RE: Vertical Wet Pipes in Dry Attic

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

My only concern would be ensuring the tenting attachment and insulation method 
are compatible and/or won't be defeated by gravity.  Typically the framing will 
be the same just going "up" so stay in or tight to the framing, make sure your 
tent material (batt or plastic) is tightly attached against the framing to 
create your warm pocket, and then make sure if they're blowing insulation it's 
either deeper than the low space entirely, or that there's some sort of dam 
built short of the transition to ensure the pile doesn't thin out near the 
"higher" corner by "landsliding" if you will into the lower space.  If it's 
batt then you need to ensure they're going to physically attach it to the 
vertical face to hold it.

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: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:36 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Vertical Wet Pipes in Dry Attic

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Working on a project with a wet system laying on top of the bottom chord with 
tented insulation. What is the best approach to protecting pipe when you have 
to make a vertical jump (3'-4') because of ceiling height change?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Ib8eauPMEdFlnGHbC_s8gwrnWvPAtPppn1w8EHCd1ptUEyIv68HJqDu87nnmOgXz$
 

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!Ib8eauPMEdFlnGHbC_s8gwrnWvPAtPppn1w8EHCd1ptUEyIv68HJqDu87vIh_KrV$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Sprinkler Valve Clearance

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

NFPA 1 (2018), if enforceable:
13.1.5  A minimum 36 in. (915 mm) of clear space shall be maintained to permit 
access to and operation of fire protection equipment, fire department inlet 
connections, or fire protection system control valves. The fire department 
shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access to fire 
protection equipment.

IFC simply states you must provide clear space in accordance with manufacturer 
requirements and to be able to maintain etc.

If someone's being a pain about space you could probably get the manufacturer 
to say 3' in an email and then point them to that IFC requirement.  It's 
901.4.6 in 2018.

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 Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 7:48 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: Taylor Schumacher 
Subject: Fire Sprinkler Valve Clearance

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I have always told people that sprinkler valves require 36" of clearance in 
front of them. Now, being challenged, I don't know where I've come up with this 
from. Is there a minimum clearance in the codes/standards?


Taylor Schumacher CET
J-Berd Mechanical/Security Fire Sprinkler/Berd 
Electric
1 Industrial Blvd | Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
Office: 320.656.0847 | Direct: 320.640.7050



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!M5ec-xmyV6jql01npM72TYgPVC23WS2eRVTYUI7YMO_P3uk4QgIcgTlVUC5cxbZZ$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: [EXTERNAL] Obstructed vs Unobstructed Construction

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

13 2019 edition states: 
9.5.4.1.3 
For ceilings that have insulation installed directly against underside of the 
ceiling or roof structure, the deflector distance shall be measured from the 
bottom of the insulation and shall be in accordance with 9.5.4.1.3.1, 
9.5.4.1.3.2, and 9.5.4.1.3.3.

9.5.4.1.3.1 
Insulation used to measure sprinkler deflector distance shall be batt 
insulation or insulation that withstands 3 lb/ft2 (0.13 kg/m2) uplift force.

9.5.4.1.3.2 
For insulation that is installed directly against the ceiling or roof structure 
and is installed flat and parallel to the ceiling or roof structure, the 
deflector distance shall be measured to the underside of the insulation.

To me up to 12" would be a compliant installation as long as the insulation is 
batt type which I presume it would have to be based on description.

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 Scott Harvey via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Scott Harvey ; Prahl, Craig/GVL 

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Obstructed vs Unobstructed Construction

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Craig, the joists are 12” deep, 16” o.c.  The entire depth and width of the 
joist is filled with noncombustible insulation. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> What are the depths of the joists, the depth of the insulation and the 
> spacing between the joists?
> 
> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jacobs.com__;!!FaxH778!NpU3BJxYKauVH0bhPEdX1FAnTug5yROhXr9YqwVi7O2ZEKWL_FHKv8ML1fPCtDke$
>  
> 1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
> CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Scott Harvey via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:53 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Scott Harvey 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Obstructed vs Unobstructed Construction
> 
> Hi all, I have a question for the group.
> 
> I've got a storeroom, ceiling is open to structure.  The roof structure is 
> solid wood joists, which are fully insulated between each joist.
> 
> We have installed standard spray upright sprinklers with the deflectors 
> approx 8-10 inches below the bottom of the joist/insulation.
> 
> In my mind, this is unobstructed construction, because per 
> "A.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.5.4.1__;!!FaxH778!NpU3BJxYKauVH0bhPEdX1FAnTug5yROhXr9YqwVi7O2ZEKWL_FHKv8ML1eJeTxOh$
>   Batt insulation creates an effective thermal barrier and can be considered 
> the ceiling/roof deck when determining distances between deflector and 
> ceiling."  Chapter 3 defines Obstructed Construction "Panel construction and 
> other construction where beams, trusses, or other members impede heat flow or 
> water distribution in a manner that materially affects the ability of the 
> sprinkler to control or suppress a fire".
> 
> Now that I look at this again, I'm thinking I am wrong and should be 
> obstructed construction because although the batt insulation creates a 
> thermal barrier (similar to a smooth ceiling) the structure is still the 
> same, so I would need to keep my upright sprinklers max 6-inches below the 
> bottom of structure?
> 
> Would appreciate input from the group.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott Harvey, CET
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!WNJbuEDrG9DqZDyEL512vMojwZ-VOZeVutCjsR6asnXWsu5WOOUl9NA1aE0ZoG95hg$
> 
> 
> 
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged 
> information that is

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!NpU3BJxYKauVH0bhPEdX1FAnTug5yROhXr9YqwVi7O2ZEKWL_FHKv8ML1Rr_halt$
 

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 

RE: Food trucks inside a building

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

If I, as a non-PE was sticking my neck out on this where it sort of doesn't 
belong, I'd have to go with EH-2: "Spaces where shielding of combustibles is 
extensive" being the key phrase to me.  Parking garage IMHO is intended for 
parking a car and leaving it, not using heat/fire producing equipment inside of 
it.

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 Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ed Kramer 
Subject: Food trucks inside a building

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I'm working on a small project  (approx. 7,200 sf) that is a noncombustible 
structure used for parking operating food trucks indoors.  The plan shows 6 
trucks spread out near the perimeter with the middle of the building open for 
pedestrian traffic (maybe tables?).  

 

Ordinary Group I hazard (parking garage) seems very inadequate.  Extra hazard 
group II (manufactured home assemblies) seems a bit strong.

 

Thoughts?

 

Ed K

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!L5iDA4qw94TTHadwZuct5Z9Abenek8n_pUDvsqDN3slVvGdRHyMSnnegmWstS_SP$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: 13R bathrooms

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Arguably in the right circumstances the tub or shower enclosure could be come a 
separate "compartment" I would think.  We don't do a ton of this but a lot of 
higher end properties have a toilet cubicle that usually qualifies as a 
compartment and doesn't require a separate sprinkler in just it.  Typically the 
rest of the bathroom is well over 55 sq ft in these types of residences though.

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 Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; wmens...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: 13R bathrooms

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Tub area is to be included.  I believe there was confusion as it wasn't always 
being applied correctly, so the committee just said 55 sq ft total.

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!P_yUSvDLtBo4axv33XGiyC5qBELehWPhsE3N-ckNJmcig1itRc9bHGgOG2lEb9_s$
 


Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!P_yUSvDLtBo4axv33XGiyC5qBELehWPhsE3N-ckNJmcig1itRc9bHGgOG56tm3Aw$
 


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BILL MENSTER via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum 
Cc: BILL MENSTER 
Subject: 13R bathrooms

I believe past editions of NFPA 13R (pre-2007) included an explanation that the 
bathtub area need not be included in the square foot area of the bathroom. 
However, current editions (in this case the 2016 edition) do not include this 
language. My question is, does the tub area need to be included in the bathroom 
area?
Thanks for your help.


Bill Menster

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!P_yUSvDLtBo4axv33XGiyC5qBELehWPhsE3N-ckNJmcig1itRc9bHGgOG3rr_Snv$
 
 ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!P_yUSvDLtBo4axv33XGiyC5qBELehWPhsE3N-ckNJmcig1itRc9bHGgOG3rr_Snv$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Open or exterior corridors

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

What in the IBC is requiring this, the only difference I'm aware of (which is 
no longer a difference at least in the last cycle or two) is that Type V 
construction requires protection of porch/patio/decks.  I don't believe an exit 
corridor falls within those requirements?  The intent was to counteract patio 
heaters/grills etc as a potential ignition source.

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 Dane Long via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 12:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dane Long 
Subject: Open or exterior corridors

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I have a 13R project with exterior open corridors as seen in 13R (2016) Figure 
A.6.6.5(a). Per the IBC were being required to provide protection.

Can I apply 6.6.5.1.1?

6.6.5.1.1 Where sidewall sprinklers are installed beneath decks or balconies 
constructed with open wood joists, sprinklers shall be permitted to be 
installed with deflectors not less than 1 in. (25 mm) or more than 6 in. (152 
mm) below the structural members, provided that the deflector is not more than 
14 in. (356 mm) below the underside surface of the deck.

If so, does this restrict me from using EC head, since 13R only says "sidewall 
sprinklers" and since it's a combustible obstructed construction?
Therefore, requiring a smooth flat ceiling.

Thanks for your help in advance,

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 Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; Matt Grise ; 
Kevin Hall 
Subject: RE: Thread connection holding on one thread only

The depth of engagement to form a leakproof connection is dependent on the pipe 
diameter and system pressure.

For general talking purposes per ASME B1.20.1, for NPT pipes, a 1.25" pipe is 
shown as having 11.5 threads per inch with the typical hand tightening 
limitation at 4.5 turns for a depth of 0.42 inches (<5 threads).  Past that to 
get to full engagement requires the use of a wrench.  Effective length of 
thread is shown as 0.707 inches.

So it's amazing that with only two threads for engagement it didn't come apart 
under the pressure test and stayed in place for 15 years. I would wonder if 
there are any other connections in a similar condition.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jacobs.com__;!!FaxH778!JByPw1WZ48LniB41DIoIfiJnySXCbZVFT8QpxPa9WEP920iNA-egD4MiEYOmc_KT$
 
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:42 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise ; Kevin Hall 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Thread connection holding on one thread only

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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http
> 

RE: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Prior to 2022, it could not.  The 2022 edition includes new language waving the 
minimum area and spacing requirements, specifically:

14.2.4.3
In buildings with obstructed construction where ESFR sprinklers are installed 
in accordance with 14.2.4.1 and the sprinklers are located entirely above the 
bottom plane of the adjacent solid structural members (beams, stem, and so 
forth), the requirements for minimum sprinkler spacing per 14.2.9.4 shall apply 
within each channel formed by the solid structural members, but the 
requirements for minimum sprinkler area spacing per 14.2.8.3 and minimum 
sprinkler linear spacing per 14.2.9.4 for sprinklers between channels formed by 
the solid structural members shall not apply.

Similar exemptions were added for solid structural members in otherwise 
unobstructed construction.

I don't see nor am I aware of any requirement to change the calculation number 
of sprinklers or discharge based on using these exemptions.

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 Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Kyle.Montgomery ; Mike Hairfield 
Subject: RE: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Deflector distance isn't a problem, I can either run the branch line up high in 
every pocket/bay or utilize an upright ESFR (Tyco ESFR-17).

I was thinking that the minimum spacing didn't apply when there was an 
obstruction/baffle between the heads (in this case, the legs of the concrete 
tee) and the heads are installed in "every bay channel formed by solid 
structural members". This is specifically allowed in the FM Datasheets, but I 
believe they also have a minimum remote areas size that would require you to 
add sprinklers to the remote area. 

Is the consensus among the group that this building (concrete tees with legs 5 
feet on center) just cannot be protected with ESFR sprinklers per NFPA 13?

And, if that's the case, are we also saying that any time there is a 
beam/obstruction in an ESFR system that the heads on either side of it still 
need to be at least 8 feet apart? You can't have a head 3 feet away on each 
side of the beam (heads 6 feet apart but with a solid obstruction/baffle 
between them)?

-Kyle M

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

I don’t believe ESFR sprinklers can be installed in a concrete tee building.
Minimum spacing is 8’-0” and what is the deflector distance.
Mike 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm dealing with an existing concrete tee building that the owner wants to 
> retrofit with an ESFR system. Heads will be closely spaced due to the 
> obstruction caused by the tees; 5-foot on center. Does NFPA 13 have a minimum 
> remote area size, or is it just 12 heads?
> 
> -Kyle M
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04*7C01*7C*7C2243e8f422f447e9e98808d9caff0ba5*7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435*7C1*7C0*7C637764019046194532*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000sdata=pbf*2BoThaf77nppLZONRpZrs9AwSkwAHo*2FPdId21LXD8*3Dreserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Ba8_KKAT!cFpuCO_w9YY4Ug5JApVoeXhH0dAjA9mRe1AyvYgW_8Szjt_tnI_096ZtrSXQJ6oSgXY$
>  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!cFpuCO_w9YY4Ug5JApVoeXhH0dAjA9mRe1AyvYgW_8Szjt_tnI_096ZtrSXQNV76eoU$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!OAZ2uDG6FRNTejJG47Oec-yUCo_GPfqfNob9JCu-EM3hgrkMqn_dATAtn_6-YupA$
 

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 

Re: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

That changed significantly with the 2022 edition I believe, but you do need to 
verify you fall within the design parameters that allow less than 8’ now in 
obstructed construction.  You may also have a variance fight on your hands 
depending on how knowledgeable the AHJ is.


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

[Image]


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:22:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Mike Hairfield 
Subject: Re: ESFR - Minimum Remote Area Size


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


I don’t believe ESFR sprinklers can be installed in a concrete tee building.
Minimum spacing is 8’-0” and what is the deflector distance.
Mike

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
>
> I'm dealing with an existing concrete tee building that the owner wants to 
> retrofit with an ESFR system. Heads will be closely spaced due to the 
> obstruction caused by the tees; 5-foot on center. Does NFPA 13 have a minimum 
> remote area size, or is it just 12 heads?
>
> -Kyle M
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04*7C01*7C*7C2243e8f422f447e9e98808d9caff0ba5*7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435*7C1*7C0*7C637764019046194532*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000sdata=pbf*2BoThaf77nppLZONRpZrs9AwSkwAHo*2FPdId21LXD8*3Dreserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!FaxH778!NzMSyKoOPF0fSP344Ewdv_LldrjMfhTyqeUk_2k9XQydY-FALWAV0oh3jdq7t6-J$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!NzMSyKoOPF0fSP344Ewdv_LldrjMfhTyqeUk_2k9XQydY-FALWAV0oh3jSJGCOJe$

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Maybe I missed it but what is the container material inside the box?  I'm 
guessing not metal as I think there are criteria for metal but plastic/glass 
require rack storage with one of the in-rack "schemes" to make most 
configurations work.  All the ones I've done recently were based on rack 
storage and a quick look doesn't show a lot of solid pile/palletized options.

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 Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 9:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Guess I should add,

Solid pile of boxes, 10 feet ceiling..


R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 7:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: Liquor above 20% Alcohol Containers less than 1.3 gallons

I think I have ran myself into a circle. Again.

This is in reference to  the 2016 change in 13, from 50% to 20% being the max 
allowed percent alcohol.

I need to protect 15,000 gallons in a Non "M" occupancy.

Now NFPA 13, NFPA 30, And the IFC all tell me they do not apply.

What did I miss?


R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis
Design Manager
1530 Samco Road, Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342 /Direct-605.593.5063/Cell-605.391.2733  



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!JIkfuAD_DFrdgOTEI8_k30wzwAdtCYIFlu3A2OhccOPnVGfn6ICqAZshPi-V3enD$
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!JIkfuAD_DFrdgOTEI8_k30wzwAdtCYIFlu3A2OhccOPnVGfn6ICqAZshPi-V3enD$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Pump Shutdown

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Interesting scenario, if I can ask what are the starts and stops of the JP and 
FP?  And what flow rating is the Jockey?  That seems like a lot of flow for the 
jockey to build pressure back up high enough to cut the fire pump back out and 
leave it off after 10 minutes, and if the Jockey keeps up it's kind of 
surprising the initial drop is fast enough to bring both in before leveling off.

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 BF Blake via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 2:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BF Blake 
Subject: Re: Fire Pump Shutdown

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Mike,

Thanks

In my case I can operate the ITC and get JP and FP to start, then FP stops at 
10 minutes with the 1/2" still open and flowing.

The ITC calculated flow is 70 GPM, the FP is 1250 GPM.  Central station 
reporting is NOT operational here, but that is a side note.

FP will not auto restart unless I open more heads, which in a real world fire 
scenario is exacrly what will happen

This is designed under 2013 UFC 03-600-01.

Thank You Sir.

Byron


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 10:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Mike Morey 
Subject: RE: Fire Pump Shutdown

I've always understood it to be allowed even for a non-testing situation if 
approved.  The 2019 edition clarified this somewhat by breaking out automated 
testing as essentially ok even without specific approval and then a separate 
line item for when approved by the AHJ.  In places where the pump may not 
readily get shut off during an accidental start the 10 minute timer makes a lot 
of sense.  Timer only starts when shutoff pressure is reached and start 
pressure isn't dropped below again for 10 minutes, and even then pump would 
immediately restart if pressure dropped again.  I've always felt we were pretty 
conservative in how rarely it's utilized.

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 BF Blake via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 2:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BF Blake 
Subject: Fire Pump Shutdown


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


Greetings Forum Members

Do we believe it is the intent of NFPA 20 TC is  for 10 minute automatic shut 
down (when enabled) of fire pumps to apply only during churn (e.g. dead head, 
closed loop, testing) conditions or to any condition to include sprinkler flow 
(e.g. 1/2" 5.6K ITC flow)?

Is the intent to protect the fire pump from "burn out"?  Is the intent to run 
pumps to failure (destruction) or is the intent, with 10 minute auto shut down, 
where permitted, to attempt to preserve the pump?

Thanks

Byron
NATO Facility
UFC Criteria 03-600-01 (2013) Applicable Słupsk, Pomorskie, Poland

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__*3B!!FaxH778!OB4oaFijo2IZH9_K4Ka5cxdQY-nT0eZ81GZKqVwxU8Aeda74ceQbgz-mcJ3IOTAl*24data=04*7C01*7C*7Cf2648ec125f9440f235908d9aacb0a30*7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435*7C1*7C0*7C637728611294808875*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000sdata=EZZRoWI6b6t76V0UlLXC2OcaVH*2FH34GSwuTYaMzniMA*3Dreserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!FaxH778!JzPkyBsLK-ey3XCE32nnATIgFkW5AeWvKDHJ42XdMM6iQopQJmPgvxsSdbqvG4z2$
 

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Fl

RE: Omit sprinklers

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Can't see why you would assuming whatever holds up the ACT and anything else in 
the space is non-com, presumably steel wire to hang the ceiling.

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 Shawn Foor via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 2:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum 
Cc: Shawn Foor 
Subject: Omit sprinklers

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Open web wood truss construction that is filled completely with spray foam 
insulation with gyp board placed on bottom of truss and a drop ceiling located 
12" below gyp board would that space require sprinkler protection.

--
Shawn Foor, SET

*FOOR DESIGN, LLC*
*10208 E 98TH ST*
*TULSA, OK 74133*
*P:918-237-1400*
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!K-b0asUGh8BDBKpPWct9SOrluTC-8J50rn235zG4Z5VeVYDaV9eEBbvml_2Y1Vun$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Fire Pump Shutdown

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

I've always understood it to be allowed even for a non-testing situation if 
approved.  The 2019 edition clarified this somewhat by breaking out automated 
testing as essentially ok even without specific approval and then a separate 
line item for when approved by the AHJ.  In places where the pump may not 
readily get shut off during an accidental start the 10 minute timer makes a lot 
of sense.  Timer only starts when shutoff pressure is reached and start 
pressure isn't dropped below again for 10 minutes, and even then pump would 
immediately restart if pressure dropped again.  I've always felt we were pretty 
conservative in how rarely it's utilized.

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 BF Blake via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 2:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BF Blake 
Subject: Fire Pump Shutdown

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Greetings Forum Members

Do we believe it is the intent of NFPA 20 TC is  for 10 minute automatic shut 
down (when enabled) of fire pumps to apply only during churn (e.g. dead head, 
closed loop, testing) conditions or to any condition to include sprinkler flow 
(e.g. 1/2" 5.6K ITC flow)?

Is the intent to protect the fire pump from "burn out"?  Is the intent to run 
pumps to failure (destruction) or is the intent, with 10 minute auto shut down, 
where permitted, to attempt to preserve the pump?

Thanks

Byron
NATO Facility
UFC Criteria 03-600-01 (2013) Applicable Słupsk, Pomorskie, Poland

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!OB4oaFijo2IZH9_K4Ka5cxdQY-nT0eZ81GZKqVwxU8Aeda74ceQbgz-mcJ3IOTAl$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: AHJ requires Concealed Sprinklers

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Never seen it at the code level, but some housing authorities/agencies require 
it for the tamper resistance quality they assume it will impart.

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 Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 9:21 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: AHJ requires Concealed Sprinklers

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Has anyone run into a jurisdiction where they mandate the type of sprinkler to 
be used?  We have one local jurisdiction that mandates concealed sprinklers in 
R2 occupancies.  It is in their amended codes.  We hadn't done an R2 in this 
jurisdiction in many years.  This came up new.  I was wondering if anyone else 
has jurisdictions that impose only a certain type of sprinkler.

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!Jj5metpXeWkBzE1fttwIqr4ZuiFNeQ0tLikfdY_WDr4JLo4YMYZgUzKFVMMXP3CV$
 


Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!Jj5metpXeWkBzE1fttwIqr4ZuiFNeQ0tLikfdY_WDr4JLo4YMYZgUzKFVHw4ULc6$
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Jj5metpXeWkBzE1fttwIqr4ZuiFNeQ0tLikfdY_WDr4JLo4YMYZgUzKFVBG8Zowt$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: CPVC Fitting

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

I'm guessing its 1" slip x 1/2 thread.  On the subject, is it orange/FP pipe 
Scott?  I've never seen a slip to thread that didn’t' use some metal whether 
it’s the lead in thread ala Brastic or the ring around the outside ala spears.

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 Taylor Schumacher via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 4:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Taylor Schumacher 
Subject: RE: CPVC Fitting

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Seems silly that a threaded female x threaded female fitting in CPVC would even 
exist? 


Taylor Schumacher 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2021 2:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Scott Futrell 
Subject: CPVC Fitting

Can someone please provide me with a data sheet for a 1" x 1/2" CPVC female by 
female reducing coupling with 1" plastic threads? It does not have the brass 
ring around the 1/2" end. The one I have does not have manufacturing 
information on it.

Thanks in advance.

Scott Futrell
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MvNUeZm0OXp12_-UHe2UC6vLahUflv_X7mfbR9c-J47YRgDIdzCy2wcMO4hn_yXJ$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MvNUeZm0OXp12_-UHe2UC6vLahUflv_X7mfbR9c-J47YRgDIdzCy2wcMO4hn_yXJ$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Best Common Practices

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

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

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



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Best Common Practices

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

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

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

Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

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

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

Re: Dry System Size

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Somewhat for my own information, is fluid delivery time calculation required 
now? My understanding was that it is one option, but that a system over 750 
gallons with a quick opening device just has to meet the 60 second water 
delivery time after instal.  Obviously doing the calculation ensures that, but 
you can still install it and take the gamble right? We do not do very many over 
750 because we would prefer not to get into that issue but I just want to be 
sure I understand this correctly as much as anything.


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

[Image]


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 9:43:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
Subject: Re: Dry System Size


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


Tyco FDT is only software for this.


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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!MZj3OknLdxHhGXNWbKKkGOgcBnPa4tEtNFevAt65hmUkKBSEsb8jGUYc7GrefwvE$
 




Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!MZj3OknLdxHhGXNWbKKkGOgcBnPa4tEtNFevAt65hmUkKBSEsb8jGUYc7DajYf-l$
 



From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 6:42:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Dry System Size

I assume with a dry system size of 1200 gallons my options are to add a 2nd dry 
valve and have (2) 600 gallon system with quick opening devices or run delivery 
time calc's and see if by chance it's under 60 seconds? If the latter is true 
what do most use to run theses calc's?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!MZj3OknLdxHhGXNWbKKkGOgcBnPa4tEtNFevAt65hmUkKBSEsb8jGUYc7Nje7aIR$
 
>
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!MZj3OknLdxHhGXNWbKKkGOgcBnPa4tEtNFevAt65hmUkKBSEsb8jGUYc7GD1H7e4$
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MZj3OknLdxHhGXNWbKKkGOgcBnPa4tEtNFevAt65hmUkKBSEsb8jGUYc7GD1H7e4$

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

The statement in 13 includes a pointer to what as in my understanding was the 
original intent, “on the same branch line leading back to the main”.  My 
understanding of this was the intent was to prevent having say a 80’ wide room 
as a remote area with a couple k11.2s then a couple k8.0 etc so that the 
increased node pressures from friction loss didn’t increase the discharge as 
you worked your way back to the main, squeezing pipe size.


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

[Image]


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 10:45:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

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


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


What K factor sprinkler are you trying to use?

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
American Fire Sprinkler Association
301-343-1457

> On Oct 29, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Sean Lockyer via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
>
> NFPA 13 generally discourages the use of mixing K-Factors in a system; 
> however, the mixing of K-Factors is allowed in certain circumstances, namely 
> in section 23.4.4.9.3 where it allows such use for small rooms and 
> enclosures. In a self-storage facility, the small 5' x 5' storage units would 
> not be considered "small rooms" as they are not light hazard (once again, per 
> the strict definition as layed out in chapter 3). However, would you be able 
> to consider the small units as enclosures since they are completely separate 
> rooms from the other, larger self-storage units ?
>
> Sean Lockyer
> Project Designer6817 N. Orange 
> Blossom Trail
> Cell386-337-1078 Orlando, Florida 
> 32810
> slock...@aitlifesafety.com Phone:407-816-9101
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.AITLifeSafety.com__;!!FaxH778!Oy_jgPeRIlLfLOnvlyy99bOFdv8SJpLnbP2diyr4688tcb9BtnCFIJaqhbTElesa$
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Oy_jgPeRIlLfLOnvlyy99bOFdv8SJpLnbP2diyr4688tcb9BtnCFIJaqhfoF0X8A$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Oy_jgPeRIlLfLOnvlyy99bOFdv8SJpLnbP2diyr4688tcb9BtnCFIJaqhfoF0X8A$

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Hydrostatic testing of Automatic Dry Standpipes

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

The hydro is to find out if the thing is full of holes IIRC.  Automatic dry has 
air pressure to monitor that, the others don't.  Presumably this will be 
updated when all standpipes have to be air supervised for leakage (in the next 
edition, as of now, of 14)

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 jaycs7919--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 2:19 PM
To: Sprinkler Forum 
Cc: jaycs7...@gmail.com
Subject: Hydrostatic testing of Automatic Dry Standpipes

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Do you have to do a hydrostatic test of an automatic dry standpipe based on the 
2017 or 2020 edition of 25?  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://6.3.2.1__;!!FaxH778!JXv4ug48P204AzhXwW0J9xcK7hgbtEeaK5RFdEz1iPXJcmBcCujziJZbsNmvcaLL$
  calls out the hydrostatic test of manual stadpipes and semiautomatic dry 
standpipes; no mention of automatic dry standpipes.  Under the definitions, the 
difference is that the semiautomatic uses a deluge valve with pull stations or 
some control device to activate the system.  The automatic uses a dry valve and 
opening the valve operates the system.  It doesn't make sense that you would 
test one type but not the other.  What am I missing?

Jay Stough 
NICET IV LAYOUT 
NICET III ITM
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!JXv4ug48P204AzhXwW0J9xcK7hgbtEeaK5RFdEz1iPXJcmBcCujziJZbsC2IrYI-$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Attic Piping

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

We don't do many, but over the years I've done a decent amount personally, some 
of my experience is dated and/or lacks trial and error honing but my 2 cents 
worth is:  I always use BBs when I can, make sure you look at each of the 3(at 
least) offerings of them currently as they have different limitations.  The 
Reliable last I looked threw furthest, the Viking requires their special attic 
head which has a lot of limitations to do the wider than base listing design 
where I think at least one of the others can do it with standard uprights etc.  
Typically I run down the middle low and jump up to short trees for the BB heads 
so we can keep the whole thing pitched one or two ways so we're not filling a 
building with drum drips and potential future failure points.  Typically the 
ends/corners I do in standard spray heads by splitting and going out to the 
edge and climbing back up the slope.  Smaller pipe is a lot easier to 
inevitably re-work since these are very difficult to get right becaus
 e of access, speed at which they're framed out and the fact that even when 
they're "typical" they're not typical.

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: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Attic Piping

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Seems were seeing more and more wood framed buildings these days and with that 
comes attics. Just curious what the general school of thought is with running 
piping in these spaces. Is it better to run the Main high under the ridges with 
back to back heads (size permitting) or is it better run Mains low and then run 
smaller Mains up the slope feeding branches at the ridges? I'm working on a job 
now that kinda resembles a long rectangle with no center (courtyards). I have 
all the heads laid out with B/B at the ridges, some AP's in the corners & 
throughout as needed. Just looking for ideas from some of you with much more 
attic experience than I have.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!K8_bCJ9hARW_yeMEEKWWxpr5Mr4ZEebMtzZ9XRqrlwEDp_Xmc-iepeBjNti66CwG$
 

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!K8_bCJ9hARW_yeMEEKWWxpr5Mr4ZEebMtzZ9XRqrlwEDp_Xmc-iepeBjNhhnr-Oi$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Supervised Air Manual Dry Standpipe

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

I don’t know that their is an express limit other than minimum 7psi.  That said 
for safety reasons if you have an air source capable of anything close to that 
I’d come up with something to regulate it.  Doesn’t 13 limit air testing to 60 
psi for safety?  Air pressure is much more dangerous than water as far as 
amount of energy stored.


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

[Image]


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:51:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: Supervised Air Manual Dry Standpipe


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.



Having an interesting discussion with a senior field man.

He is concerned that some of the compressors pump to 125 +/-, and was asking 
about an AMD.

I have searched, and also from a hands-on standpoint, do not believe one is 
required.

It certainly is if we introduce a dry valve or deluge into the standpipe 
system, but then it gets a different name.

NFPA 72 only mentions a 10 psi differential for supervisory circuits with air.

Is an AMD required on this type standpipe?

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis
Design Manager / Code Compliance
1530 Samco Road, Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342 /Direct-605.593.5063/Cell-605.391.2733



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Me68QOsN00ZJIIRC_8sOvWRaXf3Z8J8WpecLIJ7HV906Frsxib_TWTneXSPMdVXX$

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Water Tank & Refill Rates

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

22 (2018 4.2.1.4 specifically) states "fire protection volume" regarding the 8 
hour fill time, since your fire protection volume is just your design flow x 
duration (30 minutes in this case) your 33gpm pump can refill the fire 
protection volume in just over 2 hours assuming you don't need to pick up the 
hose from the tank but also aren't taking any area reduction etc.  The fact 
that it would take a little over 8 to fill the entire tank shouldn't be 
relevant, since I'm guessing that may be the concern?

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, October 19, 2021 11:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Water Tank & Refill Rates

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

We are looking at a project for a scout camp. They're building a new rec. hall 
and want to protect it per NFPA-13 for LH occupancy. They currently have an 
18,000-gallon water tank that is fed from a well that has a 33 gpm pump. This 
tank is dedicated for fire suppression use only and sits "uphill" from the job 
site. Is refill rate even an issue since the tank is so oversized?

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Ol1I60Bx2fuLbBC1G4Fu7ijf4wW4wJCczWuRO5zFSC1EgSfejiBe4m7jhlrLX6tF$
 

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!Ol1I60Bx2fuLbBC1G4Fu7ijf4wW4wJCczWuRO5zFSC1EgSfejiBe4m7jhlhc6PZs$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Concealed Space Between Floors

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

It worked but I don't know that it shows enough detail to evaluate.  I'm 
guessing it's fabricated wood joists with open webs, metal channel with gyp 
board attached at the bottom.  In which case as is it would require protection, 
I believe the only non-sprinklered option would be (if it's "2 by" 
construction) fill all but the top 2" with insulation. (9.2.1.18, 13-2019).  
All other exceptions involve composite wood joists, the wood "I beam" if you 
will.

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: Friday, October 15, 2021 8:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: RE: Concealed Space Between Floors

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Hopefully this link works:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dropbox.com/s/526wgm341stybym/Floor*20Space.png?dl=0__;JQ!!FaxH778!I8kXbi2qAeGP5ieQ1nj4zxmDkFkarn9E5Ri_Ko34WCfU6s4vQV3NaneMx6jmaWCf$
 

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssytemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!I8kXbi2qAeGP5ieQ1nj4zxmDkFkarn9E5Ri_Ko34WCfU6s4vQV3NaneMxyefx3fY$
 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 8:23 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Concealed Space Between Floors

I know this has been asked probably a million times but hopefully this will be 
the last.
Does this space in a 13 system need to have sprinklers? (see attached)


Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!I8kXbi2qAeGP5ieQ1nj4zxmDkFkarn9E5Ri_Ko34WCfU6s4vQV3NaneMxw1k1AyJ$
 

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!I8kXbi2qAeGP5ieQ1nj4zxmDkFkarn9E5Ri_Ko34WCfU6s4vQV3NaneMx--Y2Y-6$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!I8kXbi2qAeGP5ieQ1nj4zxmDkFkarn9E5Ri_Ko34WCfU6s4vQV3NaneMx--Y2Y-6$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

I would say if they're all being used as an SR sprinkler based on listing, I 
would put in SR sprinklers.  Is there an AHJ you can lean on?  That's what I 
would approach them with as far as logic.

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 Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ed Kramer 
Subject: mixing EC sprinks with SC sprinks

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Forumities,

This has likely been previously addressed, but it's just not coming back to me 
. . .

 

I've got an existing ordinary hazard area that is protected by existing EC 
sprinklers.  The existing EC sprinklers have fast response (3mm) elements and 
are listed as standard-response for the 20'x20' spacing they are protecting.  
If these sprinklers were protecting an area of 14' x 14', they would be listed 
as quick-response.

 

I need to add a couple standard-coverage sprinklers due to wall changes.
Should the new standard-coverage sprinklers be quick-response, or 
standard-response?

 

NFPA 13 (2019) section 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.4.3.5__;!!FaxH778!NjvBLXYl2Y98ErgMyq9iFVRSvqAUyYKBmSwdF1FH-Y30MG_-ngt9IAYtt0y1QUQd$
  gives me guidance if I were adding an identical EC sprinkler, but that's not 
what's happening.

 

Thanks in advance,

Ed K

 

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!NjvBLXYl2Y98ErgMyq9iFVRSvqAUyYKBmSwdF1FH-Y30MG_-ngt9IAYttwf-jBd3$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

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

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



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

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection?  
Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard.
If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection.
Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of the 
building and contents.

Art Tiroly

ATCO Fire Protection


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

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

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



This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission.  If you receive this message in 
error, please  immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, 
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender.  You must not, directly or 
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message 
if you are not the intended recipient.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PEy36P2Ree2IDKHDssMLwq70UBvwk5gX32aU8NcgXc8x_JP_Pkqr3gfirY-jNCeY$
 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PEy36P2Ree2IDKHDssMLwq70UBvwk5gX32aU8NcgXc8x_JP_Pkqr3gfirY-jNCeY$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Attic protection over a storage occupancy

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

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

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



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

RE: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

8.15.7.1 boiled down says projections over 4' have to be sprinklered underneath 
unless they're the stuff outlined after, non combustible construction, or 
non-combustible facings with sprinklers inside or 1 of the three exceptions 
noted.

8.15.7.2 is a standalone, regardless of what you've had to do to this point, if 
combustibles are stored below and it's over 2' wide you must put in sprinklers. 
 Construction type isn't relevant.

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 James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford 
Subject: NFPA #13 (2013) Exterior Projections 8.15.7

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

We have been discussing exterior projections in the office and with an AHJ on 
when sprinklers are required.

Section 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.1__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmht3zZzix$
  Unless the requirements of 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.2__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhmDCYIS-$
 , 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.3__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhrxqVNRf$
 . or 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.3__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhrxqVNRf$
  are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior projections exceeding 
4'-0" in width.

Section 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.5__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhveUcgnP$
  Sprinklers shall be installed under exterior projections greater than 2'-0" 
wide over areas where combustibles are stored.

Canopy is less than 4'-0" in width, No vehicle storage, non-combustible 
construction, not a corridor, so all items are met for 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.1__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmht3zZzix$
 , no sprinklers required.

But 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.7.5__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhveUcgnP$
  seems to requires them because the canopy is over 2'-0"

Normally we worked on the assumption less than 4'-0" and non-combustible, no 
storage, no sprinklers required and the 2'-0" was for combustible construction, 
over 2'-0" you required sprotection.

What are we missing

Thank You

James Crawford
Phaser Fire Protection Ltd.
Phone 604-888-0318
Cel: 604-790-0938
Email jcrawf...@phaserfire.ca
Web: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.phaserfire.ca__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhnQ8qaQ0$
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Il4gkwPQ9UvJcoxmiGqOG67e7B6ukqsJLo_PohkUo8bPuswBi35_dDAmhuQIzuLO$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Minimum Pipe Size

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

It's in the plans and calcs section, in 2019 it's 27.2.1.2, which is IMHO not a 
great location for it, might suggest a new home next go around with the system 
components section...

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 Bobby Welch via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:14 AM
To: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bobby Welch 
Subject: RE: Minimum Pipe Size

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I know there is a code I can't find it in NFPA 13.


Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457 
bobby.we...@koorsen.com | 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.koorsen.com__;!!FaxH778!IO0OpMQ9cxj43uAKTrDb8Q4I1EIr-0Ag2llpAqHY-gtAiHOQqEpZgj5laCR6PDhj$
 


24x7x365 Service: 937.660.7050 | servic...@koorsen.com
From: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bobby Welch 
Subject: RE: Minimum Pipe Size

Been there for ages.  1" for steel pipe. ¾" for CPVC and Copper

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!IO0OpMQ9cxj43uAKTrDb8Q4I1EIr-0Ag2llpAqHY-gtAiHOQqEpZgj5laI3ugWwN$
 


Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!IO0OpMQ9cxj43uAKTrDb8Q4I1EIr-0Ag2llpAqHY-gtAiHOQqEpZgj5laEgvLJpR$
 


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bobby Welch via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 7:08 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bobby Welch mailto:bobby.we...@koorsen.com>>
Subject: Minimum Pipe Size

Is there a minimum pipe size in NFPA 13 for sprinkler systems?

Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457 
bobby.we...@koorsen.com>
 | 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.koorsen.com__;!!FaxH778!IO0OpMQ9cxj43uAKTrDb8Q4I1EIr-0Ag2llpAqHY-gtAiHOQqEpZgj5laCR6PDhj$
 


24x7x365 Service: 937.660.7050 | 
servic...@koorsen.com
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IO0OpMQ9cxj43uAKTrDb8Q4I1EIr-0Ag2llpAqHY-gtAiHOQqEpZgj5laG9Nk7ec$
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IO0OpMQ9cxj43uAKTrDb8Q4I1EIr-0Ag2llpAqHY-gtAiHOQqEpZgj5laG9Nk7ec$
 

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

RE: Fire Pumps and fire apparatus

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

We see them this way all the time, typically they are 2 way only and often 
painted a different color.  I think typically the expectation is the FD uses 
them without a pumper and should the fire pump fail or be unable to keep up 
they would supplement the loop supply from the FDC at the pump house?  Normally 
we have a street pressure 3 way hydrant very close to the FDC for this.

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 Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 9:07 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL ; BRUCE VERHEI 
; John Irwin ; Steve Leyton 

Subject: Fire Pumps and fire apparatus

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I'd like to piggyback on this conversation since it migrated towards fire 
apparatus capabilities.  I have a client with a multi-building industrial site 
which has a fire pump providing flow and pressure to a site wide fire loop 
which serves both hydrants and building sprinkler/standpipe systems.  The 
pressure on the loop is around 160 psi for the most demanding flow condition.  
The client said the local fire department cannot connect to the hydrants since 
the pressure is too high.

The question: Is there a maximum allowable suction pressure rating for fire 
apparatus or is the problem in that the suction pressure is in excess of the 
apparatus' pump discharge pressure if their standard is 150 psi?  Could the FD 
use a pressure reducing valve on the LDH to the pumper to manage the excess 
pressure?  Is that even a possibility?  The high pressure is needed on the site 
to be able to provide adequate pressures for some tall process structures with 
complex, high flow rate sprinkler systems.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jacobs.com__;!!FaxH778!LVZMq8TRZNX9Cb6cJQT-tmZ_BW8AJajv_ms3V9-cuinINGaVZMxzwF4vfMg4K19k$
 
1041 East Butler Road   Greenville, South Carolina  29606
CONTACT BY: email or MS TEAMS



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:27 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: BRUCE VERHEI ; John Irwin 
; Steve Leyton 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Back Up Fire Pump

This is cut and past of partial comments from discussion on another forum, 
originating from an NFSA post.

What is missing from this excerpt is pressure rating of the hose. At acceptance 
and annually FD’s test hose at 250 psi. You are quickly going to lose 
persuasion ability with your fire plan reviewer if you start to plan to pump 
engine discharge pressure above 250psi. It may be one of those loss of 
credibility moments.

bv

‘To share what you and the FF’s know, fire engines in the U.S. are rated at 150 
psi net.

In cities 1,500 gpm (94 lps) rated engines are common, with trend towards 1,750 
and 2,000 becoming more common. Rated pump curve, net volume & pressure. 150 
psi (1034 kpa), 100% rating; 200 psi, 70% rating. 250 psi (1723 kpa) 50% rating.

This is all net. In many U.S. cities incoming water pressures are more than 
adequate in high rise districts so that a 2,000 gpm rated fire engine will be 
able to 1,250 gpm at 250 psi discharge pressure.’

BV

> On 09/14/2021 9:24 AM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
>
>
> By my reckoning, you need about 300 PSI at the ground level to pump 100 PSI 
> to the roof of what I'll call a 385' tall standpipe system (35x11).   Bottom 
> line:  Can the responding FD pump 750 or 1,000 GPM at 300 psi?   Most muni 
> departments can, but that might be at the limit of what they can deliver as 
> most engines are equipped with 300 PSI pumps.   Can they series pump?  Or do 
> they have a high-rise engine with series pumps on board?
>
>
> Steve Leyton, President
> Protection Design and Consulting
> T  |  619.255.8964 x 102  |
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.protectiondesign.com__;!!B5cixu
> oO7ltTeg!Rt85BjMd-cWiXl4QxFWGfunJIC4dQb0K6KeQ4lq91iDN0gkoPrMdq8rnEavJu
> XLJiQ$
> 2851 Camino Del Rio South  |  Suite 210  |  San Diego, CA  92108 Fire 
> Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:56 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 

RE: Fire Pump Backflow

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Why is the backflow in that particular spot?  Are the tanks connected to 
potable as well?  If so you might still be able to get dispensation to put the 
backflow after the pump if feasible, it's not like anyone's going to 
accidentally create a backflow condition when there's no outlets with which to 
do so.  If they aren't then it seems like the backflow should be on the filling 
side of the tank.  Piping the jockey to the inlet side of the backflow seems 
like it would cause the same or more issues.

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 Joe Burtell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:33 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Joe Burtell 
Subject: Fire Pump Backflow

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I have a situation with a verticle in-line fire pump fed from water storage 
tanks. We have a double check backflow installed between the tanks and the fire 
pump but we don't have enough pressure to open the backflow on the upstream 
side between the tank and backflow. I talked with Watts about it. They stated 
there are no backflows with weaker springs. I only have about 7 PSI out of the 
tanks. Has anyone ran into this situation before and have any suggestions to 
resolve the issue? The engineer suggested piping the jockey pump before the 
backflow. Not sure how that would work in theory.

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.burtellfire.com__;!!FaxH778!KfJ0ctM78FtbcmbKtpLa2m_vdAbiR8fWbIutwJbrXL3_6VoI2xTEWWcDzCRiqLPS$
 

*“**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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!KfJ0ctM78FtbcmbKtpLa2m_vdAbiR8fWbIutwJbrXL3_6VoI2xTEWWcDzNjpjn_M$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

My understanding had always been this was mainly related to shelves and the 
like as an obstruction since the head is going to basically inundate the 
closet.  I believe it was Mr. Huggins that once reminded us that water isn't 
like light and you don't have to see the head to get wet, as was a popular 
method of evaluating obstructions on the enforcement side at the time.  FWIW 
9.5.6.6.1 is worth a look as it could apply to most closets I can think of as 
long as the head location was right.

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 Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 11:36 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
Subject: Closets and Clearance from Deflector to Storage

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

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

https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.5.4__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUf8clHlv$
  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 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.2__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUWK_S5DY$
 , 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.3__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUaCDv_qW$
 , 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.4__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUWJSGby8$
 , or 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.5__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUYi1bnkN$
  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 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.5.4__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUf8clHlv$
  states "a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling level shall be 
sufficient without regard to obstructions or minimum distance to the wall."  
Does 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.5.4__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUf8clHlv$
  allow a sprinkler to be less than 18 inches from the storage in a closet?  
Section 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.1__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQURUORag8$
  does not specifically say that 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.5.4__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUf8clHlv$
  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 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.5.4__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUf8clHlv$
  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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PJVUyG8T3MKXlZlgRRf0dwy7i4YdVrTtqX072L0iAQnzaA2NLRb1EVeQUePq5JbQ$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sprinklers in stairways

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

I'm not an expert on this particular section, but to me it's a matter of 
differentiating "stairway" from "stair shaft".  The stairway, imho, is what you 
stand on, and the shaft is what it's in.  If we were to remove the stairs and 
just call this a vertical shaft, would it be a combustible or non-combusible?  
If it was wood framed but covered on the side facing the shaft with sheet rock 
I'm saying it's a non-combustible shaft.  And since it contains a 
non-combustible stairway which doesn't trigger the first section I would move 
on to the second section which to me is applicable as the "shaft" itself is 
non-com.  I would design it with a head at the top and bottom and let someone 
show me why that isn't correct.  The wood framing itself lives in it's own 
combustible concealed space, but that's exempted from protection and the 3k sq 
ft as long as it's a typical wall stud/drywall arrangement.

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 Bruce Hermanson via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 6:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: bherman...@tristarfire.com
Subject: Sprinklers in stairways

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

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 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://8.15.3.1__;!!FaxH778!OPhfng3N2P1Kg7dYtLr-pb5SM8-vcH6y-gW6XUVgBVbjhBLx1JI9hhhBPjRcvJGm$
  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

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!OPhfng3N2P1Kg7dYtLr-pb5SM8-vcH6y-gW6XUVgBVbjhBLx1JI9hhhBPlATk0uB$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

If you didn't have a pump at all and put the same tank 100' above ground, you'd 
calculate to the minimum anticipated water level after demand x duration is 
subtracted from the fill turn on point would you not?  What would make this any 
different?  Genuine question, I've always used minimum water after duration x 
demand as my water elevation and thus suction pressure.

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 Bob Caputo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 2:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Bob Caputo 
Subject: Re: Available Pressure from Fire Water Storage Tank

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

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

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

> I'm working on a project where they are adding a new building to an 
> existing campus. There is an existing fire water storage tank and fire 
> pump  that serves the site underground fire loop. The new building has 
> a very demanding sprinkler system that just barely exceeds the fire 
> pump's pressure available at the demand flow (using just the pump 
> curve as the water supply).
>
> Normally, I would be conservative and use just a few psi as my water 
> supply from the tank (as though it were nearly empty). But, is that 
> overly conservative? The tank is mounted on the ground, at the same 
> elevation as the fire pump, but it is nearly 45 feet tall, with a 
> total capacity of over
> 500,000 gallons. Can I use some of that elevation pressure, or do I 
> need to design and calc as though the tank is nearly depleted?
>
> -Kyle M
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cg
> i/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKA
> a_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0gy0_Q9T8$
>
--
Bob Caputo, CFPS
*President*

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
p: 214-349-5965 ext124
w: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0gwxnxtdZ$
 
 

   


*Train a safer, more efficient workforce.*

By enrolling your employees in the AFSA Apprenticeship Training Series for 
Sprinkler Fitters 
, you will reap the benefits of a qualified, professional installation crew.
Well-trained employees will work smarter, increasing your company's 
productivity and, in turn, its profits. Learn more 
 .
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MwmcS9Z6kdvSk8BBDvSEZKAa_lVQdX5itceWIZ5JlOctBXBJRTpTUhR0gy0_Q9T8$
 

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, 

Re: Forward flow test of BFP

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

The annex material includes several options that aren’t dedicated hose valves.  
Your AHJ is over reaching and under thinking.


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

[Image]


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 6:17:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com 
Subject: Forward flow test of BFP


BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR.


Has anyone had a plan reviewer not accept a hydrant or standpipes as means to 
forward flow test a backflow preventer?

We have a project with a backflow in the vault on the fire line. Downstream of 
that is a hydrant. Then in the building we have standpipes. This is a light 
hazard system. The reviewer is mandating (2) hose valves on the riser for 
forward flow test of backflow preventer.

Can anyone see where a hydrant or standpipes would not be an acceptable means 
for a light hazard system? Since there are standpipes, I would assume the 
hydrant would be the preferred method to forward flow test anyway.


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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!JPVcIFxVLTYdiqNcv7kBT3Rhhk9-JUm0Oa9Z4h3-BCzRfCJjeeCnyqYJa-MPkv8x$
 




Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!JPVcIFxVLTYdiqNcv7kBT3Rhhk9-JUm0Oa9Z4h3-BCzRfCJjeeCnyqYJa60io_sL$
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!JPVcIFxVLTYdiqNcv7kBT3Rhhk9-JUm0Oa9Z4h3-BCzRfCJjeeCnyqYJa83EJ-YT$

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: FDC & Pump Suction

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Same size orifice in a room

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

23.4.4.9 (2016  ed NFPA 13) is the only prohibitions about mixing sprinkler 
sizes I'm aware of.

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 Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Same size orifice in a room

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!Lo1PdKEjN9j3g4F1cPeRvfBxEdPjxO2gO0Fyus5x_1tEqJ6kbcuqG0oNByEJ4DUU$
 


Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!Lo1PdKEjN9j3g4F1cPeRvfBxEdPjxO2gO0Fyus5x_1tEqJ6kbcuqG0oNByPCuocv$
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Lo1PdKEjN9j3g4F1cPeRvfBxEdPjxO2gO0Fyus5x_1tEqJ6kbcuqG0oNB9_2Ql-1$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Hose reel FM Approval

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Approvalguide.com is the best resource for FM approved items.  FM will want FM 
approved equipment if that class of equipment is available as FM approved, not 
all types of equipment have FM approval standards so it's best to look on the 
site and see if its there.  Keep in mind, FM approval is a best practice 
encouraged by FM, but at the end of the day FMs enforcement mechanism is really 
insurance rates or denial of coverage, if using something FM approved creates 
an undue burden or can't be done your customer generally can just ignore the 
recommendation, I would always encourage them to have the conversation to 
understand what failure to comply would mean, but frequently it means nothing 
other than FM noting they didn't like it on a plan review.  I don't think FM 
approval is bad or costs that much, but people get very hung up on it when 
frankly FM generally isn't that bad about it as long as you generally try to 
provide products they approve.

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 Luis Perea via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Luis Perea 
Subject: Hose reel FM Approval

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

For the fire protection system based on FM, I can't find in FM if the hose 
reels, hose cabinets and accessories related to the hose system (apart from the 
valves) needs to have FM Approvals or just UL. 

 

Does anyone know if its mandatory?

 

 

 

 

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IEqaG0N5OqMb5aWoAm9viQg4fONMpRsQPyXOnFfWDwEkASV82-1cpV68WqNjSKE_$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Back flow flow test

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

If it were me, my thought would be to just informally come up with a demand 
GPM.  Since presumably you know what is protected, and what sort of sprinklers 
are protecting it, you should be able to reasonably derive at least what 
current protection would require in CMDA/CMSA or ESFR format.  From there it's 
not difficult to come up with area x density or sqrt p x k x number of heads to 
get a GPM, add 10-20% for safety, you have a pretty good number.  Arguably 
anyone willing to do a BFP forward flow test ought to be willing to cover the 
expense of a system analysis, but if they're just required to make a forward 
flow test per a local ordinance obviously that's a different animal.  This is 
one where I'd propose my outline to the powers that be and try and get a buy 
off and make sure I present it with a fair dose of "this isn't ideal but it's 
reasonable for all involved" language.

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 Taylor and Sons via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 7:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Taylor and Sons 
Subject: Back flow flow test

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

NFPA 25 2014 Edition, section 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://13.6.2.1__;!!FaxH778!MWxxSdwC4aul1GvyK2yjr16b8YTkH2imuAChbtrocRXhVEXmsYwa-ecyIP2PsI46$
 

I have a 6” Ames 2000 SS that I need to forward flow test. Down stream of the 
#2 OS control valve I have a 6” elbow, a 12” section of 6” pipe on the 
vertical, Then a 6x6x4 tee (4” to the FDC), then on top if the Tee a 6 “ dry 
valve.  
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://13.6.2.1__;!!FaxH778!MWxxSdwC4aul1GvyK2yjr16b8YTkH2imuAChbtrocRXhVEXmsYwa-ecyIP2PsI46$
  says we shall exercise annually at minimum flow rate of the system demand.  
But guess what. There is not a Hydraulic nameplate. It would be easy to flip 
the FDC check valve and flow out thru the FDC siamese connection, but not if it 
will not meet the system demand. My question is, without the owner providing 
what that demand is, how do I know if the 4” FDC method will be enough? Or do I 
remove the 6” elbow and install a tee and some fittings and pipe to flow the 
full 6” out the door which is about 6’ away.

Thanks



John Taylor
taylorands...@gci.net

Wrangell, AK 99929

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MWxxSdwC4aul1GvyK2yjr16b8YTkH2imuAChbtrocRXhVEXmsYwa-ecyIH0pEydS$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reliable Model C sprinkler

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

I was looking at a 1969 vintage warehouse yesterday that had a bunch of 
reliable model C uprights.  Anyone know the K factor these were produced in?  
They looked like ½" heads but I didn't have a good way to get real close to 
them and model was the only thing readable from a photo from ground level.


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



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

RE: Head or Not?

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

If the soffit is 3' wide then none of the obstructions against the wall 
allowances apply, you would have to either meet the requirements of table 
8.6.5.1.2 or add a head under it.  The counter top either has floor under it, 
or has cabinets under it, in the case of cabinets while you don't protect 
inside them, you still have to have coverage to the wall behind per 8.5.3.2.3.

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: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I could have been clearer. The reason I asked is the soffit is 3'-0" wide but 
is over a counter top and I was wondering if that makes a difference whether a 
head is needed as I was taught years ago that "we protect floor space"

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssytemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiffOP-rA$
 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Cary Webber via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 9:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Cary Webber 
Subject: RE: Head or Not?

In the absence of language about what that obstruction is, and what might be 
below it, it seems clear the intent is to allow omission of protection below.



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 Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Head or Not?

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.


NFPA-13 (2013) Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) Would a head be required under the soffit if 
the soffit is over a counter? Floor space is protected from heads at the deck.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiWRc95kZ$
 

Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flists.firesprinkler.org*2Flistinfo.cgi*2Fsprinklerforum-firesprinkler.orgdata=04*7C01*7Ccwebber*40reliablesprinkler.com*7C4716126876ba4cb5f4d708d8f510edd6*7C361f92efbca442cdaf0d8099acee2244*7C0*7C0*7C637528800662323066*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000sdata=*2BhasYOpQ*2BZeU9mFCAmWoT4JOa6zK0*2FNbCzKP8a3XyKU*3Dreserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjiT3bEUPZ$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjibbSw2eI$
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!Kkt4x4aQk2Fa19sQ70N9lD68vowUmt5VglBb6FHymfYeeU1kMd8H6_RjibbSw2eI$
 

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.

RE: Head or Not?

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

You've protected the space under the soffit if your installation is acceptable 
based on that figure.  The only question would be if the counter creates an 
obstruction below it.  Presumably it's not >4' wide which would be the only 
trigger I could see for that being an issue. 

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: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Head or Not?

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

NFPA-13 (2013) Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) Would a head be required under the soffit if 
the soffit is over a counter? Floor space is protected from heads at the deck.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bvssystemsinc.com__;!!FaxH778!JACGV2PNGUAUwq_h0UXzJunC51yNpXKD1KSZcYcSzXFyS3EuE2pvhfn4uoUS5jFC$
 

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!JACGV2PNGUAUwq_h0UXzJunC51yNpXKD1KSZcYcSzXFyS3EuE2pvhfn4unMrN3nZ$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: New coil actuators - New standard

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Can I take this moment to say that while I agree with this change, I kind of 
hate that it was written with this future date requirement on it?   Adoption 
takes so long in most jurisdictions the date is a moot point and just adds to 
confusion about retroactivity etc.

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 John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: New coil actuators - New standard

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Below is the exact language from NFPA 13 -2019 edition:

8.3.1.2.1 Actuator Supervision. Effective January 1, 2021,

removal of an electric actuator from the preaction or deluge

valve that it controls shall result in an audible and visual indication

of system impairment at the system releasing control

panel.


This language should apply to any new systems permitted under the 2019 edition 
of NFPA 13 after January 1, 2021.  *(Personal opinion:  As someone who designs, 
installs, tests, and commissions these systems, this requirement is way 
overdue.)*

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

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!MKI0U2jXTOr5rGkD_9__m4T5AwK94dtz0nFJ1Tymt0mzRrRZBtB5gSk3mHRnX-n2$
 
 

   


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


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


On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:33 AM Mike Henke via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> Typically the standards do not apply retroactively. This would 
> typically be for new installations where the latest edition of NFPA 13 was 
> adopted.
>
> If the electronic model cannot be used, there is a mechanical method, 
> the Potter RBVS.
> I am not aware of other manufacturers coming out with products for this.
> One solenoid manufacturer has a built in switch.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> mike
>
> Mike Henke CET
> Sprinkler Product Manager
> ___
>
>
>
> Potter Electric Signal Company, LLC
> 1609 Park 370 Place, St. Louis, MO 63042
> phone: 800-325-3936   |   direct: 314-595-6740
>
> mi...@pottersignal.com   |   
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pottersignal.com__;!!FaxH778!MKI0U2jXTOr5rGkD_9__m4T5AwK94dtz0nFJ1Tymt0mzRrRZBtB5gSk3mKxx0oCw$
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum  
> On Behalf Of BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 1:33 AM
> To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: BRUCE VERHEI 
> Subject: New coil actuators - New standard
>
> Please reference
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/e7Vkdb9z2qc__;!!FaxH778!M
> KI0U2jXTOr5rGkD_9__m4T5AwK94dtz0nFJ1Tymt0mzRrRZBtB5gSk3mFyABF_X$
>
> Mike H. Et al:
>
> Is this standards change typical, i.e., not intended to apply 
> retroactively?
>
> I assume other manufacturers are putting out similar listed or marked 
> products.
>
> Best.
>
> 

RE: Section 9.5.6 versus Section 20.6.6 of the 2019 Edition

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/13/Errata_13_19_2.pdf

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 Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Larrimer, Peter A (HEFP\19HEF) 
Subject: Section 9.5.6 versus Section 20.6.6 of the 2019 Edition

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

Can someone tell me if Section 9.5.6 was truly supposed to be deleted from the 
2019 edition of NFPA 13 and replaced with Section 20.6.6?  

Looking at the free access online, Section 9.5.6 still exists.  However, if you 
view the standard as a committee member, Section 9.5.6 is not there.  I have 
been told that Section 9.5.6 was deleted and the information is now in Section 
20.6.6, but that section has significantly different text.

Can someone please confirm that Section 9.5.6 was replaced with 20.6.6?

9.5.6 Clearance from Deflector to Storage.
9.5.6.1* Unless the requirements of 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.2__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUcw0KK066$
 , 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.3__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc56-OQv0$
 , 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.4__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUcwKhN6hU$
 , or 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.5__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc7c3jZZa$
  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.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.2__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUcw0KK066$
  Where other standards specify greater clearance to storage minimums, they 
shall be followed.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.3__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc56-OQv0$
  A minimum clearance to storage of 36 in. (900 mm) shall be permitted for 
special sprinklers.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.4__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUcwKhN6hU$
  A minimum clearance to storage of less than 18 in.
(450 mm) between the top of storage and ceiling sprinkler deflectors shall be 
permitted where proven by successful largescale fire tests for the particular 
hazard.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.5__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc7c3jZZa$
  The clearance from the top of storage to sprinkler deflectors shall be not 
less than 36 in. (900 mm) where rubber tires are stored.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://9.5.6.6__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc_DsSuan$
  The 18 in. (450 mm) dimension shall not limit the height of shelving on a 
wall or shelving against a wall in accordance with 10.2.8, 10.3.7, 11.2.6, and 
Sections 11.3 and 12.1.
9.5.6.6.1 Where shelving is installed on a wall and is not directly below 
sprinklers, the shelves, including storage thereon, shall be permitted to 
extend above the level of a plane located 18 in. (450 mm) below ceiling 
sprinkler deflectors.
9.5.6.6.2 Shelving, and any storage thereon, directly below the sprinklers 
shall not extend above a plane located 18 in.
(450 mm) below the ceiling sprinkler deflectors.

==

20.6.6 Clearance from Deflector to Storage.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://20.6.6.1__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc_76KyCS$
  Unless the requirements of 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://20.6.6.2__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUcxLTw-Q_$
  through 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://20.6.6.5__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc4EjUbaa$
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.
20.6.6.2* Manually operated roof vents or automatic roof vents with operating 
elements that have a higher temperature classification than the automatic 
sprinklers shall be permitted.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://20.6.6.3__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc4CEKzl4$
  Early suppression fast-response (ESFR) sprinklers shall not be used in 
buildings with automatic heat or smoke vents unless the vents use a 
high-temperature rated, standard response operating mechanism.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://20.6.6.4__;!!FaxH778!MI0vtPeJ19QsyJbkzVhisrnzh785hCPifHXLCRvdKgJ4glDs3DS9Y4XUc18sOmuN$
  Where other standards specify greater clearance to storage minimums, 

RE: leaving abandoned sprinkler piping in place

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

IBC/IFC 901.4.5, 901.6

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 Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: leaving abandoned sprinkler piping in place

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I have a customer that is being asked to cut and cap an existing system and 
leave it in place.  I seem to recall a section of the fire or building code 
that does not permit you to leave abandoned life safety equipment in place.  
They are being asked to remove the sprinklers but leave all of the piping dead 
in the air.  Is anyone familiar with this section of the fire / building code?  
If so, would you be able to provide the location in the IFC / IBC so that I can 
forward it on?

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, COC, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271 ext. 700 C: 480-272-2471
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mfpdesign.com__;!!FaxH778!PJCw9Pa2TNeRO4zz75oVIyWFaMBBIZHAIdYMts8typU07MeeCiBX7c8dne5-6IEC$
 


Send large files to us via: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign__;!!FaxH778!PJCw9Pa2TNeRO4zz75oVIyWFaMBBIZHAIdYMts8typU07MeeCiBX7c8dnQ_c1_ow$
 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PJCw9Pa2TNeRO4zz75oVIyWFaMBBIZHAIdYMts8typU07MeeCiBX7c8dnfhv1YIn$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

Flow switches as a standalone vs flow switches in a listed assembly.  This is a 
new arrangement I've not seen before, but so called "ready riser" type 
assemblies have been sold for years that have much smaller distances between 
the flow switch and other devices than the stand alone listing of a physically 
identical switch.  Frankly the only issue I've ever seen with flow switches is 
air entrapment false alarms and the odd failed switch.  I've seen tons of them 
installed with less distance than the listing required and at least for ITM 
purposes they worked correctly in spite of it.  I'd be curious if the listing 
requirements aren't just a compromise/how we've always done it type scenario 
that just isn't worth testing against as there isn't t hat much call for 
something listed for smaller distances when installed as a standalone device.

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 Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: RE: Check Valve After Flow switch?

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

I would as well.

What happened to the "not within 24" of a drain or valve?"

A check valve is a valve.. Right?

R/
Matt

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt 
Subject: Re: Check Valve After Flow switch?

I would like to know why this is the "best way" for the installation.  I am not 
stating it is not, just not sure why one way is better especially since we have 
done it a certain way for years.

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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!IpNMJuMDBwLFax2AF8_7R2sl6gZj3K63RWbcheyp7z-WDyYhjZtyVZhQewzwuc78$
 
 

   


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


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




On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> This is not a code change. Both manufacturers (one of them I work for) 
> state that this is the best way for installation and will not cause a 
> nuisance alarm. Ever since Globe came out with theirs I have 
> questioned why it’s designed this way.
>
> Henry Fontana
> Operations Manager (NYC)
> Johnson Controls Fire Protection
> 100 Lighting Way| St#402|Secaucus|NJ
> 07094
> Cell: 201-210-9873
> henry.font...@jci.com
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 5:01 PM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> I've just received a second product sheet from a different suppliers 
> for a pre-built riser where the check valve is located above/after the 
> flow switch. Is this arrangement a new change coming is the code?
>
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are for the 
> sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may 
> be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this 
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete 
> the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this 
> communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
> 

RE: I'm Baffled

[Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum]

You might want to look at the ROC for 2013, "non-combustible and limited 
combustible" was specifically removed during the revision process.  Excerpt 
from the substantiation: 

"The requirement for non-combustible or limited combustible materials is not
important. Baffles can be made of wood or even plastic as long as they stay in
place long enough for the sprinkler to open. The issue is that they be solid
(with no holes that would let the water through) and rigid (so that they do not
blow over due to the force of the hot gasses from the fire or the force of the
water spray hitting them). If the water spray is impacting the combustible
baffle, it will keep it from burning. If the water spray is not impacting the
baffle, it will not matter if the baffle goes away because it was not stopping 
the
spray of water anyway."

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 Matthew J Willis via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matthew J Willis 
Subject: I'm Baffled

 
BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. 
 

2019

10.2.5.4.2 (Concerning baffles for cold solder)

It screams metal at me.
However, would you think that plywood meets this?

R/
Matt



Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP
Design Manager / 3-D Specialist
1530 Samco Road, Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342 /Direct-605.593.5063/Cell-605.391.2733  






___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!NeboJArRDRbMFxHTOQ-3TTNh71fLoCUEtHC0HvdxcA2PNo52m2YdGY-6YyVvx3ud$
 

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
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org