demonstrated by Test Method 2…”

It seems unlikely that it was the intent of the code language to separate the 
FRT wood from the other potential fabric support structures, but it could be 
read that way. If that was the argument, then someone would be saying that an 
aluminum frame was less fire safe than one made of FRT wood. That also seems 
unlikely.

My vote would be that the intent was to lump all of the cloth-covered-frame 
types together into a group of canopies that don’t need sprinklers…. But it 
would be pretty easy to request an interpretation and get a more authoritative 
opinion.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9:01 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Re: Fabric canopies

Matt,

That version talks about fabric overlay on treated wood. This is just a 
pre-stretched fabric over an aluminum frame; no wood.

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



On Apr 16, 2020 at 9:44 AM, mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>> wrote:
NFPA 13 2016 8.15.7.2 discusses non-combustible frames covered with inherently 
flame resistant fabric overlay.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:40 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Fpdcdesign mailto:fpdcdes...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Fabric canopies

I am working on a building that has two 22 ft wide x 10 ft deep exterior 
canopies. The construction is fire retardant fabric over an aluminum frame. 
There is no storage underneath. NFPA 13 section 8.15.2.7 reference omitting 
sprinklers where fire retardant wood is present, but mentions nothing about any 
other fire retardant materials. The Handbook commentary for that section 
mentions the general term “fire retardant materials”. The obvious question is 
sprinklers or not?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fabric canopies

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA 13 2016 8.15.7.2 discusses non-combustible frames covered with inherently 
flame resistant fabric overlay.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:40 AM
To: Sprinklerforum 
Cc: Fpdcdesign 
Subject: Fabric canopies

I am working on a building that has two 22 ft wide x 10 ft deep exterior 
canopies. The construction is fire retardant fabric over an aluminum frame. 
There is no storage underneath. NFPA 13 section 8.15.2.7 reference omitting 
sprinklers where fire retardant wood is present, but mentions nothing about any 
other fire retardant materials. The Handbook commentary for that section 
mentions the general term “fire retardant materials”. The obvious question is 
sprinklers or not?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-554-7054  (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Insulation on Valve Risers

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Per NFPA 13 2016 edition, 8.16.4.1.5 – Water filled piping shall be allowed to 
be installed in areas where the temperature is less than 40 degrees when heat 
loss calculations performed by a professional engineer verify that the system 
will not freeze.

Is that what you were looking for?

It can often be hard to prove a negative… any reason to think that it IS 
required?

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bruce Verhei 
Subject: Re: Insulation on Valve Risers

I was always more concerned that the valve room was insulated, to slow cooling 
during power outage.

Are you attempting to keep the pipe interior cold? This would seem to be result 
of insulating it in the heated room, at least downstream of valves.

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Apr 14, 2020, at 12:04, James Crawford via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
I have seen it done but cannot seem to find the code reference in the Factory 
Mutual Data Sheets.

We have a refrigerated storage building protected with a double interlock 
pre-action system. The valves are located in a heated mechanical room next to 
the freezers, with the risers penetrating the freezer wall and we would 
normally insulate these risers in the mechanical room to the point where they 
penetrate the wall.

I was told this was not required, but can’t find the code reference to prove my 
point, can someone point me in the right direction

Thank You

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

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

RE: COVID-19

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I think you will need to look at a local level. Our field operations are in one 
metro area, and we are covered by 8 stay-at-home orders (2 states, 1 city, 5 
county) and 3 health advisories. That is in addition to CDC and WHO guidelines.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 12:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: COVID-19

What is the rule for having more than 10 people working on a job site?

I've seen projects with more than 100 construction workers, is that legal?

Thanks,

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

RE: Curbs for Containment

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Last time I had to do it, I got the info from NFPA 30. It took a while, but it 
is in there somewhere.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 12:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: Curbs for Containment

Hoping someone's brain is working better than mine.

I cannot seem to find the information on sizing a curb for containment of 
flammable liquids and sprinkler water, I seem to remember a time frame for the 
sprinkler water plus the largest container, but am having no luck locating is

Any help

Thank You

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

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

IBC 1406.3

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

This is my first time having this section of the IBC driving the sprinkler 
requirements - I was hoping to get some insight on what the intent is.

We have a 4 story apartment building where we were hoping to exclude sprinklers 
above the 4th floor balconies - the roof projection over them is 
non-combustible (13 system, not 13R). There would be sprinklers below these 
balconies, just not above them.

Is the intent of the code to protect the balconies from a fire ON them, or a 
fire UNDER them? Would sprinkler protection be required on the balconies if 
there was no roof projection over them?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Matt

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

idle pallets in a 45' building

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

Does anyone know of a way to protect idle pallet storage in a 45' warehouse? I 
have not seen listings for any ceiling heights over 40'

Thanks!

Matt


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

RE: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

I have seen some water departments that don’t allow new FP taps under 4”.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo 
Subject: Re: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

Could it be based on minimum supply for standpipe? I believe it is 4" minimum 
for combined standpipe/sprinkler system. Could be a case of the AHJ applying 
that requirement, incorrectly?


-Skyler

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 1:00 PM Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via 
Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Where is he even reading a 4” minimum? I don’t see that in NFPA 24 at all.  6” 
min if serving hydrants.  If serving sprinkler system, then must just calc to 
prove.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

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

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


From: Spencer Tomlinson 
mailto:spen...@tomlinsonfire.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 10:53 AM
To: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: RE: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

Yes sir – of the exact same opinion, as well as Matt’s “what does it matter”-  
since it will calc without issue.  It’s never been my opinion that a minimum 4” 
is required anyway, since it’s not explicitly stated, and the only limitation 
on pipe sizing being explicitly stated in Chapter 23.  Was hoping maybe one of 
the tech committee folks out there may share an experience that a 4” minimum is 
not the intent, and it’s just AHJ misinterpretation by looking at 
ductile/cement lined/plastic pipe tables in Chapter 10.  I’ve got what I need 
in the agreements from those that responded – thanks as always!

Spencer Tomlinson
Principal, PE

[red logo]
Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293
www.tomlinsonfire.com

From: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:35 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; Spencer Tomlinson 
mailto:spen...@tomlinsonfire.com>>
Subject: RE: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

What TMack said.   “Please show me in the standard or code where that provision 
resides.”  Then show them the new listed in-building riser sweeps from Ames 
that go down to 2”.

SL

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 10:32 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Spencer Tomlinson' 
mailto:spen...@tomlinsonfire.com>>
Subject: RE: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

What is the reference for a minimum 4”?  We’ve had several smaller than that 
over my career.  Never had an issue that I know of.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com

RE: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The argument of "what is your concern" might work here. There are not a lot of 
fire marshals that want to be known for killing a development project where 
there was not actually a problem.

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Spencer 
Tomlinson' 
Subject: RE: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

What is the reference for a minimum 4"?  We've had several smaller than that 
over my career.  Never had an issue that I know of.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com
www.mfpdesign.com

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

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


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 10:30 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson 
mailto:spen...@tomlinsonfire.com>>
Subject: Minimum Lead-in Sizing

Hi all - I've got a customer that's in a pinch and I'm trying to help them out. 
 They have a 2" lead in supplying an existing building, mixed use 
commercial/residential.  NFPA 13 protection on 2 floors.  The 2" will actually 
calculate as it sits.  My question for those that have run into the "minimum 
pipe size is 4" requirement from an AHJ before, on a 13 system, what argument 
have you used to contradict the statement?

The ASTM standards listed in the underground piping tables of 13 for brass, 
copper, and stainless piping all include/cover pipe sizes smaller than 4".  
Section 23.4.1.3 (2016 edition) states that pipe sizing shall only be limited 
by available water supply.

Any other good arguments out there?

Spencer Tomlinson
Principal, PE

[red logo]
Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293
www.tomlinsonfire.com

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

RE: low flow residential head replacement

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

The current 3.0 pendent listing requires more gpm and psi to cover the same 
area as the old Central head. If we swap out the old k3's for new k3's - it 
should discharge the amount required for the old heads, but it would not meet 
the listing for the current product. Do you know if there is any documentation 
addressing the change in listing demand?

Thanks!

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Spencer Tomlinson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 12:25 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Spencer Tomlinson 
Subject: RE: low flow residential head replacement

Check out NFPA 13, 2016 (and other) edition, 11.3.1.4.1 - gives you 5% 
flexibility on K-factor without having to re-calc, for I believe specifically 
your instance.  I know Tyco still offers a 3.0 pendent for that replacement, 
not sure who else might.

Spencer Tomlinson
Principal, PE

[red logo]
Ph:  316-202-6412
Fax: 316-202-2346
Cell: 620-955-7293
www.tomlinsonfire.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tomlinsonfire.com%2f=E,1,GCk4X_MqBufgtP-6_xQ12m2SEIKatIy8OkV1mtRhUQ9NHuh04DRQnH2ut2Yypk96zda0UPMmd7imxNBaXQSQFO98DU8NnG_DMVEAd8l9F8k,=1>

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 12:17 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: low flow residential head replacement

We are looking at  an apartment complex that was built in the 2000-2001 range 
using Central low flow k3.0 pendent residential heads. The k3.0's were listed 
for flow rates that are under .05gpm/sf for 13R applications before the .05 
minimum was put into the standard. Some of the sprinkler heads need to be 
changed out due to the 20 year inspection/testing issues, but we are having 
trouble figuring out what to use as a replacement. We don't have any sort of 
piping layout or design information, and all of the piping is concealed.

Has anyone run across this before? Are there any approved replacements?

Thanks!

Matt

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

low flow residential head replacement

[Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum]

We are looking at  an apartment complex that was built in the 2000-2001 range 
using Central low flow k3.0 pendent residential heads. The k3.0's were listed 
for flow rates that are under .05gpm/sf for 13R applications before the .05 
minimum was put into the standard. Some of the sprinkler heads need to be 
changed out due to the 20 year inspection/testing issues, but we are having 
trouble figuring out what to use as a replacement. We don't have any sort of 
piping layout or design information, and all of the piping is concealed.

Has anyone run across this before? Are there any approved replacements?

Thanks!

Matt

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