RE: Manual Dry Standpipe

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

I have to disagree.
In the 2019 edition there is an exception that was added to 7.5.1.1 . It allows 
the AHJ to waive the interconnection. Also see annex A . 7 . 5 in regards to 
interconnection.
Thanks
Pete





Pete Schwab | Vice President of Purchasing and Engineering Technologies
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. ®
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wayne+Automatic+Fire+Sprinklers/@28.5609916,-81.5534771,19.65z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x88e782fb5aadbabf:0xd7238f1eab6eb876!2s222+Capitol+Ct,+Ocoee,+FL+34761!3b1!8m2!3d28.5607736!4d-81.5533424!3m4!1s0x88e782fb33d24d9d:0x9e453facd228f6f7!8m2!3d28.5609763!4d-81.5532511
Cell mailto:407-468-8248 Email mailto:pe...@waynefire.com
Direct http://407-877-5570 Web https://www.waynefire.com/
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/ocoee-florida-orlando | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/jacksonville-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/deerfield-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/tampa-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/ft-meyers-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/concord-north-carolina-charlotte

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Pete Schwab [mailto:pe...@waynefire.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:29 PM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: John Denhardt ; Brian Harris 
; Henry Fontana ; Steve 
Leyton 
Subject: RE: Manual Dry Standpipe

I have to disagree.
In the 2019 edition there is an exception that was added to http://7.5.1.1. It 
allows the AHJ to waive the interconnection. Also see annex A.7.5 in regards to 
interconnection.
Thanks
Pete



https://www.waynefire.com/

Pete Schwab | Vice President of Purchasing and Engineering Technologies
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. ®
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wayne+Automatic+Fire+Sprinklers/@28.5609916,-81.5534771,19.65z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x88e782fb5aadbabf:0xd7238f1eab6eb876!2s222+Capitol+Ct,+Ocoee,+FL+34761!3b1!8m2!3d28.5607736!4d-81.5533424!3m4!1s0x88e782fb33d24d9d:0x9e453facd228f6f7!8m2!3d28.5609763!4d-81.5532511
Cell mailto:407-468-8248 Email mailto:pe...@waynefire.com
Direct http://407-877-5570 Web https://www.waynefire.com/
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/ocoee-florida-orlando | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/jacksonville-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/deerfield-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/tampa-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/ft-meyers-florida | 
https://www.waynefire.com/locations/concord-north-carolina-charlotte

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:17 PM
To: mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Denhardt <mailto:jdenha...@firesprinkler.org>; Brian Harris 
<mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>; Henry Fontana 
<mailto:henry.font...@jci.com>; Steve Leyton <mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>
Subject: Re: Manual Dry Standpipe

Fully agree. Interconnection is required. A control valve is required at each 
stairway riser.

Thanks,
John
>
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
> Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the 
> standard.
>
John August Denhardt, P.E.
Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services
American Fire Sprinkler Association
301-343-1457

> On May 4, 2021, at 3:51 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:
>
> Agreed. Four separate FDC's - in a building with no sprinklers and likely 
> without any annunciation of where in the building a fire is working - would 
> be extremely challenging for the first responding company. The intent is for 
> each FDC, including multiple FDCs that pump into a single standpipe system, 
> to energize any and all standpipe hose connections.
>
>
> The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA 14 
> Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the 
> standard.
>
> Steve Leyton, President
> Protection Design and Consulting
> T | 619.255.8964 x 102 | http://www.protectiondesign.com
> 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 Henry Fontana via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2021 12:30 PM
> To: mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Henry Fontana <mailto:henry.font...@jci.com>; Brian Harris 
> <mailto:bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com>
> Subject: RE: Manual Dry Standpipe
>
> I would just say if they were not interconnected then it would be very 
> confusing when the fire 

RE: Hotel or Condo

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

A "condominium" is a form of ownership, not an occupancy. You could have a 
condominium building that is owned by multiple investors that is used for short 
term rentals only. That would be R1 and transient.
Or you have your typical condominium with full time (or seasonal  6 months 
and one day in FL) that is definitely an apartment or R2.
See NFPA 101 Apartment Building definition and Annex language A.3.3.37.3.

Pete Schwab


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 4:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Brian Harris 
Subject: Hotel or Condo

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

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Design Manager
bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/<http://bvssystemsinc.com>>
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

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

RE: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

The 2022 edition should have language that allows this unless it gets 
overturned by a CAM. See NFPA 13 2nd draft 14.2.7 (Second Revision 1129).

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Art Tiroly 
Subject: RE: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

I had a similar problem but worked it out with AHJ and he allowed the
obstructions with the ESFR's.

Art Tiroly

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of James Crawford via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 12:18 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: James Crawford
Subject: ESFR & Obstruction in Light Hazard

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

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

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

Opinions please

Thank You

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

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


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

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

RE: schedule 7 pipe?

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

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

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

Pete Schwab


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

Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?

Good morning:

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

Larry Keeping

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

Warning! This email came from outside your company.

Matt - fully understand the position you have.

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

Thanks,
John

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

*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org
<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/<https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org>>
<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224<https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224>>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/<https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa->>
<https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/<https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg>>

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


*Expand your design department in 2021!* AFSA is taking its popular two-week 
Beginning Fire Sprinkler System Planning School on the road. From San Diego to 
Tampa Bay and stops in between, our technical experts will teach the basics of 
system layout based on the 2019 edition of NFPA 13. Space is limited. Enroll 
today at 
https://www.firesprinkler.org/schools<https://www.firesprinkler.org/schools>.


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

> There is no doubt that thicker pipe lasts longer.
>
> However, when the owner of a warehouse specifies schedule 7 piping for
> the sprinkler system in a hard bid, the installing contractor will be
> using schedule 7.
>
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lucas Kirn mailto:lk...@ecscorrosion.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 3:34 PM
> To: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>;
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Subject: RE: schedule 7 pipe?
>
> Matt,
>
> Having seen many cases of failed sch. 7 pipe over the past 10+ years I
> would tell anyone willing to listen to stay far, far away from it.
> Pipe schedule is the most basic form of corrosion/leak protection. The
> thinner the pipe, the shorter the lifespan.
>
> I have also seen several instances where a GC or property owner came
> back and tried to sue the installing sprinkler contractor because the
> system started leaking after less than 10 years - through no fault of
> the contractor. In my opinion installing an inferior product exposes
> your company to more liab

RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

Unfortunately the strikeouts and underlines got wiped out.
Here is the language as it should appear.

28.2.4.2.5 Where the total design discharge from the operating sprinklers is 
less than the minimum required discharge determined by multiplying the required 
design density times the required minimum design area, an additional flow shall 
be added at the point of common connection closest to the source to increase 
the overall demand, not including hose stream allowance, to the minimum 
required discharge.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 11:32 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' 

Cc: Pete Schwab ; Sean.VanGaal 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

For the 2022 edition there has been some changes to this. Subject to next 
year's tech session of course. It passed ballot with no negatives.
There is also a revised annex figure but I can't paste that into this email or 
it will get bounced.



28.2.4.2.5 Where the total design discharge from these the operating sprinklers 
is less than the minimum required discharge determined by multiplying the 
required design density times the required minimum design area, an additional 
flow shall be added at the point of common connection of the branch line to the 
cross main closest to the source to increase the overall demand, not including 
hose stream allowance, to the minimum required discharge.


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sean.VanGaal via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:47 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Sean.VanGaal mailto:svang...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

My understanding is this was inserted into the code as a compromise between 
Density/Area and Room Design so you aren't punished for not meeting all the 
requirements of Room Design. For example, you have a building that is mostly LH 
so it has a high total sq.ft. of the building, much more than required by an LH 
calc. But you also have a small room that is EH2 within the building, but it 
doesn't take up a full EH2 remote area worth of sq.ft. of the building. 
Unfortunately the EH2 room for one reason or another doesn't meet the 
requirements of Room Design method. So before this code was implemented, you 
had to fun a full Density/Area EH2 calculation on a building that was mostly LH 
to cover the small EH2 room which lead to a massively oversized piping/riser 
setup because you would inevitably end up with lots of overflow. This code made 
it so that you only needed to size the piping/riser for the bare minimum flow 
of density x remote area size worth of flow for the high hazard area. So you 
ended up at a middle ground between a Room Design and the Density/Area method 
as written in the code.

Now where this goes awry is the situations that have been presented. You have a 
small dedicated system like a Dry loading dock adjacent to another sprinkler 
system. Reading this code literally you may be asked to oversize your dry 
system which seems unnecessary. I think that is the unintended consequence that 
should probably be addressed with the wording of the code section. For 
instance, maybe adding an exception that says the calculation for adding 
additional flow is not required if the sprinkler system size is smaller than 
the minimum remote area requirements. Or if someone is concerned about those 
devious contractors out there who will try to exploit the system by adding 
multiple unnecessary risers just to take advantage of a "system size" exception 
because they don't care about spending extra money...then have the added flow 
put at the base of riser rather than the end of the system for the "small 
system exception".

Thanks,
Sean V

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org%3cmailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>>
 On Behalf Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:35 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org%3cmailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Cc: Scott Futrell 
mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com<mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com%3cmailto:sco...@ffcdi.com>>>;
 Prahl, Craig/GVL 
mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com<mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com%3cmailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>>;
 
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com%3cmailto:travis.m...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23

RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

For the 2022 edition there has been some changes to this. Subject to next 
year's tech session of course. It passed ballot with no negatives.
There is also a revised annex figure but I can't paste that into this email or 
it will get bounced.



28.2.4.2.5 Where the total design discharge from these the operating sprinklers 
is less than the minimum required discharge determined by multiplying the 
required design density times the required minimum design area, an additional 
flow shall be added at the point of common connection of the branch line to the 
cross main closest to the source to increase the overall demand, not including 
hose stream allowance, to the minimum required discharge.


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sean.VanGaal via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:47 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Sean.VanGaal 
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

My understanding is this was inserted into the code as a compromise between 
Density/Area and Room Design so you aren't punished for not meeting all the 
requirements of Room Design. For example, you have a building that is mostly LH 
so it has a high total sq.ft. of the building, much more than required by an LH 
calc. But you also have a small room that is EH2 within the building, but it 
doesn't take up a full EH2 remote area worth of sq.ft. of the building. 
Unfortunately the EH2 room for one reason or another doesn't meet the 
requirements of Room Design method. So before this code was implemented, you 
had to fun a full Density/Area EH2 calculation on a building that was mostly LH 
to cover the small EH2 room which lead to a massively oversized piping/riser 
setup because you would inevitably end up with lots of overflow. This code made 
it so that you only needed to size the piping/riser for the bare minimum flow 
of density x remote area size worth of flow for the high hazard area. So you 
ended up at a middle ground between a Room Design and the Density/Area method 
as written in the code.

Now where this goes awry is the situations that have been presented. You have a 
small dedicated system like a Dry loading dock adjacent to another sprinkler 
system. Reading this code literally you may be asked to oversize your dry 
system which seems unnecessary. I think that is the unintended consequence that 
should probably be addressed with the wording of the code section. For 
instance, maybe adding an exception that says the calculation for adding 
additional flow is not required if the sprinkler system size is smaller than 
the minimum remote area requirements. Or if someone is concerned about those 
devious contractors out there who will try to exploit the system by adding 
multiple unnecessary risers just to take advantage of a "system size" exception 
because they don't care about spending extra money...then have the added flow 
put at the base of riser rather than the end of the system for the "small 
system exception".

Thanks,
Sean V

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:35 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Scott Futrell mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com>>; Prahl, Craig/GVL 
mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>; 
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

Many more times than you may have heard about, Craig. For a variety of reasons, 
there are more fires that exceed the full design area than you are told about. 
I recently spent four days at a fire scene where part of a sprinklered, light 
hazard building burned to the ground. That fire exceeded the design area. 
Probably didn't make into the NFPA statistics either.
The sprinklered buildings that burn to the ground, that I see, are mostly 
storage, but not all.

Scott

Office: (763) 425-1001 x2
Cell: (612) 759-5556

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:14 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL mailto:craig.pr...@jacobs.com>>; 
travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 23.4.4.2.5: What is the purpose and how does it apply?

If I had a loading dock attached to and ESFR system, I'd calc the ESFR since it 
would be the most hydraulically demanding. If a fire originated on the dock and 
migrated inward to the building, involving a portion of the dock and the ESFR 
system, you still should be fine from a water supply standpoint. How many times 
have we heard of the full involvement of a design area in an ac

FW: Are sprinklers required

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

This scenario is very common in hotel occupancies. In order to use NFPA 13R in 
the residential portions, there does not need to be a separation if the 
occupancy is accessory and is less than 10% of the floor area (508.2.3).
If it exceeds 10% then proper separation is required by the IBC table 508.4. In 
order to use 13R, there has to be a 2 hour separation.

I agree that this is the architect's responsibility but y'all see the drawings.

P.S.
Don't paste a snip from the IBC or your post will get bounced...


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:45 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>; Steven Jenkins 
mailto:steven.jenk...@llr.sc.gov>>
Subject: RE: Are sprinklers required

As Steven said, there are a couple "ifs" in the code analysis and the biggest 
one is whether the code official will allow the use of 13R. NFPA 13R doesn't 
give prescriptive guidance but informs in A.1.1 that there may be special rules 
that restrict the use of 13R in mixed occupancies and that the user of the 
standard should:

"Refer to the adopted building code to determine whether such restrictions are 
applicable." This throws to the local building official. My experience in just 
about every (California) jurisdiction has been that a two-headed design is only 
allowed if there is a BUILDING separation between R and B or M occupancies. 
Some allow an occupancy separation between R and S-2 (parking) because if the 
principal use group is R, then parking is accessory to the R can be protected 
per 13 as specifically allowed in 13R. Podium buildings with R over other 
groups generally require a 3 hour horizontal assembly with all utilities and 
stairs shafted with 2-hour fire resistance to even consider the split design 
and in many jurisdictions you have to upgrade to 13 to get additional stories 
of Type 5 anyway. And there are area limits per floor when using a 13R that may 
also restrict its use; you can't just count stories or weigh building 
separations. The charging references are in the allowable hei
ght and area tables of Chapter 5.


Steve Leyton



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steven Jenkins via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 7:43 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Steven Jenkins mailto:steven.jenk...@llr.sc.gov>>
Subject: RE: Are sprinklers required

As seen in the 2015 IFC Commentary to section 903.3.1.2

"... A common question is whether a mixed occupancy building which contains a 
Group R occupancy could still use NFPA 13R for the design. If one of the 
mixed-use occupancies would require a sprinkler system throughout the building 
in accordance with NFPA 13, then a 13R system would not be allowed. If, 
however, the only reason a sprinkler system is being installed is because there 
is a Group R fire area, then a NFPA 13R system would be an appropriate design 
choice.
The areas that are not classified as Group R would require protection in 
accordance with NFPA 13.
It must be noted that although the building would be considered sprinklered 
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R, not all of the code sprinkler 
alternatives could be applied. Any alternative that requires the installation 
of an NFPA 13 system would not be applicable if a portion of the building 
utilizes an NFPA 13R system"

Hope this helps,

SJ

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Nick Maneen via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:22 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Nick Maneen mailto:nman...@sentryfp.com>>; Thomas 
Reinhardt mailto:thomas.reinha...@skokie.org>>
Subject: Re: Are sprinklers required

*** SCDLLR NOTICE ***
* This email is from an external email address. Please use caution when 
deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links.
* Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in e-mail 
text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.


This is supposed to be above our pay grade, but yeah. Unless the owner wants to 
go through all the trouble of installing rated building separations that would 
allow a 13R structure to sit on a 13 structure, the entire building is 13.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:14 PM Thomas Reinhardt via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
 wrote:

> Hi everyone .Thanks for taking my question. I have a old commercial
> building in town with a store front only two stories. The owner would
> like to convert the second floor to apartment(R-2). We 

RE: Non-Combustible Concealed Space

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

Better clarification should be in the 2022 edition…… Subject to ballot, 
nitmams, etc.


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 2:25 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: travis.m...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: RE: Non-Combustible Concealed Space

Mike:

Check into the AFSA informal interp archives regarding VTACs. I had one from 
them in a hotel project recently. The spaces did not contain fuel fired 
equipment so did not require protection.


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

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

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

Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing?  Build a material quote?  
Check availability ?   Searching for an invoice?
*If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click 
https://www.ferguson.com/account-registration
 to register.*
**Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to 
your favorite ferguson.com features. 
http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/1qtklpp37l9byeftyuoy12/external?email=true&a=6&p=2591775&t=517003
 or 
http://fergusoncommunications.us.newsweaver.com/hq7bgesq7f/n1gewi5ud95byeftyuoy12/external?email=true&a=6&p=2591775&t=517003**

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:59 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mike Hairfield mailto:fsl...@msn.com>>
Subject: Non-Combustible Concealed Space

Here is my situation: Hotel Rooms that have a 3'-6" x 2'-6" Non-Combustible 
Concealed space that has a heat pump
unit inside this space. There is not a door into this space only a discharge 
grill that can be removed by the maintenance
staff to get access to service these units.

The local AHJ says that I have to install a sprinkler head to protect this 
space.
The way I interpret NFPA-13 2013 paragraph http://8.15.1.2 and 
8.15.1.2.2 it does not require a sprinkler head in this space.

HELP

Thanks,

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

RE: Spacing ESFR-17 Sprinkler at new interior wall

[Pete Schwab via Sprinklerforum]

Just because someone “signed off” on it does not make it right.
In the event that there is a fire and a high dollar commodity is consumed (IE: 
Corona vaccine), and the special expert comes in and immediately sees a blatant 
code violation….. (Then again if it is an FM property and they approved they 
are the AHJ).

On the other hand, there has been recent testing for ESFR obstructions and I 
would present that as an equivalency. I personally feel what you have will work 
fine

Pete Schwab

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:25 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Richard Mote 
Subject: Re: Spacing ESFR-17 Sprinkler at new interior wall

Just talked to the salesman that sold the job. He says that this room is 
identical to one adjacent to it and that the previous contractor (which did the 
original roof installation) did exactly as I was proposing. Don't think they 
were right but they are a 10 times bigger company than the one I am doing this 
project for. He basically told me to draw up something to submit. He was going 
to tell the installers to just duplicate what was already there. FM signed off 
on it so who am I to argue.
By the way I tried moving back up the line, but with 2'-6" between sprinkler 
and bar joist on each side, I was 5 sprinklers back and it still wasn't working 
out.

-Original Message-
From: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
To: 'Richard Mote' mailto:spri...@aol.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Sent: Thu, Mar 19, 2020 2:40 pm
Subject: RE: Spacing ESFR-17 Sprinkler at new interior wall
I’m not saying it won’t work.  But, there is nothing you have to hang your hat 
on should there ever be an issue.  I always tell customers to figure moving 3-5 
sprinklers on a branch line whenever you have a wall cause ESFR issues.

[cid:image002.jpg@01D5FE24.F4430B90]<http://www.mfpdesign.com>
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
fax: 866-430-6107
tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>
www.mfpdesign.com<http://www.mfpdesign.com>

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.hightail.com%252Fu%252FMFPDesign&data=02%257C01%257C%257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%257C0%257C0%257C636379016677342180&sdata=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%252BAZvlHhABSexWY%253D&reserved=0>
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.linkedin.com%252Fin%252Ftravismack&data=02%257C01%257C%257C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%257C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%257C0%257C0%257C636379016677342180&sdata=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%252BZodi%252FhbeCbHNRijI%253D&reserved=0>

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


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Richard Mote via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 2:28 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Richard Mote mailto:spri...@aol.com>>
Subject: Spacing ESFR-17 Sprinkler at new interior wall

Have a job with existing ESFR-17 pendent sprinklers at the roof. Joist spacing 
is 5' oc with sprinklers centered between every other joist, thus 10' oc. The 
lines are on 10' centers so nice 100 sq. ft. per sprinkler. Tennent comes along 
and builds a room exactly 60' wide x  60' deep. Basically 1 bay wide x 1 column 
bay deep.  10" away from a row of sprinklers inside the room so no problem. 
However the row of sprinkler outside the room is now 8' away from the wall. If 
I plug and move that row of sprinklers 1'-4" away from the wall and then place 
a row 8' away toward the wall, the sprinklers adjacent to the wall are only 9¾" 
off the CL of the joist. My thinking is that since there is a wall 3 " away 
from the other side of the joist, spraying past the joist is not an issue. What 
say you?

Richard L. Mote, CET
Rimrock Design Services, LLC
P.O. Box 36
Middleburg, PA 17842
Ph. 928.821.8725 & 570.541.2685
Email: 
rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com<mailto:rimrock.design.servi...@gmail.com>
Web: https://rimrockdesignservices.com<https://rimrockdesignservices.com>

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.or

RE: NFPA 13 - mixing residential and QR sprinklers in dwelling units

[Pete Schwab]

NFPA 13 does not give guidance on mixing residential sprinklers and QR 
sprinklers in the same design area. This was discussed I believe in the 2016 
NFPA 13 code development process.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Dewayne Martinez
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 9:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Dewayne Martinez 
Subject: NFPA 13 - mixing residential and QR sprinklers in dwelling units

NFPA 13 (13ed)
Many times we have run into surface mounted lights in the bathrooms of dwelling 
units where residential pendant sprinklers need to be too far away to miss the 
obstruction to be practical. If we installed QR standard spray sprinklers 
pendants in the bathrooms and residential sprinklers thought the dwelling unit 
else where would we need to pick up a 900sq ft remote area to account for the 
QR sprinkler?
Thanks,

Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager

TOTAL Mechanical
Building Integrity

W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee, WI  53072
dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Ph:  262-522-7110
Cell: 414-406-5208
http://www.total-mechanical.com/

[cid:image001.jpg@01D4A76E.46331120]

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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: PIV

[Pete Schwab]

Steve
I have never seen one.
Pete

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: PIV

Any suppliers or others on this thread that know if a backflow appliance can be 
ordered with a listed PIV on the owner’s side?

Steve

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 2:04 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: PIV

Typically the reason is both, (1) to be able to control sprinkler flow from 
outside the bldg. and (2) to verify that the water supply is available.

I can’t speak to whether or not the non-indicating valve should be removed, 
that would be a decision by the AHJ.  But its presence in the system creates 
risk if it is not inspected daily to ensure it is always in the open position.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 4:50 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: PIV

So, in that case, would they be required to eliminate the non-indicating gate 
valve? Or just add the PIV? I mean, if the gate valve is closed, it really 
doesn’t matter what position the PIV is in.

I know there are some jurisdictions in Nevada where we’ve been required to 
provide wall PIVs for the system control valves. But I’m not 100% certain what 
their intent was in requiring it. Is it about knowing if the valve is open or 
closed, or is it about being able to control it from the building exterior?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 2:27 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: PIV

NFPA 24 calls for indicating type valves on water supplies serving sprinklers.  
Non-indicating type valves for sprinkler water control are permitted only when 
approved by the AHJ.  So it’s totally within the right of the AHJ to require a 
PIV outside the room on the UG run-in.

In some cases when there is no place to install a PIV, sometimes the AHJ has 
allowed a Wall Post Indicator Valve to be used.

Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | 
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | 
www.jacobs.com

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 3:47 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE:

To follow JD’s comment, new or existing would to me be the big question.  Or 
said another way, if new, why weren’t approved plans followed?

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Dec 3, 2018, at 12:10, Matt Grise 
mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>> wrote:
There is a city we work in where every building must have a PIV. I don’t know 
if that is in the code, but the fire department won’t approve a system without 
one.

Matt

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Randy Huffman
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 2:06 PM
To: 
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject:

We have a riser room at the rear of a building. An exterior door opens to 
interior of riser room which contains a backflow preventer with two indicating 
control valves, a rise check valve, and a water flow switch. Underground line 
to building has a nonindicating gate valve in roadway box some distance from 
door to riser room. AJH says a post indicator valve must be installed outside 
riser room. We believe the current arrangement of piping and valves meets the 
standard without the PIV
Please comment.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: system modification hydro test

[Pete Schwab]

There was some attempt to rewrite these testing procedures during the 2019 
process. Some for wet and some for dry. It didn’t really go anywhere but there 
definitely was a desire to see it changed based on conversations exactly like 
this. NFPA 13 is open for Public Inputs so fire away!!


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Phillips, Mark
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: system modification hydro test

Yes
An AHJ can ask for anything.
We produce a letter outlining NFPA testing requirements  to the GC and dissolve 
us of any libilaty due to testing existing system and we dont test until they 
agree and sign.

Just SOP



Sent from my cell phone. Please excuse spelling etc.


[cid:image001.jpg@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]

Mark​



Phillips


Vice President of Fire Protection

,

Kirlin Carolinas, LLC



t: 919-526-1584

 |

m: 919-610-0490


mphill...@jjkllc.com

 |

https://kirlingroup.com


8000 Brownleigh Dr

,

Raleigh

,

NC



27617



[cid:image002.png@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]


[cid:image003.png@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]


[cid:image004.png@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]






[cid:image005.jpg@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]

[cid:image006.jpg@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]

[cid:image007.jpg@01D47D0C.2C21A8F0]



 Original message 
From: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Date: 11/15/18 4:47 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: system modification hydro test

We had a situation where a TI modification involved adding  over 20 mechanical 
t’s to a system (office area layout change). NFPA 13 2013ed 
25.2.1.6 says “modifications that cannot be isolated, such as 
relocated drops, shall not require testing in excess of system working pressure”

The mechanical t’s could not be isolated, but since they were added heads and 
not “…such as relocated drops…” the AHJ required us to test the entire existing 
floor at 200psi.

Has anyone seen this before?

Matt

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

RE: Private Residential Garages

[Pete Schwab]

13 or 13R is a big difference. 2019 13R made changes in regards to garages 
classified as U occupancy. 1000 FT² and less can use residential


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Private Residential Garages

If they aren't townhouse but are condos or apartments are they being designed 
as 13 or 13R dwellings? Or if duplexes perhaps 13D?


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

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


On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:16 PM Gary Stites 
mailto:gsti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would say they are not townhomes as the garages may not necessarily have the 
same owner/user as the dwelling above.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 2:54 PM Bruce Verhei 
mailto:bver...@comcast.net>> wrote:
First I’d find out if these are townhomes (single family dwellings) or 
apartments.

Townhome is a defined term in the IRC, IBC, and IFC.

A Townhome is a zero lot line single family dwelling. As it is also a real 
estate term incorrect usage often bounces around a project.

Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Oct 29, 2018, at 14:41, Gary Stites 
mailto:gsti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We have a project with single car garages side-by-side under residential 
dwellings (condos). The garages have no communicating openings as they are 
optional to the tenants and they are separated from the dwellings (and each 
other) with 1-hour walls. Obviously, they have a roll up door opening to give 
the vehicle access to the garage.

Is the room design method (NFPA #13-2016, 11.2.3.3) 
appropriate for use on private garages?

--
Gary Stites
805-769-GMAN
www.rlhfp.com
http://www.sprinklersoft.net/



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


--
Gary Stites
805-769-GMAN

RLH
WWW.K25.Rocks
Pandora Station

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

RE: FPE / SFPE

[Pete Schwab]

I’m offended. See you Saturday night


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: FPE / SFPE

The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t want 
to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare into a 
drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to discuss 
further, it’ll have to be over drinks.

I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT 
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions.  
This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether 
sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with).  How can 
one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while the 
other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the involved engineers are practicing 
outside their field of expertise?  This spun me up.  Now combine that with the 
sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report unqualified engineers to 
the Board of Registration and the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the 
Board with every possible complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and 
effort).  When I was told that the National SFPE organization told them to 
cease and desist such activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.

If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your 
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my 
statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do it 
off forum please.

FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long time.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell 
mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com>> wrote:

Note that I changed the subject.
I believe I’m offended now, my friend.
SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting the 
engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written and 
taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr. Scandaliato 
that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available for over 15 
years now. The class content is based upon the current edition of NFPA 13 and 
NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow tests; teaching 
them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump specifications; 
spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and why it isn’t just 
pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies direct from 
manufacturers at every class.
I can’t do much about hiring FPE’s, but can tell you that there are openings 
for about 300 FPE’s so there aren’t that many around to start with.
This class is open to, and attended by PE’s, sprinkler designers, and AHJ’s, 
and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and reviewing 
and how to do it.

Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD

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

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:33 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

And the SFPE blissfully (and intentionally) ignores this well known fact.  
That’s why I dropped my membership with them over a decade ago.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Sep 25, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote:

Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their engineers are plumbers 
with a copy of 13.

Todd G Williams, PE

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

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

RE: Re:ELIMINATION OF SPRINKLERS IN CLOSETS FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

[Pete Schwab]

I have to disagree with Steve on this one. The closets are less than 55 Sq Ft. 
Since the closet is separated most likely with drywall construction and with a 
1500 SQ FT design area, I am not at all concerned with a fire starting in a 
closet and growing to the point of overwhelming a system designed to 1500 SQ FT.
I would eliminate the sprinklers based on 23.4.4.7.2.
Just my opinion and not that of the NFPA or the SSD Committee.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 4:51 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Re:ELIMINATION OF SPRINKLERS IN CLOSETS FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

Yeah, already acknowledged that.

That’s …  not a sprinkler-friendly design, is it?Architects and developers 
always say, “We don’t need a fire protection consultant, we leave that to the 
installing contractor.”  How are these “closets” built?  Are they lockers (i.e. 
fixtures) or are they framed walls?I’m still not seeing how you can leave 
them out but looking for an angle here …

Steve

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of trilliumf...@cwisp.ca
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 1:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re:ELIMINATION OF SPRINKLERS IN CLOSETS FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

Did you read the original email. 10sqft. They are not 10x10. They are 2x5.

Sent from my Huawei Mobile


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: ELIMINATION OF SPRINKLERS IN CLOSETS FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
From: Steve Leyton
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
CC:

The math doesn’t add up – how would eliminating sprinklers for four 10’x10’ 
closets save 14 sprinklers in the DA?  Notwithstanding those metrics, these are 
not small clothes closets, they are repositories for people’s “stuff”.  You 
have a prevailing ordinary hazard with accessory miscellaneous storage for lack 
of a better classification.  I respectfully disagree that eliminating 
sprinklers is consistent with the intent of the reference section.   100 sq. 
ft. packed with camping gear and seasonal toys is a very different condition 
from an interior closet that might only be 15-25 sq. ft in area.

Steve Leyton

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Nick Maneen
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 9:05 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: ELIMINATION OF SPRINKLERS IN CLOSETS FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

If you are using the full design area, that is what that provision is for.  I’m 
referring to 23.4.4.7.2 in the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13.

Nick Maneen, SET
c 704.791.7789


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Trillium Fire Sprinkler Design Inc.
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 11:48 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: ELIMINATION OF SPRINKLERS IN CLOSETS FOR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS


I have a 3 story living condo.

There are 4 units which each have an open parking garage under the 2nd floor. 
Along the back wall are 4 (10sqft ) closets.

The engineer is asking for a dry system designed to .15/1950.

Just want to know what everyone's thoughts are about not including the 
sprinklers in these closets. Using the provision 23.4.4.6.2

It would allow me to eliminate 14 sprinklers from my calculation area.

Regards

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

RE: 13R Test and Drain Question

[Pete Schwab]

I will agree with Larry on the analysis of what is allowed. If we do not use a 
manifold with the built in test and drain but have the sawn sprinkler, then the 
official drain line is restricted by the sawn sprinkler. Of the thousands of 
NFPA 13R installations we do like this, we have been only questioned once or 
twice by the AHJ. The reality is that even through the orifice the system can 
be drained. There is not a time limitation on how fast the system needs to be 
drained.

This is my opinion and not that of the NFPA being on the RSS committee.

Pete

P.S. If you are going to attend the AFSA 37 in DC, please attend my class on 
NFPA 13R.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Larry Keeping
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 1:55 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: 13R Test and Drain Question

We can always agree to disagree. From my perspective:

-  6.10.2 says: The test connection pipe shall be at least 1 in. (25 
mm) nominal diameter and terminate in an orifice equal to or smaller than the 
same size as the smallest sprinkler installed in the system.
-  6.10.3 says: A valve shall be installed in the test connection 
piping.

And then:

-  6.10.4 says: When the drain required in 6.9.1 is arranged as a test 
connection (ie. as per the above), a separate test connection isn’t required.

When I read what is in the standard, I don’t see anything about a test port 
being taken off the drain line.

So, as I see, it if you configure your drain in accordance with 6.10.2 & 
6.10.3, the assembly can serve as both the drain and the test pipe.

Just my personal opinion.

Best regards,

Larry Keeping

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: September-20-18 11:47 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 13R Test and Drain Question

Larry, I’d disagree with that interpretation as the minimum drain size is 1 
inch. I believe that “connection” is the key word here asboth drains and test 
piers are not part of the system but attached to it. I think what’s being said 
is you can take the test port off of the drain line if properly configured 
rather than need a separate connection to the system.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:41 AM Larry Keeping 
mailto:lkeep...@plcfire.com>> wrote:
I would say that test pipe would do the job, based on what it says in 6.10.4:

6.10.4 When the drain required in 6.9.1 is arranged as a test connection, a 
separate test connection shall not be required.

Larry Keeping

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of James Litvak
Sent: September-20-18 11:00 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: 13R Test and Drain Question

On a 13R system, 6.9.2 specifies that the drain piping must be at least 1" 
nominal size. If a residential system riser has a 1" drain pipe to outside that 
has either a test valve with a 1/2" orifice or terminates at a broken sprinkler 
with a 1/2" orifice, does that drain piping still meet the requirements of 
6.9.2?
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Metal C Channel joist combusitble concealed

[Pete Schwab]

Greg
Are you asking if the combustible concealed sprinklers are acceptable for this 
scenario or are you trying to eliminate sprinklers in the space based on the 
metal C Channel joists. If the plywood is not FRT then this space requires 
protection unless it is less than 6" from top of channel to bottom of channel..
This is my opinion

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Parsley Consulting
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 4:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Metal C Channel joist combusitble concealed

Greg,

I believe your best opportunity is in 8.15.1.2.5 if you can convince yourself 
that the C-channel is equivalent to wood joist or other solid construction.   
However I'd be extra cautious in that assessment as you may be required to 
provide a minimum 3,000 ft² remote area per 11.2.3.1.5.1.

quick thoughts,
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the website
On 08/22/2018 1:00 PM, 
g...@genesisfireservices.com wrote:
Am I missing something or is there not an exception for protecting comb 
concealed spaces with Metal C Channel joists and plywood on the top and bottom?


Greg C. McGahan
Genesis Fire Services, LLC.
4187 Farrington Road
Milton, FL 32583
O - 850-637-8535
C - 850-712-9555





___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

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

RE: maximum sprinkler system sizes

[Pete Schwab]

I recommend that someone keep submitting a PI to increase the system size 
limitations. One cycle, the committee will go “hey” that is a great idea. I’ve 
seen it happen over the last 4 NFPA 13 cycles. Did I mention single point 
density…. DOH

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 1:37 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: maximum sprinkler system sizes

And the myth of 52K is OK, but 60K is too big, but two levels of 52K aren't too 
big so the myth persists. I'd agree that what we've done in the past has worked 
and that's a decent criterion for making a determination but it's also akin to 
saying I don't need sprinklers because I've never had a fire before. If the 
limitations are tied to the limitation of the pipe schedule then it stands to 
reason that with the near-universal use of hydraulic instead of pipe scheduling 
any numbers that are tied to that schedule may or may not be efficacious and 
new criteria may be appropriate.


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

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


On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:47 AM Larry Keeping 
mailto:lkeep...@plcfire.com>> wrote:
You might be interested to know that the NFPA 13 Installation TC considered a 
proposal 13-122 for larger system sizes in the ROP meeting for the development 
of NFPA 13-2010. The TC rejected that proposal and issued a committee statement:

“System size limits have a long and successful history that the committee is 
reluctant to change. The potential for much larger systems to be out of service 
during testing, inspections and maintenance events speaks against increasing 
system sizes.”

Larry Keeping

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: August-14-18 5:20 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: maximum sprinkler system sizes

I was recently discussing the max system size issue with a building official. 
In this specific application we are requesting that the AHJ allow us to use a 
60,000 square foot maximum size for ESFR systems in a big box warehouse.

I have commentary directly from FM (in addition to FM2-0) that says “The size 
of the sprinkler system is not expected to affect the effectiveness of the 
sprinkler system as long as the system is designed properly for the occupancy.”

The AHJ’s response was: “The system will work as well when the system is in 
operation, but when you turn it off for maintenance, there is a greater risk of 
fire since there is more area out of service.”

I had assumed that the greater system sizes result in equal system 
effectiveness on the whole – in the sense that there is no evidence that the 
greater system area causes more fire losses even when maintenance downtime is 
factored into the equation. I had even thought that perhaps system performance 
on the whole would be improved since there are fewer control valves in the 
building that could be left closed (when they should be open).

But, I have heard that “assuming” things can have negative consequences…

On that note, I wanted to reach out and see what insight anyone might offer on 
system performance related to system size. Do large sprinkler systems perform 
equally only when they are operating properly – or do they operate properly 
(and perform equally) just as well, historically, as smaller systems? Has 
larger system size ever been faulted as the cause of a loss?

Any insight/research/documentation would be great!

Thanks,

Matt

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

RE: Case 00201286: Differing k-factors [ ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013w8og:ref ]

[Pete Schwab]

Well I disagree with Mr. Hague and you can bet there will be a Public Input 
submitted to NFPA 13 for 2022

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D3C685.F2E302B0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 11:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: FW: Case 00201286: Differing k-factors [ 
ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013w8og:ref ]

As a follow up to my question last week, I sent a "technical question
request" to NFPA via their website. The question asked:
" Is it permissible to use K11.2 Ex Cov sprinklers in the same room as K5.6
standard coverage sprinklers, provided both have the same response rating
(QR in this example)?

Think a classroom with 4 ex cov sprinklers and a small alcove by the door
with a standard coverage sprinkler."

Below is the response that I received. If I read this correctly, the author
expressed the idea that in a scenario such as a classroom with 4 ex cov
sprinklers and 1 std cov sprinkler in the same room would not be acceptable.
Am I reading this correctly?


Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

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

-Original Message-
From: NFPA Systems mailto:techquessyst...@nfpa.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:12 AM
To: tm...@mfpdesign.com
Subject: Case 00201286: Differing k-factors [
ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013w8og:ref ]

Dear TRAVIS,

Thank you for contacting the National Fire Protection Association with your
question on NPFA 13-2016 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.


Section 23.4.4.9.2, 23.4.4.9.3 and 23.4.4.9.4 permit mixing of k-factors
only in very specific cases. They are; in separate enclosures or small
rooms, or when using residential sprinklers.

Important Notice: Any opinion expressed in this correspondence is the
personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the
official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this
correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, to provide
professional consultation or services.

I hope that I have answered any and all of your questions, please feel free
to contact me directly here with any additional questions or comments. Thank
you again for contacting NFPA.

David R. Hague P.E.
NFPA

If you have a follow up question directly related to this inquiry, please
reply to this e-mail. If you have another question on either a separate
topic or different document please return to the document information pages
and submit your new question by clicking on the "Technical Questions" tab.

Submitter's comment:
Is it permissible to use K11.2 Ex Cov sprinklers in the same room as K5.6
standard coverage sprinklers, provided both have the same response rating
(QR in this example)?

Think a classroom with 4 ex cov sprinklers and a small alcove by the door
with a standard coverage sprinkler.
ref:_00D5077Vx._5005013w8og:ref

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

RE: Mixing standard and quick response.

[Pete Schwab]

8.3.3.4




Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D3AEEA.52931EB0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 10:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Mixing standard and quick response.

So here’s the situation … We are replacing a large section of corroded
piping in the sanctuary of a church. In doing so we will be installing 156
new sprinklers. We have ordered quick response for this light hazard area.
However, there is an additional 90 sprinklers in this same compartment that
are standard response.



Did we order the wrong sprinklers, or do we now have to change out the 90
standard response with new quick response?



I can’t find a code reference to specifically address this situation.



We are in 2013 CODE.



John Irwin

Fire Sprinkler Specialist

DynaFire, Inc.

727-282-9243 – Cell



*“A customer is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not
dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption on our
work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outsider on our business. He is
a part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us
a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so.”*
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5038 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: 

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

RE: Shield for electrical equipment

[Pete Schwab]

This requirement has been removed in the 2019 edition.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01D39C31.0042BA60]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Shield for electrical equipment

Has anyone installed a hood/ shield for electrical equipment?  Can this be 
something as simple as a sheet metal pan that covers the width and depth?
Suggestions, pictures, or name calling would be appreciated.


Thank you,

Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
[cid:image003.jpg@01D39C31.0042BA60]

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

RE: Deflector Distance for Sprinklers in Skylights

[Pete Schwab]

Bruce
It was corrected in the 2016 edition. 8.5 applies to all types of sprinklers.


8.5.7 Skylights.
8.5.7.1 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from skylights
not exceeding 32 ft2 (3.0 m2) in area, regardless of hazard
classification, that are separated by at least 10 ft (3.0 m)
horizontally from any other unprotected skylight or unprotected
ceiling pocket.
8.5.7.1.1 When a sprinkler is installed directly beneath a skylight
not exceeding 32 ft2 (3.0 m2), the distance to the ceiling
shall be measured to the plane of the ceiling as if the skylight
was not present.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D3863C.10DC9E50]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 3:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Deflector Distance for Sprinklers in Skylights

I think the requirement for sprinkler heads in skylights is a part of the code 
that no one has corrected due to lack of interest.

When put in a skylight meant a set of glass windows at the top a light well. 
The light well is feet deep as it passes through the heavy wood truss roof 
structure. Think 1920’s buildings. The wainscoting type material separating the 
light well from the attic space has no effective fire resistance.

The skylight or smoke vent that is mounted on top of curbing, which in turn it 
mounted on top of the roof sheathing is entirely different, as far as fire 
spread.

Putting sprinklers in these skylights has no particular benefit.


Best.

Bruce Verhei

On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:09, Jerry Van Kolken 
mailto:jvankol...@mfpc.us>> wrote:
I have a project that will require sprinkler in the common bubble canopy 
skylights. What do I measure my deflector down from? The top of the bubble? Top 
of the window sill for the skylight?

Jerry Van Kolken
Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92058
(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730

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

RE: ESFR Calc Question - Obstructions

[Pete Schwab]

You calculate 12 only at the ceiling. Provided the branch line size is the same 
to any ESFR sprinklers under obstructions.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D38629.C0DA4EF0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 1:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: ESFR Calc Question - Obstructions


Only 12 are required in 2013.



Mike


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Kyle.Montgomery 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 1:18 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: ESFR Calc Question - Obstructions


Way back in the Dark Ages of Sprinkler Design (2010) when you had to add ESFR 
sprinklers under obstructions you were required to add the discharge for up to 
2 of them to your overhead calc, thus flowing 14 (12+2) sprinklers.



In 2013, the section requiring the two additional heads was removed (or was it 
just moved and I haven't found the new location?).



So... if I have one sprinkler dropping under an isolated obstruction, what is 
the proper way to size that drop? It is my understanding that I can replace the 
adjacent ceiling-level sprinkler with the head under the obstruction in the 
calculation, keeping a total of 12 sprinklers flowing (11 ceiling level + 1 
under obstruction). Does everyone agree, or am I missing something?



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

RE: Dry automatic standpipe without a pump

[Pete Schwab]

What is the height of the garage and what jurisdiction?

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D36DCE.AF203350]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sean Lockyer
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 1:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Dry automatic standpipe without a pump

Does anyone know if there has ever been a provision for allowing a dry 
automatic standpipe system to be hydraulically calculated in the same way a 
manual standpipe (wet or dry) would be with the pumper on the fire truck being 
used to provide 100 PSI at the most remote 2-1/2" hose outlet ?

I have a situation with an existing standpipe system in an unsprinkled garage 
that is coming off of a dry pipe valve, hence a dry automatic system. An 
adjacent garage is being built next door and we have to provide a verbatim type 
system. The issue is that it is not possible to prove 100 psi up at the top 
without either a fire pump (which there isn't) or a pumper on a fire truck.

After doing a few test calcs I believe that either there MAY be a future fire 
pump installed at the master site -or- the contractor that performed the 
earlier work either used the "pumper on the truck" reasoning to get theirs to 
work. However, that is not allowable by code and the local AHJ didn't catch it.

I have never seen a high rise garage with anything other than manual standpipes 
lack a fire pump. That's why the owner wants to use a manual standpipe in the 
first place.

Is there anything I am missing here ?

  Sean Lockyer
  Project Designer   4617 Parkbreeze 
Court
  Cell386-279-1197  Orlando, 
Florida 32808
  slock...@aitlifesafety.com 
 Phone:  407-816-9101
  www.AITLifeSafety.com  
 Fax: 407-816-9104
[cid:image002.jpg@01D36DCE.AF203350]

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

RE: Partially sprinklered buildings

[Pete Schwab]

Mechanical rooms for the tower……. How is that a “garage” / S2 occupancy?

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>

[cid:image002.jpg@01D36906.923ABE80]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Partially sprinklered buildings

Pete, I guess what I need to find is the definition for “Stand Alone” garage. 
Because the garage I am speaking about meets the following:

“A stand-alone parking garage constructed with noncombustible materials, the 
design of which is such that all levels of the garage are uniformly open to the 
atmosphere on all sides with percentages of openings as prescribed in the 
applicable building code, and which parking garage is separated from other 
structures by at least 20 feet, is exempt from the requirements of this 
subsection.”


This is what I found from the Florida Building Code:

[F]903.2.11.3Buildings three stories or more in height.
Any building which is of three stories or more in height shall be equipped with 
an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 
903.1.
Exceptions:


2. 2.A stand-alone parking garage constructed with noncombustible 
materials, the design of which is such that all levels of the garage are 
uniformly open to the atmosphere on all sides with the percentages of openings 
equal to or greater than those specified in Section 406.3. Such garages shall 
be separated from any other structure by not less than 20 feet (6096 mm). A 
stand-alone parking garage is one that is solely for the parking of vehicles 
and does not have any other occupancy group in the building.


I am not diagreeing with you but you know the client is going to say “but it’s 
a stand alone garage and we have met these requirements”. If I have code to 
back me up he’s less likely to think I am just jamming a thousand sprinklers 
down his throat to get more work … but I think it’s safe to say I have made my 
case.


John Irwin
DynaFire Inc.

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:07 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: Partially sprinklered buildings

John
I am assuming this is in Florida? If so, Florida Statute 553.895 will require 
this building to be sprinklered because it is NOT a stand alone garage.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>

[cid:image003.jpg@01D36906.923ABE80]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:55 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Partially sprinklered buildings

Are there any provisions for partially sprinklered buildings anymore? I am 
looking at a parking garage that meets the requirements for not needing 
sprinklers. (over 50% open and over 20’ away from the building). However the 
1st floor contains a munch of mechanical rooms for the main tower, as well as 
nearly 1/3 of the floor space being designated as “unit owner storage area”.

I believe there is no way to avoid putting sprinklers in this building. But I 
want to be certain before I tell my client this.

Anyone?

John Irwin


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

RE: Partially sprinklered buildings

[Pete Schwab]

John
I am assuming this is in Florida? If so, Florida Statute 553.895 will require 
this building to be sprinklered because it is NOT a stand alone garage.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D36849.C00E72B0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Partially sprinklered buildings

Are there any provisions for partially sprinklered buildings anymore? I am 
looking at a parking garage that meets the requirements for not needing 
sprinklers. (over 50% open and over 20’ away from the building). However the 
1st floor contains a munch of mechanical rooms for the main tower, as well as 
nearly 1/3 of the floor space being designated as “unit owner storage area”.

I believe there is no way to avoid putting sprinklers in this building. But I 
want to be certain before I tell my client this.

Anyone?

John Irwin


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

RE: [EXTERNAL] Interesting issue .. residential sprinklers ..

[Pete Schwab]

Remember, if the room/compartment is 800 Sq Ft or less, you can average the 
spacing of the residential sprinkler(s) over the room. It will not be starting 
at 67 PSI.


[cid:image001.png@01D362B1.78DAB950]

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01D362B1.78DAB950]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Interesting issue .. residential sprinklers ..

If you are truly 20x20, then you are looking at 67 psi with the 4.9 vs 13 psi 
with something like a Tyco EC-11. Do you have enough pressure where 50 psi is 
of no issue?
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 21, 2017, at 7:46 AM, John Irwin 
mailto:john.ir...@dynafire.com>> wrote:
Yes. That’s an option as well. I have a pump so I am not terribly worried about 
the demand. However the difference in price between a residential pendent and 
something like a Tyco EC-5 is over $10. And I’m looking at over 1,000 of these 
buggers.

John Irwin
DynaFire Inc.

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:44 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Interesting issue .. residential sprinklers ..

Residential sprinklers are “permitted” in dwelling units, not “required”, 
right? Couldn’t you use any one of a number of commercial QR extended coverage 
sprinklers?

That might mess you up if you are trying to do a 4-sprinklers residential calc… 
or it could help because you could get a larger K-factor and lower starting 
pressure for 20x20.

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:27 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Interesting issue .. residential sprinklers ..

I am working on a project with a lot of 20x20 rooms in dwelling units. I have a 
concrete deck so my piping will be exposed. I am trying to find a 20x20 
solutions but keep running in to road blocks. Maybe someone has an idea.

The way I see it, I need one of the following …


I need a residential pendent sprinkler that can be installed with a deflector 
distance from the deck greater than allowed by NFPA 13 OR I need a residential 
UPRIGHT sprinkler listed for 20x20 spacing OR I need a listed hanger attachment 
that will allow me to install 1" branch piping tight to a concrete deck.



And go.


John Irwin
DynaFire, Inc.


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

RE: FDC sizing on wet automatic standpipes

[Pete Schwab]

NFPA 14 requires that the piping to the FDC be sized to supply the system 
demand for manual and automatic standpipes. 7.7.1 is pretty clear and does not 
delineate between automatic or manual. Also see the 2016 edition section 
A.7.10.1.2. Just my opinion and not that of NFPA.

7.7 System Design and Sizing of Pipe for Delivery of System
Demand.
7.7.1 Class I and Class III standpipe systems shall be designed
so that the system demand can be supplied by each fire department
connection, which is provided in accordance with Section
7.12.
7.7.2* Where an automatic or semiautomatic water supply is
required for a Class I, II, or III standpipe system by Section 5.4,
the standpipe system shall be designed so that the system demand
can be independently supplied by the attached water
supply and each fire department connection provided on the
system.
7.7.3 Where a manual system is permitted by Section 5.4 and
an attached water supply is provided to supply an automatic
sprinkler system or to maintain water in a wet system, the attached
water supply shall not be required to satisfy the standpipe
system demand.
7.7.4 When the system demand to be supplied by the fire
department at the fire department connection is being determined,
the local fire department shall be consulted regarding
the water supply available from a fire department pumper.


When performing a hydraulic design, the hydraulic characteristics
of each water supply need to be known. The procedure
for determining the hydraulic characteristics of permanent
water supplies, such as pumps, is fairly straightforward and is
described in NFPA 20. The procedure for determining the
hydraulic characteristics of fire apparatus supplying a standpipe
system are similar. Lacking better information about local fire
apparatus, a conservative design would accommodate a
1000 gpm (3785 L/min) fire department pumper performing
at the level of design specifications set forth in NFPA 1901.
NFPA 1901 specifies that fire department pumpers must be
able to achieve three pressure/flow combinations. These are
100 percent of rated capacity at 150 psi (1034 kPa) net pump
pressure, 70 percent of rated capacity at 200 psi (1379 kPa) net
pump pressure, and 50 percent of rated capacity at 250 psi
(1724 kPa) net pump pressure. Therefore, a 1000 gpm
(3785 L/min) pumper can be expected to deliver no less than
1000 gpm (3785 L/min) at 150 psi (1034 kPa), 700 gpm
(2650 L/min) at 200 psi (1379 kPa), and 500 gpm (1893 L/
min) at 250 psi (1724 kPa). Residual supply pressure on the
suction side of a pump from a municipal or other pressurized
water supply can also be added. The 150 psi (1034 kPa) suggested
pressure is also found in NFPA 13E. It also states that this is
the pressure to be provided unless the sign at the fire department
connection states otherwise. It is not the intent of this
standard to limit the maximum pumper pressure at the fire
department connection inlet for manual or automatic standpipes
to 150 psi (1034 kPa).

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image003.jpg@01D36139.F8954A80]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FDC sizing on wet automatic standpipes

Yeah, what Travis said.   Everyone should remember that FDC configurations and 
sizing take into account the chance that there may be obstruction or damage to 
an inlet, so providing four is not based on hydraulics only.As for the pipe 
sizing … I have less energy about that and if it calc’s then it should be 
adequate.   But (and as per my usual rap)...

IT’S UP TO THE AHJ.

The foregoing is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA





From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:03 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FDC sizing on wet automatic standpipes

I don’t believe it matters what the building serves.  It is an automatic 
standpipe.  I don’t see in Chapter 7 of NFPA 14 2013 that says the FDC inlet 
shall be based on 250 gpm per inlet only if it is a manual standpipe.  I don’t 
see where you have to calculate through the FDC.  You may be able to use 4”, 
but you will still need 4 inlets.  I think that seems quite odd and would 
probably try to run it as 6” as a good practice.  However, I can’t see anything 
requiring the size of the piping to be any minimum.


[cid:image005.jpg@01D36139.203C2

RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

[Pete Schwab]

This was changed in NFPA 13 I believe for the 2019 edition. Or it was NFPA 14. 
Not sure but I do recall it changing because it made no sense if you 
hydraulically calculated it

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D3226B.AA3FCF70]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Colin Carew (Cambridge)
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

But what is everyone's opinion on the control assembly for the sprinkler feed 
being the same size ( 2.5" Hose valve )

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: August-31-17 1:20 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

The figures that are shown for this section [A.8.17.5.2.2(a) and (b)] show your 
classic combination standpipe, though. That's what is confusing me. I've always 
thought of "inside hose" or "hose connections supplied by a sprinkler system" 
as being differentiated from standpipe connections because they are DOWNSTREAM 
of the system control valve (is that correct?). It seems like the handbook is 
saying you need to add a hose allowance (like 50 or 100 GPM) at the hose valve 
connection for this scenario (classic combo standpipe shown in figure) as well 
as for small "inside" hose connections.

What am I missing?

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:22 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

Yes, for hose connections that are supplied by a sprinkler system. Adding the 
flow at the available pressure makes get an allowance as opposed to having to 
balance the flows and pressures the way you would for added rack demand.  
However, hose connections supplied by a sprinkler system are most assuredly not 
standpipes.

My opinion only ...

Steve


 Original message 
From: "Kyle.Montgomery" 
mailto:kmontgom...@aerofire.com>>
Date: 8/31/17 8:21 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

I read the handbook commentary for 8.17.5.2, and now I'm confused again:

"When either one of the hose connections described in 8.17.5 is provided, the 
flow rates need only be added to the sprinkler system at the design pressure 
available at the point of connection to the sprinkler system pipe."

Is this not referring to a hose stream allowance?

Also, can anyone comment on Colin's original question? (Sorry for hi-jacking 
your thread)

-Kyle M

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:19 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

This has been my understanding as well. I wonder why more people don't do it 
this way?

I've done it myself one time. But usually am met with a lot of skepticism in 
the form of "well, if this is acceptable, why doesn't everyone do it that way?"

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:01 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

Right.  Basically, if you're flowing an attack stream from the SP, you don't 
need the sprinklers.  If the sprinklers are working, you don't need attack 
stream from the SP.   Inside hose allowance is for hose connections to 
sprinkler systems, which by definition are not standpipes.  Where you need to 
add the HSA is if you have a common water supply to hydrants and the system in 
question, i.e. outside hose.   This is all pretty well spelled out in NFPA 13, 
2016 ed., §11.1.6.3.1 and §11.1.6.4.

SML

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of tm...@mfpdesign.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:54 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 8.17.5.2.2(1)

Aren't they treated as separate calculations.  Just as site fire flow is not 
added to the fire sprinkler system.  That is how I was taught.  Actually, I 
think it was Steve L that beat that into my head long ago.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.

RE: Hose Valves at Horizontal Exits

[Pete Schwab]

Steve makes a good point. Look at the 2016 edition annex figure. The one in the 
2013 edition is wrong.

The foregoing is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard.


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D320CB.52BC2BF0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 1:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Hose Valves at Horizontal Exits

Each side is evaluated independently of the other, so in order to omit both 
valves you need two conforming stairs, one on each side of the fire area 
separation wall.   Also, be sure to carefully review Fig. A.7.3.2.2.1 (NFPA 14, 
2016 ed.) as it gives a clear illustration of the intent of this exception.   
If you have a stairwell standpipe connection that enables you to reach the 
entire floor on one side of a horizontal exit within the 130' threshold, then 
you can omit the valve on the OTHER side of the exit (the one in the adjacent 
fire area).

The foregoing is my opinion only and is not intended to represent the NFPA 14 
Technical Committee, nor serve as an interpretation of the standard.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting
San Diego, CA





From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:27 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Hose Valves at Horizontal Exits

IFC 905.4 states that hose connections shall be provided on each side of the 
wall adjacent to horizontal exits, except where there is an exit stairway 
located within 130 feet (100' of hose + 30' of stream).

In order to omit hose connections from both sides of the horizontal exit, am I 
required to have two exit stairs (one in each fire area) located within 130 
feet of the horizontal exit, reachable from both sides? Or is any one exit 
stairway within 130 feet of the horizontal exit OK?

Kyle Montgomery
 [cid:image002.png@01D320CB.52BC2BF0]
Aero Automatic Sprinkler Co.
21605 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85024
Direct: 623.580.7820
Cell: 602.763.4736
kmontgom...@aerofire.com


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

RE: Parking under 13R system

[Pete Schwab]

Dick
I have to disagree with you. If there is a residential occupancy in a building, 
a sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the building.
Pete


903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided
throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D320AC.ABB2EC90]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Dick Culver
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Parking under 13R system

I have not seen this put out there.  Does the parking area meet the definition 
of an "open" parking structure in accordance with NFPA 88A, if so NFPA 101, 
NFPA 1 and IBC do not require protection under apartment buildings.  The 
architect has to maintain the proper horizontal separation.

Dick

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 6:55 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Parking under 13R system

For whatever it's worth, we anticipated this in California and made amendments 
to NFPA 13D and also the building code that address open carports with living 
space above. Obviously, the requirement is to furnish sprinklers.


Steve


 Original message 
From: Rocci Cetani 3 mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>
Date: 8/28/17 4:35 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Parking under 13R system

The problem is there is no definition for carport so it leave it open to 
personal interpretation.. I did a quick search and most of the  definitions 
I can find  say this or something similar  "a shelter for a car consisting of a 
roof supported on posts, built beside a house".  I always think of carports as 
covered parking usually in front of the building. I wouldn't feel comfortable 
omitting sprinklers from a parking area below an occupied multi-tenant space.

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

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
www.norcalfire.com

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

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Parking under 13R system

Rocco,

But could it fall under the definition of a carport and be excluded per 6.6.5?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)

On Aug 28, 2017 at 9:25 AM, mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>> 
wrote:
Since its doesn't fall under the definition of garages per 7.3.2 you are 
directed to 7.2. We had this situation a few months ago on a project and 
protected it per NFPA 13 OH 1 for parking garages.

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

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
www.norcalfire.com

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

RE: Parking under 13R system

[Pete Schwab]

A definition of carport that mirrors the IBC will be added to the 2019 edition 
of NFPA 13R. (Barring any doubtful NITMAM).

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D3201B.E4EADF40]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Rocci Cetani 3
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Parking under 13R system

The problem is there is no definition for carport so it leave it open to 
personal interpretation…… I did a quick search and most of the  definitions I 
can find  say this or something similar  “a shelter for a car consisting of a 
roof supported on posts, built beside a house”.  I always think of carports as 
covered parking usually in front of the building. I wouldn’t feel comfortable 
omitting sprinklers from a parking area below an occupied multi-tenant space.

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

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
www.norcalfire.com

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

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Parking under 13R system

Rocco,

But could it fall under the definition of a carport and be excluded per 6.6.5?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)


On Aug 28, 2017 at 9:25 AM, mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>> 
wrote:
Since its doesn’t fall under the definition of garages per 7.3.2 you are 
directed to 7.2. We had this situation a few months ago on a project and 
protected it per NFPA 13 OH 1 for parking garages.

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

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
www.norcalfire.com

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

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 3:30 AM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Parking under 13R system

I am looking at a 3 story apartment building that is going to be protected by a 
13R system. Under one wing, the main level will be open for parking with 2 
floors of apartments above. 13R addresses garages but not open (on 2 sides) 
parking areas. A number of years ago, I did a similar arrangement, but it was a 
13 system and the space was protected by a dry system. Thought on if sprinklers 
are required?

I know there was a thread or 2 about this, but only found the one about 
sprinklers under train tracks.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)
___ Sprinklerforum mailing list 
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Light Hazaed areas in NFPA 13R Building

[Pete Schwab]

Unfortunately that was the old way of looking at things. Check the annex (A.1) 
for NFPA 13R 2016 edition and the 2nd draft report of the 2019 edition of NFPA 
13R. This light hazard area you refer to is it incidental to the residential 
occupancy? (10% or less of the floors area). If it exceeds 10% then it will 
need to be separated accordingly by the building code. The type of system in 
that occupancy will be based on the occupancy and the system may or may not be 
a 13 system for that occupancy and 13R for the residential. (IE: assembly 
verses business has differing thresholds). If a 13 system is needed for that 
occupancy then that calculation will need hose demand added.
Pete

Just my opinion and not that of the NFPA or technical committees

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image003.jpg@01D31DA3.F745AE10]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 10:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Light Hazaed areas in NFPA 13R Building

I'm traveling, phone in pocket, leave me out of it, I'm on vacation.

Steve


 Original message 
From: "Reed A. Roisum, SET" mailto:raroi...@kfi-eng.com>>
Date: 8/21/17 3:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Light Hazaed areas in NFPA 13R Building

Good point Steve.  One of your most eloquent. :)


Reed A. Roisum, SET | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Senior Fire Protection 
Designer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9903 | mobile: 701.388.1352 | 
KFIengineers.com
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 1:58 PM
To: tm...@mfpdesign.com; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Light Hazaed areas in NFPA 13R Building





Steve


 Original message 
From: "Travis Mack; MFP Design, LLC" 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Date: 8/21/17 1:07 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Light Hazaed areas in NFPA 13R Building

Unless you are coming from a tank/pump, I always include it at the city main 
when the layout is as you describe.  That may be overly conservative.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

**PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS**


__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit 
http://www.symanteccloud.com
__
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

[Pete Schwab]

Roland,
I do not remember anything on this other than research on sloped ceilings in 
storage with deflector orientation.
Either way comments are closed
Pete

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

Pete

I thought something was submitted or the 2019 addressing ceiling weight and 
restricting upwards lift.  Ring any bells?


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org<http://www.firesprinkler.org/>

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives



On May 10, 2017, at 6:39 AM, Pete Schwab 
mailto:pe...@waynefire.com>> wrote:

My concern would be what is the ceiling constructed of. If it is an acoustical 
tile ceiling with no clips I would be concerned with the velocity of the fire 
plume popping tiles before operating a sprinkler.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>



I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Denhardt
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:02 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

Confirmed - light hazard.

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection

On May 10, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Richard Carr 
mailto:rc...@coxfire.com>> wrote:
Yes, unused attic is light hazard but you are limited on head spacing.

Richard Carr, SET
Branch Manager
Cox Fire Protection, Inc
6555 Grace Lane.
Jacksonville, Fl. 32205
rc...@coxfire.com<mailto:rc...@coxfire.com>
904-781-8227

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Stossel
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:11 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

I am currently working on an old wood building that my client wants to use for 
rack storage.  The building has a sloped roof that exceeds the allowable pitch 
so they will be installing a dropped ceiling to create the flat surface.  The 
area above the ceiling will now be a combustible concealed space that needs 
protection.  Nothing will be stored above the ceiling, would the area above the 
ceiling be considered light hazard?  From everything that I can find, I believe 
it would be, but I would appreciate the forums input.

Thanks,

Mike Stossel SET

36 Barren Road
East Stroudsburg, PA 18302
Office: 973-670-2627
m...@knssprinkler.com<mailto:m...@knssprinkler.com>

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

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

RE: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

[Pete Schwab]

My concern would be what is the ceiling constructed of. If it is an acoustical 
tile ceiling with no clips I would be concerned with the velocity of the fire 
plume popping tiles before operating a sprinkler.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image003.jpg@01D2C971.55700DA0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Denhardt
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

Confirmed - light hazard.

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection

On May 10, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Richard Carr 
mailto:rc...@coxfire.com>> wrote:
Yes, unused attic is light hazard but you are limited on head spacing.

Richard Carr, SET
Branch Manager
Cox Fire Protection, Inc
6555 Grace Lane.
Jacksonville, Fl. 32205
rc...@coxfire.com
904-781-8227

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Stossel
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:11 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sloped Roof in ESFR system

I am currently working on an old wood building that my client wants to use for 
rack storage.  The building has a sloped roof that exceeds the allowable pitch 
so they will be installing a dropped ceiling to create the flat surface.  The 
area above the ceiling will now be a combustible concealed space that needs 
protection.  Nothing will be stored above the ceiling, would the area above the 
ceiling be considered light hazard?  From everything that I can find, I believe 
it would be, but I would appreciate the forums input.

Thanks,

Mike Stossel SET

36 Barren Road
East Stroudsburg, PA 18302
Office: 973-670-2627
m...@knssprinkler.com

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

RE: special inspections

[Pete Schwab]

Steve
I agree. What we see is that eventually they upset the wrong developer with 
friends in high places.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>

[cid:image001.jpg@01D2C7ED.338ED160]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 11:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: special inspections

To the AHJ’s comment that you’ll do it his way or else, I would offer (and I 
disclaim this opinion as even remotely expert with regard to the laws in other 
states) that the AHJ is wrong if the implication is that he or she can just 
arbitrarily throw out requirements as it suits them.  Codes are adopted by 
states and imposed by a code of regulations.  These codes are used by 
municipalities on a statutory basis, so amending them or creating more 
restrictive policies requires an ordinance.  If the city doesn’t have a 
published policy for this special inspection or any of these other practices, I 
would proffer that it’s not legal in that city for them to drop the hammer 
without due process.   They  need to publish at least a policy bulletin (that 
precedes the date of your submittal) with these requirements in order to ordain 
them.

You can appeal this to the fire chief, senior building official, city manager 
or mayor’s office (depending on form of government) and you might very well 
win.  But of course you’ll have started a war that we all find that we end up 
losing ...

MY OPINION ONLY,

Steve L.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 6:25 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: special inspections

Sorry I don't have one. This has never been required. The city form we were 
instructed to use has nothing about this either.

This ahj has not done this in the past. He also had some other comments that 
were unusual. When we called about these, his answer was "I'm the ahj. I 
require it my way. You will comply or no permit."

At that point you know you are going to lose every battle.
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692<https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692>
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign>

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Triolo, Joe 
mailto:jtri...@hudsonnh.gov>> wrote:
I think it’s a good idea,  Travis do you have a copy you could send me?  Thanks

Joe Triolo

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 8:32 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: special inspections

Travis
I wish more AHJ’s would require this. Then we might see GC’s opt to go with 
Interstitial Sprinklers instead.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>



I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:09 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: special inspections


Has anyone run into a case where the AHJ requires a special inspection form 
filled for when the interstitial space is filled entirely with non-combustible 
insulation?

It is fairly common in this area for Type V construction multi-family projects 
to have the interstitial spaces, and sometimes flat attic spaces, to be filled 
entirely with non-combustible insulation in lieu of providing fire sprinklers 
in the area.  However, we have one local AHJ that is mandating this is a 
condition that requires a special inspection form.  It's a done deal because he 
flat out stated that it is our way and this is how it will be.  I just wonder 
if anyone else has run into this.  We are in the process of investigating what 
all is required.  It seems that we will need a professional engineer to go out 
and sign off that all insulation is filling the cavity entirely.


--

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

2508 E Lodgepole Drive

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com>



http

RE: special inspections

[Pete Schwab]

Travis
I wish more AHJ’s would require this. Then we might see GC’s opt to go with 
Interstitial Sprinklers instead.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D2C7D5.989F3DA0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: special inspections


Has anyone run into a case where the AHJ requires a special inspection form 
filled for when the interstitial space is filled entirely with non-combustible 
insulation?

It is fairly common in this area for Type V construction multi-family projects 
to have the interstitial spaces, and sometimes flat attic spaces, to be filled 
entirely with non-combustible insulation in lieu of providing fire sprinklers 
in the area.  However, we have one local AHJ that is mandating this is a 
condition that requires a special inspection form.  It's a done deal because he 
flat out stated that it is our way and this is how it will be.  I just wonder 
if anyone else has run into this.  We are in the process of investigating what 
all is required.  It seems that we will need a professional engineer to go out 
and sign off that all insulation is filling the cavity entirely.



--

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

2508 E Lodgepole Drive

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

email:tm...@mfpdesign.com



http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack


[http://static.avast.com/emails/avg-mail-stamp.png]


This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



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

Roadway Boxes

[Pete Schwab]

I recall seeing a roadway valve box that was able to be tampered. Does anyone 
have this submittal data or link to it?


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D2C345.B80D3A00]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



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

RE: Sprinkler Protection on Balconies

[Pete Schwab]

Here is the link to the Declaratory Statements

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/SFM/BFP/DeclaratoryStatementSummeries.htm#.U009VKVOX0M


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>

[cid:image002.jpg@01D2BA8F.045F4D90]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 10:56 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Protection on Balconies

Pete, as always, your input is appreciated. One of the things I liked best 
about working for your company (way back when) was having you as a quick 
resource. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I don't know where to search for these Declaratory statements. I always do a 
fair amount of my own research before I send out for help.

I don't disagree with your latter statement but question whether a grill or 
cooktop would be classified as "cooking facilities".  For that matter, how is a 
permanent grill mounted in to a counter different from a portable grill that a 
resident on one of the lower floors might place on a balcony.

I believe my answer to the client will be that I can find no requirement to 
provide fire sprinklers on the penthouse balconies.

John Irwin - CET
Division Manager - Fire Sprinklers
Critical System Solutions, LLC
Licence Number: FPC16-53
Cell: 813.618.2781
Email:  
jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com<mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com>

[cid:image003.png@01D2BA8F.045F4D90]

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 10:47 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Protection on Balconies

John
I am going to have to start charging for my research. Here is a Declaratory 
statement for what you are asking minus the outdoor kitchens. If there is going 
to be a kitchen, I would say there will be cooking facilities and then in my 
opinion sprinklers would be required.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com<http://www.waynefire.com/>

[cid:image004.jpg@01D2BA8F.045F4D90]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:20 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Sprinkler Protection on Balconies

High-rise Condo Building. Non-combustible construction.  I refer to 8.15.7.1 
which points me to 8.15.7.2. If I meet the requirements of 8.15.7.2, can I stop 
reading and omit the sprinklers on the balcony? Specifically, the penthouse 
level balconies have outdoor kitchens. It's been questioned whether or not 
these are required to be protected. I can't find anything in NFPA 101, the 
Florida Fire Prevention Code or the Florida Building Code that would be more 
restrictive than 8.15.7.2

I say the sprinkler protection is not required, outdoor kitchen or not.

Comments?

[cid:image005.jpg@01D2BA8F.045F4D90]


John Irwin - CET
Division Manager - Fire Sprinklers
Critical System Solutions, LLC
License Number: FPC16-53
2830 Scherer Drive, Suite 300
St. Petersburg, FL  33716
Office: 727.209.5122
Fax:  727.209.5126
Cell: 813.618.2781
Email:  
jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com<mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com>




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

RE: Covered Restaurant Seating Area

[Pete Schwab]

Steve is spot on.
See committee statement below.

[cid:image001.png@01D2B786.0BE9D460]

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01D2B786.0BE9D460]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Covered Restaurant Seating Area

Often, we try to read the standards backwards. The way that NFPA 13 is written, 
it requires sprinklers everywhere. What the client is hopeful of is an 
exception but I'm pretty sure they are not going to find one for this 
particular application.  If I'm taking the contrary point of view, I would say 
that instead of looking for a section  that requires sprinklers here or there,  
show me where it says I don't have to put sprinklers over this occupied area 
that is part of the use of the protected premises.


Steve Leyton




 Original message 
From: John Irwin 
mailto:jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com>>
Date: 4/17/17 4:11 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Covered Restaurant Seating Area

Here's the situation. Existing restaurant seating area covered by steel frame 
and vinyl or nylon tarp. 100% open. Protected with sprinklers.

Additional covered seating area being added that will be steel frame but 
insulated aluminum panel roof. 100% open.

Client doesn't believe sprinklers are required and wants the existing 
sprinklers under the vinyl canopy removed.

Can someone direct me to code references?


John Irwin
Division Manager - Fire Sprinklers
Critical System Solutions, LLC
License Number: FPC16-53
2830 Scherer Drive, Suite 300
St. Petersburg, FL  33716
Office: 727.209.5122
Fax:  727.209.5126
Cell: 813.618.2781
Email:  
jir...@criticalsystemsolutions.com



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

RE: Exterior projection 45 degree angle figure 8.15.7

[Pete Schwab]

For the 2019 edition of NFPA 13, this annex language has been removed from the 
standard. (First Draft). First of all it was simply that, annex. In that detail 
it showed dimensional requirements which is also not what the annex is intended 
for. Finally, the installation of a dry pendent sprinkler at a 45 degree angle 
is outside the listing of the sprinkler. There are other options available such 
as soffits, using interior walls and Victaulic now offers the flexible dry 
sprinkler.
This is simply my opinion and does not represent the opinion of the NFPA, its 
committees, etc.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image003.jpg@01D2B458.1F22ECF0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:51 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Exterior projection 45 degree angle figure 8.15.7

Ok, you asked for thoughts. Here are some.

Passing through a wall on an angle is probably the least desirable path any 
installer would want to do. It is more difficult to do and brings up detail 
issues. In this case it makes the dry barrel longer, for which the contractor 
is paying by the inch.

The reason this contractor wants to do this is most likely because the ceiling 
is not low enough on the interior heated side and the architecture is not 
providing a soffit to conceal the interior piping that needs to drop below the 
ceiling to make for a horizontal sidewall installed in its typical listed 
setup. Coming in on an angle from above the ceiling is a physical solution. 
NFPA 13 shows a sketch of a similar situation deemed “Ok” where it is 
understood a compromise is going on due to circumstances.

Obviously NFPA 13 cannot possibly provide a “rule” for every situation despite 
what Architects are thinking when they ask, “Well, what does NFPA 13 say about 
that?”. It is natural to interpolate similar installation standards to come up 
with plausible solutions. I would say you have one here. It could be argued the 
walls in this unheated closet make for more favorable control situation than 
the open loading dock situation. The sprinkler would be activating way sooner 
than what it is normally permitted to do. Furthermore, no water escapes the 
hazard area. Consider a sprinkler installed somewhere near the top of a 
telephone booth. Would it really matter much what sprinkler it was and how it 
was installed?

Another issue is one of picking your battles. Perhaps you are the plan 
reviewer. Your role requires you to make judgments for a purpose that is 
inherently impossible because the world is rarely perfect. That task has got to 
be more difficult when it becomes an adversarial position to the sprinkler 
contractor, the builder, the Architect and the owner.

The dry barrel length, as already mentioned, the wall penetration details, the 
sprinkler's temperature rating, and a sprinkler guard might be the factors to 
look at.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO


> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Zachary Siegrist 
> mailto:zachary.siegr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I have a contractor submitting a detail to protect unheated storage closets 
> off the balcony ( minimal in size) with a dry pendant extending down at a 45 
> degree angle as shown in figure 8.15.7 in the 2013 edition. My take is that 
> this section applies to exterior projections including roofs, canopies, 
> balconies, and other like projections and this section does not apply to a 
> room. Thoughts?
>
> Zach
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

RE: Balancing rack and ceiling systems - different types

[Pete Schwab]

I recommend reading the PI’s for the 2019 edition in regards to balancing and 
rack sprinklers. Also, if it is an FM project check their guidelines.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 6:55 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Balancing rack and ceiling systems - different types

I don't recall anything in the standard against it. I admit I have never seen 
it.
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 11, 2017, at 3:40 PM, fpdcdes...@gmail.com 
wrote:
That was my initial thought, but I want to be sure there is not going to be an 
issue with  mixing wet ceiling and double interlock pre-action rack systems.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)



On Apr 11, 2017 at 6:36 PM, mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>> wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you just have a rack system with a separate 
riser.  Flow the rack and overhead sprinklers and let the computer balance at 
the common junction point, wherever that is.

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

2508 E Lodgepole Drive

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

email:tm...@mfpdesign.com



http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

LinkedIn: 
https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
On 4/11/2017 3:35 PM, fpdcdes...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been asked to look at a location which has 2 rack levels of pallets 
storage over garage doors in a loading dock area (existing). The rack 
sprinklers are presently fed from the existing wet ceiling system. Due to 
freeze ups and mechanical damage issues, they would like to feed to rack 
sprinklers from an adjacent pre-action system. Is there any issue with this and 
how would I handle the hydraulic calculations?

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)




___

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

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

RE: NFPA 13 dry system - residential sprinklers

[Pete Schwab]

Ken
Even though an earlier edition governs, standard of care from a liability issue 
would dictate not ignoring the 15 second requirement.
Just my opinion
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D2AF15.7C33F6C0]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 12:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA 13 dry system - residential sprinklers

Remember friends that the text Travis quoted was added in the 2010 edition of 
-13.  Dewayne's inquiry began with a note that his project was governed by the 
2007.  Still, the value for dry system water delivery time of 15 seconds for 
residential occupancies was the first item in Table 7.2.3.6.1.
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit our website
On 04/06/2017 8:36 AM, Travis Mack, SET wrote:

It can be R or I occupancy.  It doesn't matter.  It is the fact you are 
protecting a dwelling unit with a dry pipe system.

7.2.3.6.3 For dry pipe systems protecting dwelling unit portions of any 
occupancy, the sprinklers in the dwelling unit shall have a maximum water 
delivery time of 15 seconds to the
single most remote sprinkler.

It seems like you have 15 seconds regardless.  Now, if you have a dry pipe 
valve on the first floor and I believe you said these were on the 5th floor, it 
seems quite unlikely you will get 15 seconds.  My suggestion is to find a way 
to supply these sprinklers in the dwelling units from a wet pipe system.

Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

2508 E Lodgepole Drive

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

email:tm...@mfpdesign.com



http://www.mfpdesign.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
On 4/6/2017 8:16 AM, Dewayne Martinez wrote:
That was one of my concerns also. R-2 floor occupancy, calculating it per light 
hazard but using residential heads.  If the R-2 occupancy is what would dictate 
the 15sec delivery time then it wouldn't matter what type of heads I used in 
the residential areas.

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 8:58 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: NFPA 13 dry system - residential sprinklers

Double check delivery times. I think you need a 15 second delivery time in 
residential areas.
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Dewayne Martinez 
mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com>> wrote:
The dry portion below the attic was laid out at max 15x15 spacing with the
lines at 15ft above the floor.  The way the rooms layout there are long
runs with 8ft ceilings so I was going to drop down once to feed all these
rooms with one line but I still need to size it.  This reviewer will still
make us calculate the residential build out portion.  I can get by with a
1 1/4" line calculating  4 heads.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Phillips [mailto:markphill...@webolton.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 8:17 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: dmarti...@total-mechanical.com
Subject: Re: NFPA 13 dry system - residential sprinklers

If I'm understanding
The roof system is unchanged and your adding a lower supply to be rooms.

Use standard qr heads and same pipe sizes

The roof is still most demanding

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
On Apr 6, 2017 9:14 AM, Dewayne Martinez 
mailto:dmarti...@total-mechanical.com>>
wrote:
NFPA 13 (07ed)

I have an existing 5th floor shell space that is installed as a light
hazard dry system that has pipe in the shell space and in the attic.  They
are turning this floor into a dormitory (R-2).
1)Can I use listed residential heads on return bends and only pick up 4
heads per 11.3.1.1 or will I need to pick up 1950SF?  What if there are
incidental areas such as a laundry room, ect. in the same areas as the
dorm rooms?
2)What would be the required trip time be per Table 7.2.3.6.1?  15sec for
residential or 60sec for light hazard?

Thanks,
Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager

TOTAL Mechanical
B

RE: OBC, FBC, IBC / Standpipe Requirements

[Pete Schwab]

Bill
Manual standpipes are still allowed in the State of Florida in non-high rise 
buildings.
See Florida Statute 553.895. In Florida the hierarchy is Statute, Rule, Code 
and lastly Standards.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0500-0599/0553/Sections/0553.895.html

Also, in a parking garage, you can have a manual standpipe up to 150’-0”.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D2A3C8.9641FF60]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 11:20 AM
To: sprinklerforum
Subject: OBC, FBC, IBC / Standpipe Requirements

My experience has been mainly in Ohio and Florida.  Over the years, it seems 
the standpipe requirements have been constantly changing and confusing 
regarding the pressure requirements (100psi, 65 psi, etc.) and the allowance of 
'Manual' standpipes.  Here in Florida, the latest FBC has dropped the exception 
to allow manual wet standpipe in fully sprinklered buildings less than 75' in 
height.  The current OBC also does not allow this exception. I assume this is 
due to the adoption of IBC.

This means that almost every building that requires a standpipe, will also 
require a fire pump.

In asking around, it seems that many people in the industry and AHJ's are 
either unaware of or ignore this.

My question is, what is your experience / understanding of this?
Thanks

Bill Menster
WFM Consulting Inc.
2416 Malaya Ct.
Punta Gorda, FL 33983
ph. 941-421-9786
fax 941-391-6133
wmens...@comcast.net
www.wfmconsultinginc.com

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

RE: Storage <12'

[Pete Schwab]

The QR reduction does apply. The 2019 reorganization of NFPA 13 will make it 
very clear.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Storage <12'

Do any of you apply the QR reduction to storage <12'?  I realize the table says 
the design density to be in accordance with OH2.  I have always taken the more 
conservative approach with the idea that it is storage with a density of 
0.2/1500, but it is not an Ordinary Hazard occupancy criteria.  As such, I 
don't apply the QR reduction to those areas.

I have seen a few plans from others lately that are applying the QR reduction 
to these types of areas.  What is the consensus of the forum?


--
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

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


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

RE: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System

[Pete Schwab]

I have to agree with Steve on this one. The NFPA process is open to anyone. It 
is quite easy to submit proposed changes. Unfortunately the Input stage for the 
2019 edition has just closed.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image003.jpg@01D283A3.C6462780]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a 
Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System

Busted.   Scot, you’ve finally cracked the code.  Pulled back the curtain.   
Turns out you’re not paranoid - yes, the technical committees have been 
prosecuting a subversive agenda to adulterate the standards with all manner of 
obfuscations.There’s actually a double secret sub-committee under the 
standards council that maintains a document called “The Manual of Blur.”

Here’s what I recommend “we” do: If “we” feel that there are deficiencies that 
should be resolved, or clarifications that are required of a nebulous 
prescription, then “we” should write a proposal and send it to the committee in 
question.   As a longtime committee member, I can say with certainty that most 
of us have been looking at the same text for years, so another pair of eyes and 
fresh perspective are always welcome.   Sniping about secret agendas is … silly 
at best.  Be the change you want in the world.



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of å... 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 3:56 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined 
Standpipe/Sprinkler System


We can hope for a theoretical world in which the 'secret' or 'implied' or 
'intention' of the Committee needs to be divined, but few designers whom NFPA 
is reaching out to in the hinterlands, grew up in the culture of 'United States 
common practice'.  They design on what they have, mostly static text.

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

RE: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System

[Pete Schwab]

Sounds like we need an NFPA 14 Handbook.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of å... 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined 
Standpipe/Sprinkler System


To put this in context, citations are referenced to the 2016 NFPA 14, so as to 
be more relevant to standing Committe members.


On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote:
You’ve taken much of what I said out of context.


We can hope for a theoretical world in which the 'secret' or 'implied' or 
'intention' of the Committee needs to be divined, but few designers whom NFPA 
is reaching out to in the hinterlands, grew up in the culture of 'United States 
common practice'.  They design on what they have, mostly static text.

I said that even when sprinklers and standpipes are combined they are separate 
systems HYDRAULICALLY.  It is absolutely NOT required to combine the demands as 
you implied with your statement this morning, even with the qualifier of a 
partially sprinklered building.

​We agree, and we realize statement 'combined is separate' was to be applied 
adminstratively.   But there appears no clear wording in 2016 NFPA 14 
-7.10.1.3.2 to convince me that the demand of the partial sprinklered system 
should NOT be combined with standpipe demand.   If your vision as discussed 
here is truly what the NFPA 14 committee intends (and I believe your vision of 
the Committee you serve on, to be accurate ) then perhaps the Committee should 
be bold enough to write their intention in plain, simple English.



7.10.1.3.1 implies that you cannot combine the systems if the building is 
partially sprinklered (it could be worded better, to be sure).  In that case, 
you would have to determine the hydraulic demand of two completely separate 
systems.  If a building is fully sprinklered per 13 or 13R, then you select the 
more demanding of the two (separate calc’s because they are hydraulically 
designed independently of one another) and that becomes your benchmark water 
supply for sizing the COMBINED system piping that serves standpipe hose 
connections and sprinklers.

​A:  "implies"?  How is a 2nd-year designer supposed to know what NFPA 
"implies" when I am having problems reading the implication?Maybe NFPA 14 
committee members are so close to their subject that instead of seeing the 
division created by black and white textyou are including in your 
interpretation granularity from thousands of backroom details, meetings and 
readings which the NFPA subscriber does not contain in their experience.



The NFPA 14 committee added 7.10.13.1.1 in the 2013 edition BECAUSE there has 
been long-running debate and confusion.   This change was reactive to and 
intended to be companion to the change in NFPA 13, 2010 edition that added 
A.11.1.6.6 (as it was numbered in 2010) that clarifies that it isn’t the intent 
to add standpipe demand as a hose stream to a sprinkler calculation.   So let’s 
not allow history to blur the focus both committees have brought to the issue 
of combined systems calculation; better late than never.   It
​​
IS clear in my opinion that it is not the intent of either standard to require 
concurrent demands in any form.

"Clear in your opinion"  regarding "intent", as justification for the written 
guidance on a fundamental and core procedure to the NFPA 14 standard is good.  
But not good enough for me.  You have my extreme confidence (Pb > 0.99) in the 
accuracy of your depection of the Committee's intention for sprinklered 
buildings with standpipes.  Not so for partially sprinklered buildings.

I recognize that I am arguing against the highly regarded brand of the NFPA 
institution and its well deserved reputation.  I realize that I am branded a 
non-team player for calling the question.  My intention is not to throw stones, 
my intention is to offer suggestions for improvement.  Sure, it would be better 
for NFPA if these comments were made in private.  Better for me too, probably.  
But reading this kind of stuff just might get some young designers the courage 
to challenge some of their own problems to a more meaningful solution.  
Sometimes watching and listening to a debate, teaches the listener how to 
debate and make non-personal,  goal-oriented statements.  ​More accolades, 
again,  to NFPA Standards committees.  Without NFPA, I would not have this job 
interpreting what they write.

NFPA 14 would widen the range of its clear intention with hydraulic 
calculations if we change 2016 NFPA 14 -7.10.1.3.1.1 from  "In a building 
protected in accordance with NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R, the water supply..."   to   
"in a building substantially protected with a sprinkler system in accordance to 
local building codes or risk acceptance, the water supply..."


Your theoretical regarding a partially sprinklered bu

RE: Floor mounted obstructions - ORDINARY HAZ

[Pete Schwab]

There have been submittals to SSI to allow the partition rule for OH. They have 
been rejected since no one has submitted testing data. So in response to the 
original question, yes you have to consider each partition as it went to the 
ceiling and yes you still have to be concerned with cold soldering. Many of the 
national self-storage facility owners/builders understand that the top of 
storage must be 18” from the sprinkler deflector (Usually accomplished with 
chicken wire) .

Pete Schwab

My opinion only and not that of the NFPA or any of its committees

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Floor mounted obstructions - ORDINARY HAZ


John,

I agree with your 'common sense' statement, so this has been bothering me since 
you posted it.

I'm looking at NFPA 13 (2013), Fig. 8.6.5.2.2, and imagining my cubicle at the 
office. "A"=~36" and "B"=~30". The next sprinkler to the right is about 11' 
from the partition.
My space is to the right side, and I have a kind of narrow counter against the 
partion with papers and prints scattered across it.
Now I imagine the sprink shown in the fig activating, and 20-30% of the pattern 
being thrown over the partition and landing on the floor a few feet beyond the 
counter.
Maybe The Committee felt that type of thing would be acceptable for LH but not 
OH?

Brad
On Jan 28, 2017 11:39 AM, "John Paulsen" 
mailto:j...@crwnfire.com>> wrote:
Jeff:

Amen on the “not clearly stated”!  I saw that paragraph, but it appeared to me 
to refer more to obstructions from the ceiling not the floor. I’m trying to 
throw over the top of the partition and it would be nice if NFPA-13 could give 
a spacing table for Ordinary Hazard like it does for “Light Hazard only”. 
That’s the frustrating part, common sense says the same or similar spacing 
would apply, but Ordinary Hazard is not included.

Thanks,

John Paulsen – SET
Crown Fire System Design
6282 Seeds Rd.
Grove City, OH 43123
P – 614-782-2438
F – 614-782-2374
C – 614-348-8206



From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of Jeff Normand
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:32 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Re: Floor mounted obstructions - ORDINARY HAZ

Not that clearly stated but here's the NFPA 13 2016 edition


8.6.5.3.1 Continuous or noncontinuous obstructions that interrupt
the water discharge in a horizontal plane more than
18 in. (450 mm) below the sprinkler deflector in a manner to
limit the distribution from reaching the protected hazard
shall comply with 8.6.5.3.

8.6.5.3.2 The requirements of 8.6.5.3 shall also apply to obstructions
18 in. (450 mm) or less below the sprinkler for light
and ordinary hazard occupancies.

A.8.6.5.3.3 When obstructions are located more than 18 in.
(450 mm) below the sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray
pattern develops and obstructions up to and including 4 ft
(1.2 m) wide do not require additional protection underneath.
Examples are ducts, decks, open grate flooring, catwalks,
cutting tables, overhead doors, soffits, ceiling panels,
and other similar obstructions.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:10 AM, John Paulsen 
mailto:j...@crwnfire.com>> wrote:
I am trying to determine the proper deflector distance from a partition with 
the top located 18” below the sprinkler deflector. This is an Ord Haz Grp II 
Self Storage facility with standard spray QR Tyco TY-FRB TY3131 uprights. Sec 
8.6.5.2 doesn’t give a table like 8.6.5.2.2 which is for Light Hazard only.

If I have to space the heads as if the low partitions went all the way to the 
deck, I will violate the 6’ minimum rule. What am I missing here?

Thanks,


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


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

RE: Rack Storage Aisle Clarifications

[Pete Schwab]

Wait until the 2019 1st draft is published...

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D26691.BAECFC30]

I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you?



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 1:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Rack Storage Aisle Clarifications


While I did not see the original question (with apologies), I think the 
brainiacs did a FANTASTIC job by bringing the pamphlets into 13.  In 1999, most 
of the data in four (at least) different documents were correlated and ordered 
so that we are more easily able to apply strategies.  Now THATS when the size 
of NFPA 13 grew exponentially.



The absolute best thing the brilliant brainics did was create the TABLES for 
most of the storage and sprinkler combinations.  There is still a major amount 
of learning with storage, but in my opinion, they nailed it.



As with every document there are still a couple of points in the document that 
might be misapplied if one hasn't learned from a brainiac.



So for a lot of you new kids, there's your history lesson.  And yes, they did 
have an NFPA 13 way back in 1999.




It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13 
Committee, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance 
with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not 
be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor 
any of their technical committees.

Sincerely,


Cecil Bilbo
Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
Champaign, IL
217.607.0325
www.sprinkleracademy.com
ce...@sprinkleracademy.com

OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Brad Casterline 
mailto:bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 8:56 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Rack Storage Aisle Clarifications


thanks Steve.



or i could start a separate thread so as to not distract from Jerry getting the 
help he needs.



brad





From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:43 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Rack Storage Aisle Clarifications



Brad:

Best to track down a hobnobbing brainiac or to acquire more information on the 
history of the standards is to direct your query to:

National Fire Protection Association

Attn: Standards Council

1 Batterymarch Place

Quincy, MA

USA 02169-7471



Besides issues of content, I'm sure staff can also explain the economics of 
small pamphlet publishing and distribution.



Regards,

Steve Leyton

Protection Design & Consulting



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:20 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Rack Storage Aisle Clarifications



Hopefully the brainiac who thought it was a good idea to mix the 231s into 13 
is not too busy still holiday hobknobbing with the upper echelon to help you 
with this.

I wish the several small pamphlets had remained separate and tweaked and 
improved with explanatory discussions.

Aisle width is right up there with height and clearance, but you wouldn't know 
it nowadays.

On Jan 3, 2017 5:47 PM, "Jerry Van Kolken" 
mailto:jvankol...@mfpc.us>> wrote:

In NFPA 13 - 2013 ed. Table 16.2.1.3.3.2 Multiple Row Racks - over 16' depth or 
aisle narrower than 8'-0" .



I have a produce rack job, from this table I'm being pointing to Figure 
16.2.1.3.2(c) curve I and J from the above table.



When I look at the description for curve I and J they each state the aisle must 
be 8'-0" or wider.





Are these items contradicting each other or I'm not choosing the correct curves 
if my aisle are under 8'-0"





Jerry Van Kolken

Millennium Fire Protection Corp.

2950 San Luis Rey Rd.

Oceanside, CA 92058

(760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730



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

RE: Galvanized Pipe

[Pete Schwab]

Cecil
If the job is NFPA 13R, NFPA 24 does not apply (See the scope below from NFPA 
24)
Your friend
Pete

1.1.4 This standard shall not apply to underground mains
serving sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance
with NFPA 13R that are less than 4 in. (100 mm) in nominal
diameter.


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Galvanized Pipe

Brian,
 
To further what my two friends have already said, not only is this a bad idea, 
it is not permitted.  Chapter 10 in NFPA 13 only allows the use of galvanized 
steel as underground pipe when it feeds a fire department connection.  When 
this section is applied it must also be wrapped and coated.  The method for 
wrapping and coating must be approved.
 
When the justification for doing something incorrectly is, "Because that's the 
way we have always done it..." I think to myself, 'they just admitted to always 
doing the wrong thing'.  Then, I sit down with them and have a cordial 
conversation about the best way to move forward.

It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 13 
Committee, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance 
with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not 
be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor 
any of their technical committees. 

Sincerely,


Cecil Bilbo 
Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
Champaign, IL
217.607.0325
www.sprinkleracademy.com

ce...@sprinkleracademy.com

 

OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!


 
> From: bhar...@bvssystemsinc.com
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Galvanized Pipe
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:49:43 +
> 
> Has anybody ever used galvanized pipe to go underground (slab) to get from 
> one side of an apartment breezeway to the other ?
> 
> Brian Harris, CET
> BVS Systems Inc.
> Sprinkler Division
> bvssystemsinc.com
> Phone: 704.896.9989
> Fax: 704.896.1935
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

[Pete Schwab]

Brian


A.11.1.4.2 Appropriate area/density, other design criteria,
and water supply requirements should be based on scientifically
based engineering analyses that can include submitted
fire testing, calculations, or results from appropriate computational
models.
Recommended water supplies anticipate successful sprinkler
operation. Because of the small but still significant number
of uncontrolled fires in sprinklered properties, which
have various causes, there should be an adequate water supply
available for fire department use.
The hose stream demand required by this standard is intended
to provide the fire department with the extra flow they
need to conduct mop-up operations and final extinguishment
of a fire at a sprinklered property. This is not the fire department
manual fire flow, which is determined by other codes or
standards. However, it is not the intent of this standard to
require that the sprinkler demand be added to the manual
fire flow demand required by other codes and standards.
While the other codes and standards can factor in the presence
of a sprinkler system in the determination of the manual
fire flow requirement, the sprinkler system water demand and
manual fire flow demand are intended to be separate standalone
calculations. NFPA 1 emphasizes this fact by the statement
in A.18.4.1 that "It is not the intent to add the minimum
fire protection water supplies, such as for a sprinkler system, to
the minimum fire flow for manual fire suppression purposes
required by this section."

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-----
From: Pete Schwab 
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

See NFPA 13 2016 Edition A.11.1.4.2

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Duane Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

To add, the fire flow is based on construction type, building height/area, and 
occupancy...items definitely not found in NFPA 13. The IFC has one method. ISO 
has another method.


Duane Johnson, PE
Design Manager
Strickland Fire Protection
5113 Berwyn Road
College Park, MD 20740
301-474-1136 Office
301-455-0010 Cell


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

Check the IBC/IFC (index... not sure what section). Fire Flow is the amount of 
water required to be delivered by the fire hydrants for the FD to spray on  a 
burning building. The amount required is dictated by the code, but the actual 
water available is determined entirely by the underground piping. Unless you 
are providing or designing the underground loops around the building, it is 
probably out of  your control.

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II  
Sales Engineer 
Alliance Fire Protection 
130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116

*Licensed in KS & MO 
 
913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.526.7443 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

Can someone please put into laymen's terms the difference between doing a fire 
flow demand calc for the underground and the hydraulic calc's for the sprinkler 
system? We have been running into some projects lately where the civil engineer 
tries to pawn sizing the underground off onto the sprinkler contractor. I try 
telling them that's their responsibility not ours but I'd like something more 
definitive to have on hand.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Sprinkler Division
bvssystemsinc.com<http://bvssystemsinc.com/>
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

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

RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

[Pete Schwab]

See NFPA 13 2016 Edition A.11.1.4.2

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Duane Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

To add, the fire flow is based on construction type, building height/area, and 
occupancy...items definitely not found in NFPA 13. The IFC has one method. ISO 
has another method.


Duane Johnson, PE
Design Manager
Strickland Fire Protection
5113 Berwyn Road
College Park, MD 20740
301-474-1136 Office
301-455-0010 Cell


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

Check the IBC/IFC (index... not sure what section). Fire Flow is the amount of 
water required to be delivered by the fire hydrants for the FD to spray on  a 
burning building. The amount required is dictated by the code, but the actual 
water available is determined entirely by the underground piping. Unless you 
are providing or designing the underground loops around the building, it is 
probably out of  your control.

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II  
Sales Engineer 
Alliance Fire Protection 
130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116

*Licensed in KS & MO 
 
913.888.0647 ph 
913.888.0618 f 
913.526.7443 cell 
www. AFPsprink.com 
 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Fire Flow vs Hydraulic calc's

Can someone please put into laymen's terms the difference between doing a fire 
flow demand calc for the underground and the hydraulic calc's for the sprinkler 
system? We have been running into some projects lately where the civil engineer 
tries to pawn sizing the underground off onto the sprinkler contractor. I try 
telling them that's their responsibility not ours but I'd like something more 
definitive to have on hand.

Brian Harris, CET
BVS Systems Inc.
Sprinkler Division
bvssystemsinc.com
Phone: 704.896.9989
Fax: 704.896.1935

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

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

RE: Covered patios and decks in 13R

[Pete Schwab]

I am assuming that you are on the 2009 IBC. The code takes precedence over the 
standard. The sprinklers are required.

102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards
referenced in this code shall be considered part of the
requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such
reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this
code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this
code shall apply.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Mote
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:28 PM
To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Covered patios and decks in 13R

We have a project, a four unit apartment / condo which consists of two double 
stacked units. On one side of each 1st floor units is a little 2'-8" deep  
balcony that sticks out between the 1st and 2nd floors creating a really small 
covered patio on the first floor. The builder doesn't want to install 
sprinklers under these on the 1st floor. 13R doesn't address decks or balconies 
that I can find. But IBC 2009 (current in effect in PA) 903.3.1.2.1 says I have 
to provide sprinkler protection for exterior balconies, decks and ground floor 
patios, and doesn't give a minimum size. Should I just tell the builder he has 
to have them? Or is there a way out of it that I'm not seeing (he claims he has 
never had to do it before). The current addition of NFPA 13 in effect in PA is 
2007.

Richard L. Mote CET
Design Manager
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
P 570-837-7647 or 877-324-ROWE
F 570-837-6335
rich...@rowesprinkler.com

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

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

RE: pex for 13R

[Pete Schwab]

I am not aware of any Pex piping available for NFPA 13R. The Pex product cannot 
meet the 175 PSI requirement at higher temperatures. NFPA 13D allows 130 PSI at 
120° which allows Pex.
The only other plastic product listed (FM Approved) for fire protection that I 
am aware of is Aquatherm red pipe.

http://www.aquatherm.com/aquatherm-red-pipe-polypropylene-sprinkler-piping
 

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:30 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: pex for 13R

Has anyone developed pex piping for 13R applications? Is anyone pursuing that?

Thanks!

Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
130 w 9th Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116

*Licensed in KS & MO

913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
913.526.7443 cell
www. AFPsprink.com


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

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

RE: question of procedure

[Pete Schwab]

NFPA 241

8.7.3 Sprinkler Protection.
8.7.3.1* If automatic sprinkler protection is to be provided, the
installation shall be placed in service as soon as practicable.

Practicable to me would not mean once the alarms are working or would it?

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 12:10 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: question of procedure

Say a fire sprinkler system is completed and the 200 psi test has been 
performed and passed.  The building is fully sheet rocked and very near to turn 
over.  Yet, the alarms are not in place.  Do you leave the system with the 
control valves open or closed?

Vandalism where some one opens a 2½" hose valve on the top story of a building 
can lead to a lot of water damage with no alarm to signify flow.  Arson where 
the building burns because the system was left closed since no alarms in place 
can also lead to great damage. It seems like a damned if you do and damned if 
you don't.

Is there any code/standard backing for either situation?  A customer is having 
to deal with one of these issues.

--
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

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

RE: porte cochere

[Pete Schwab]

Roland
There definitely were some committee members that stated it was time to move 
the venting requirements out of the annex and into the body. 
I will make sure I limit half of my inputs to the annex this cycle. LOL
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: porte cochere

Pete

WHAT are you disagreeing with or are you just venting?

ARE there cases where the annex exceeds it intent - sure but do you mean the 
annex is not suppose to be informational and that one can enforce a requirement 
in the body after educating themselves using the annex.  I don’t think you’ve 
attempted to work new material into the body by first submitting it to the 
annex or is that it.  I’ll be watching you at the next committee meeting - lol.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>





> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:14 AM, Pete Schwab  wrote:
> 
> Roland
> I would disagree. Example Vents
> Pete
> 
> Peter Schwab
> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

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

RE: porte cochere

[Pete Schwab]

Roland
I would disagree. Example Vents
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: porte cochere

The examples of not being considered storage , especially the cars, are not 
provided to indicate the occupancy classification but to indicate when 
protection can be omitted.  

As a sidebar, the standard use to sprinklers are required where combustibles 
are stored and handled.  It was being interpreted if you had a newspaper 
machine that combustibles were handled.  Thus the annex material to do some 
‘splaining Lucy.

As for the annex, I personally like it.  It gives additional information 
allowing one to better understood the sometimes vague requirements in the body 
- like the definitions of occupancy classifications aka combustibility is 
moderate.  With the examples one can interpret and apply the OH-1 definition to 
a porte cocheres with parked cars.

Although, some material migrates from the annex to the body, it’s fairly rare.  
The annex has never been viewed by the technical committees as a test ground 
for new material.

Roland


Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 


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

RE: ESFR Sprinklers and covered catwalks

[Pete Schwab]

2013 & 2016 editions no longer require calculating 2 additional ESFR's under 
obstructions.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:24 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: ESFR Sprinklers and covered catwalks

Put ESFR's under the catwalk and include two (2) additional ESFR's in the 
calc's total of fourteen heads flowing.
Just like it's an obstruction.

Mike

> From: jhoff...@kcp.com
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: ESFR Sprinklers and covered catwalks
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:16:25 +
> 
> The situation I was dealing with is not a rack.  It is a shelf - solid back, 
> solid shelves, solid ends.  It is not likely to get a full scale test for a 
> not-all-that-common setup.  Or maybe it is more common than I think.  
> 
> John F. Hoffman, PE*  \  Burns & McDonnell Senior Fire Protection 
> Engineer O 816-349-6759 \  M 816-255-4102 jhoff...@burnsmcd.com  \  
> burnsmcd.com
> 9400 Ward Parkway  \  Kansas City, MO 64114
> 
> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For Please 
> consider the environment before printing this email.
> *Registered in: MO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> Scott Futrell
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:36 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: ESFR Sprinklers and covered catwalks
> 
> Hmmm...John that is interesting direction you are giving there.
> 
> Do you have NFPA 13 or full-scale testing to support the "ESFR could spray 
> below the catwalk" comment? Or, that OH2 below the catwalk will not allow the 
> fire to grow horizontally along the racking overwhelming the ESFR above?
> 
> If the catwalk doesn't extend through the rack how can you protect a 30' high 
> (or pick a height) rack storage with QR sprinklers below the catwalk level 
> and ESFR above the catwalk level when it's all the same rack storage from the 
> ground up with flue spaces open and continuous to the roof.  I must be 
> missing something here.
> 
> I assume the direction of the catwalk would/could enter into the scenario, 
> but I would like to see your support for the comments you've made here, and 
> if you have that support great!
> 
> Scott
>  
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> John F Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:14 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: ESFR Sprinklers and covered catwalks
> 
> If the roof-level ESFR could spray below the catwalk (assuming open grating) 
> you would not need the sprinklers under the catwalk.  But, as mentioned 
> before, you are forced to put a cover on the grating so should be able to 
> install whatever sprinklers can deal with the hazard under the grating.
> 
> Class IV shelf storage up to 12 feet high can be protected with OH2.   Even 
> plastic shelf storage only requires EH1 or EH2 depending on height.   ESFR is 
> overkill.  
> 
> John F. Hoffman, PE*  \  Burns & McDonnell Senior Fire Protection 
> Engineer O 816-349-6759 \  M 816-255-4102 jhoff...@burnsmcd.com  \  
> burnsmcd.com
> 9400 Ward Parkway  \  Kansas City, MO 64114
> 
> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For Please consider 
> the environment before printing this email.
> *Registered in: MO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

RE: AWWA classifications

[Pete Schwab]

Steve
The FDC pressure does not have to be taken into account in regards to working 
pressure.

3.3.23 System Working Pressure. The maximum anticipated
static (nonflowing) or flowing pressure applied to sprinkler
system components exclusive of surge pressures and exclusive
of pressure from the fire department connection.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: AWWA classifications

Hm ... DR = Diameter Ratio?   Anyway, the reclassification makes it easier 
to spec' C900 for UG fire mains because at 235 PSI you don't have to worry 
about adequate pressure rating of the piping that may be downstream of an FDC.  
 

Thanks you guys.   

SL


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Parsley Consulting
Sent: Wed 10/14/2015 9:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: AWWA classifications
 
Steve,
 A little history lesson.  DR 14, 18 and 24 have been used to designate 
pressure classes of C900 at least as far back as '83 when I sold UG pipe for a 
living.  The most commonly purchased designation for sprinkler system UG was DR 
18, which at the time, was a "pressure class" 
of 150.  That was the most common designation I sold.
 Ryan was absolutely correct.  AWWA changed the way it evaluated the 
pressure class based on their 2007 edition of standard C900.  So now, the old 
DR 18, has a pressure class of 235.
 And, as I remember useless information, the "DR" designation is the 
dimension ratio between the wall thickness and the outside diameter.  
For DR 18, 6" pipe has an OD of 6.90, and a wall thickness of 0.383.  
Divided the former by the latter and you get 18.
 The "pressure class" is the only thing that changed for those designing UG.
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website 

It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 
Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and their Appurtenances Committee in 
accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should 
therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the 
NFPA or its Committees

***
On 10/14/2015 8:33 AM, Steve Leyton wrote:
> C900 PVC used to be classified as Class 150, 200, 300, etc. but is now 
> referred to as DR 14, 18, 24.   JW Eagle's spec's note that DR 18 has two 
> working pressure ratings:  150 PSI per AWWA C900-97/FM 1612 and 235 PSI per 
> C900-07.  Can anyone out there tell be the diff between the two 900 
> classifications and whether one or the other is considered to be a better 
> practice application?   Burst pressure of the piping is what it is regardless 
> of which referenced working pressure is considered, so I'm curious about why 
> there would be two different rated working pressures.
>
> Steve Leyton
> Protection Design & Consulting
> San Diego, CA
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>

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

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

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

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Pete Schwab]

Remember that the options/arrangements are found in the Annex. This method of a 
single tap and backflow then feeding multiple single family dwellings 
(Townhomes) is a common arrangement here in Florida.
It is up to the AHJ to accept it. Generally we do not provide an additional 
control valve in each dwelling unit. The backflows are not monitored based on 
the chapter 9 IBC allowance. The AHJ's usually want at least a chain and lock.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 3:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Owen:

I'll bet most on this forum have seen townhomes protected by 13R in one
case and multiple-13D systems in others.   I know I have.   Many
jurisdictions will grant individual meters to row homes - City of San Diego 
does it as a matter of regular practice.  What may or may not have been agreed 
to here is between the project principals and the municipal agencies that 
approved the project - planning, building, development services, fire 
prevention, stormwater, environmental and health, etc.,
etc.  You already know all that.If you want to know what the intent
was, contact the AHJ but you can't really say whether a design is conforming or 
not unless you know what basis of design (right or wrong) was required.  If you 
find that the contractor installed exactly what the AHJ directed them to, then 
you may have an issue (or a teachable
moment) with the AHJ.   But continuing to mill this topic whilst fishing
for some measure of condemnation isn't really ... productive.   

SL





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 12:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Ken,
Good questions. Correct, 13D does not require tamper on one and two family 
dwellings. But what about an Option one 13D system serving a building with 5 
town homes?

In other words, this is a stand alone 13D system (no domestic service from this 
line) serving 5 attached town homes. Does the exception from CBC, no tampers 
require, apply to this building of 5 units?

What I meant about saving money was; let's say you have a building that 
consisted of 10 town houses. According to 13D you can install an Option one, 
stand alone 13D system and (according CBC) not monitor the control valves on 
the DCVA that was require by the water company. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Parsley Consulting
 wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>What money are you suggesting we save?  I'm completely lost here.
An NFPA 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not from 13D 
or the CFC, right?  I don't quite understand why you believe this is so in 
error.
> 
>While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why
a system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter.
Based on some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were truly 
individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added thousands of dollars 
to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands.
> 
>Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow
preventer in the first place?  No possibility of cross connection from a stand 
alone 13D system, right?  Or was it one of those things the water purveyor 
mandated?
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
>> On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has
an FDC. That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit 
building with no tampers on double OS&Y. They are claiming 13D exception to 
tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next 
installations by calling it a 13D and use that exception.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
>>> 
>>> SL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on 
>>> this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happe

RE: 13D installed in Townhouse?

[Pete Schwab]

Owen
If the townhouse units are separated with the appropriate walls by the local 
building code, then yes 13D is acceptable. Beware that sometimes builders call 
apartments "townhomes". Check the platting to see if they are all individual 
lots. As for the water supply arrangement you mention, that does not appear as 
one of the options in 13D A.6.2. However that is annex material. If the AHJ is 
willing to accept that arrangement, it meets the Chapter 6 requirement for an 
automatic water supply. The issue is who owns the water meter and the bill. Is 
there an association? We see a similar arrangement quite often here in Florida 
because the water purveyor is afraid of shutting off the sprinkler system when 
turning off water for non-payment. They provide a single tap and we install a 
single backflow and run underground and up into each townhome. Make sure that 
your AHJ finds this an acceptable arrangement.
Pete  

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Owen Evans
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 2:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: 13D installed in Townhouse?


The definition on townhouse is a one-family dwelling constructed in attached 
groups of three or more units in which each unit extends from the foundation to 
the roof and has open space on at least two sides.


Question:
Does that mean if you had five attached townhouses you can install 13D system 
in each unit (each having a system riser with flow switch and bell), with all 
five townhouses being supplied off of one water meter (five risers being served 
by one meter) with the most remote/demanding unit being calculated per 13D, 2 
heads flowing?  In other words, each unit has it's own water meter supplying 
domestic needs, with a sixth, stand alone water meter, supplying all six 
townhouses 13D system?  Yes or NO?


Or 


Does that mean each unit, because they are attached but separated foundation to 
roof, can have a 13D system, each being supplied off its own domestic water 
meter? 


Owen Evans

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

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

RE: AHJ Powers

[Pete Schwab]

Look into CWSI if you have to add them

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: AHJ Powers

Then typically unless you have a written variation approval (citing the code 
requirement, why compliance could not be achieved, and what equivalent measures 
where taken) a code violation exists. Aside from all that the only sleepless 
nights will occur when another code Official cites it years later or when you 
get to visit a room that resembles a church but isn't but you still swear to 
god.

John Drucker - Mobile Email
Asst Construction Official
Fire Protection Subcode Official
jdruc...@redbanknj.org
Cell/Text 732-904-6823


firs...@aol.com wrote:

Yes

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 6:14 PM, John Drucker  wrote:
>
> Are the valves required to be electrically supervised by applicable code ?
>
> John Drucker - Mobile Email
> Asst Construction Official
> Fire Protection Subcode Official
> jdruc...@redbanknj.org
> Cell/Text 732-904-6823
>
>
> firs...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What say you?
> An inspector failed to require tamper switches on control valves. The job is 
> complete and there are thousands of pounds of concrete between the control 
> valves and the electrical panel. They placed a chain and lock and the chief 
> declared the chain and lock meet intent...final approved. What say you?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

RE: Florida License Renewal

[Pete Schwab]

Florida Chapter of AFSA offers online training with Florida Contractor CEU's. 
I'm not sure if these are the online classes you are referring to.

http://www.eticontinuinged.com/school/

AFSA Florida is also having a training conference in September with some 
excellent instructors (All Florida Contractor CEU approved).

http://afsafl.org/



Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum
Subject: Florida License Renewal

Does anyone know of an easy and economical way to get the 32 required Florida 
State approved CEU classes for license renewal?  I am aware of the NFSA and 
AFSA classes, but they require travel and are costly.  Internet classes are 
available, but they too are quite costly. 
Thanks 


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

RE: Question for Installation TC members

[Pete Schwab]

8.2.4

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 6:54 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Question for Installation TC members

Pete, Cecil & Associates:

 

I'm perusing the 2016 ed. and don't see 8.16.1.5 from the current
edition.   Was the mandate for floor control valves in buildings over
two stories removed?

 

SML

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

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

RE: Old dog, new tricks?

[Pete Schwab]

Also
There is a meter study which created changes in the 2013 NFPA 13D. (see a below)

http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-protection-research-foundation/rss-feed-items/home-fire-sprinklers/residential-fire-sprinklers

(4)*Pressure loss for a water meter, if any, shall be determined
and deducted using one of the following:
(a) Table 10.4.3(a) shall be permitted to be used, even
where the sprinkler demand flow exceeds the
meter's rated continuous flow.
(b) Higher pressure losses specified by the manufacturer
shall be used in place of those specified in
Table 10.4.3(a).
(c) Lower pressure losses shall be permitted to be used
where supporting data are provided by the meter
manufacturer.


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 6:22 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Old dog, new tricks?

I guess we get credit for a pretty thoughtful effort then.  We also amended the 
code to require sprinklers in garages and traded down the least allowable 
setbacks to give developers the potential for higher densities that could 
generate additional revenues from parcels that could subsidize the added costs 
of sprinklers in general.   To make the garage sprinklers palatable, we waived 
the requirement for a fire-rated door and rated sheetrock on the vertical 
surfaces (those exemptions offset more than the cost of the garage sprinklers). 
  We made one important condition to the exemptions:  sheetrock on the lid 
between a garage or carport with living space over must still be sprinklered.   
So with some foresight, you head off the local restrictive amendments, which 
was our goal:  create a modified standard that local AHJ's weren't tempted to 
modify.   And to the AHJ who decided that you should use 13 on an attached SFD 
garage ... well, sorry if this sounds disrespectful but that's just ludicrous.  
  

To the 5 GPM and water meter sizes, we also partnered with ACWA - the 
Association of California Water Agencies.   They agreed to establish BMP's for 
sprinklered homes and one of the considerations was to overlook the 5 GPM.   
Here's the back-story on meters, y'all:

Water meters are for measuring water.  Their maximum flow ratings are for no 
more than 2% error in the reading of consumption.   That is NOT the maximum 
amount of water you can flow through them, it's the maximum CONTINUOUS FLOW (as 
in 24/7) that you can flow at no worse than 98% accuracy.   Meters can tolerate 
dozens of GPM more flow without damage, but they are rated to 98% accuracy.   
Flow at maximum calculated demand is, hopefully, a once-in-a-lifetime even so 
it's considered an INTERMITTENT FLOW.   So it's really not a reach to size your 
meter for the 26 or 28 or 32 or 36 or 40 GPM that various sprinklers would 
require in 2-sprinkler design areas at different areas of coverage and then add 
a "virtual" 5 GPM to the calculation.   You obtain an accurate head loss and if 
it should ever operate in a fire, the water purveyor accepts that the meter 
might not measure the sprinkler flow for billing purposes in an intermittent 
flow event.   

On top of that, look into meters rated for higher than class average flows.  
Badger makes a series of meters called Recordall:  they offer a ¾" rated at 25 
GPM continuous and 35 GPM intermittent.   They make a 1" rated at 40/55 and 
another 1" rated 50/70.  Yes, manufacturer rated at 70.   So ... let's all stop 
being victims and start shoving information down the throats of the uneducated 
and the naysayers.   Several years ago, I brokered a meeting between a city 
water department, two large homebuilders and a sprinkler contractor.  The city 
was insisting that they use 1" meters at an additional cost of $5,000 per lot 
on two subdivisions consisting of 440 lots.   $2.2M in capacity fees.  I 
performance-engineered a solution that utilized 3/4" meters that addressed the 
sprinkler flows AND The concurrent 5 GPM allowance and saved the developers 
those costs.  To my deepest regret, I did not get compensated on a % of savings 
basis.  However, I am available for consulting on a fee simple basis + expenses.

Steve   






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 10:39 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Old dog, new tricks?

Steve,

California already has their universal ordinance requiring sprinklers.
Modification to provide better protection is then a good idea. But what if that 
5gpm gen

RE: IBC question

[Pete Schwab]

See the 2013 edition of NFPA 13R. Intermediate throughout is allowed.

6.2.3.1* Sprinklers installed where maximum ambient ceiling
temperatures do not exceed 100°F (38°C) shall be ordinary
temperature-rated sprinklers or intermediate temperature-
rated unless modified by 6.2.3.3.

6.2.3.3* The practices of 6.2.3.3.1 through 6.2.3.3.3 shall be
observed when installing residential sprinklers unless higher
expected ambient temperatures require a higher temperature
rating.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 5:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: IBC question

That may help, but then, the highest ambient temp for ordinary sprinklers is 
100°F.  So, even if these were exposed to no more than 120F, I guess it could 
be argued that the wrong sprinklers were used.

I will look into that section of NFPA 25.  Thanks!!

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

On 8/3/2015 2:54 PM, Rod DiBona wrote:
> Travis,
>
> Is NFPA 25 Adopted in Arizona statewide or in the jurisdictions in question? 
> If so that could be your ticket of protection. If so the best I can come up 
> with is 25 (14 edition) 4.1.2.2... I think Matt is correct as the owner has a 
> responsibility to maintain between 40 and 120 degrees by "...reliable 
> means"
>
> Rod at Rapid
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> Travis Mack, SET
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:43 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: IBC question
>
> Correct.  We all agree on maximum ceiling temperatures.
>
> But, do you install intermediate temperature sprinklers in all dwelling units 
> because the owner may turn off the HVAC system and the interior temperature 
> may rise above 100F?  Or, do you rely on the fact it is a conditioned space 
> and install ordinary temp sprinklers?
>
> This has become a question among many contractors in the warm climate in this 
> area in recent weeks.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> On 8/3/2015 2:40 PM, Matt Grise wrote:
>> NFPA 13 lists maximum ceiling temperature for sprinkler heads by 
>> temperature rating. NFPA 13 2010 ed. Table 6.2.5.1
>>
>> Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II
>> Sales Engineer
>> Alliance Fire Protection
>> 130 w 9th Ave.
>> North Kansas City, MO 64116
>>
>> *Licensed in KS & MO
>>
>> 913.888.0647 ph
>> 913.888.0618 f
>> 913.526.7443 cell
>> www. AFPsprink.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Rod DiBona
>> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 4:32 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: IBC question
>>
>> Matt- from memory I believe it states from 40 degrees F min to max of 120 
>> F
>>
>> Rod at Rapid
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 1:49 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: IBC question
>>
>> There have been a handful of activations of sprinklers in apartment units in 
>> the area.  We are in the SW desert and temps get quite high at times.
>>
>> Supplier is saying installer error.  However, this has been across multiple 
>> contractors.  One common issue is that builders/owners have not been keeping 
>> the hvac systems on for vacant units.  Is there anything in the IBC that 
>> requires areas to be maintained below certain maximum temperatures?
>>
>> Thankfully none of these activations have been on projects I have been 
>> involved in.  I have just been tasked with doing some code research on the 
>> issue to help out some colleagues.
>>
>> --
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>> 480-505-9271
>> fax: 866-430-6107
>> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>>
>> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mai

RE: Plastics

[Pete Schwab]

Roland
You are correct if you are dealing with a forward thinking AHJ that will accept 
FM as an alternative means and methods. Most AHJ's will insist that since it is 
in NFPA that is the protection scheme that must be used. I am hoping that for 
the 2019 edition, FM will open up some of its testing data to help NFPA 13 
become more in line with FM

Simply my opinion 

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Plastics

Yes as Pete provided.  I’m pipping in just to emphasize that this is not the 
only means to protect it, just the only one currently provided by NFPA 13.  
Since it is ESFR, FM Data Sheets are still the source of guidance for spray 
sprinklers.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Jul 28, 2015, at 4:15 PM, James Crawford  wrote:
> 
> Roland
> 
> Has NFPA #13 provided any protection schemes for exposed expanded Group "A" 
> plastics in the new edition?
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> James Crawford

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

RE: Plastics

[Pete Schwab]

There will be criteria in the 2016 edition


1. Revise section 17.2.3.5.6 to read as follows:
17.2.3.5.6 The minimum operating pressure shall be either 30 psi (2.0 bar) or 
60 psi (4.1 bar) based upon the applicable
storage and ceiling height for the installation as follows:
a) 30 psi (2.0 bar) for storage heights up to 25 ft (7.6 m) with a maximum 
ceiling height of 30 ft (9.1 m)
b) 60 psi (4.1 bar) for storage heights up to 25 ft. (7.6 m) with a maximum 
ceiling height of 40 ft (12.2 m).

2. Revise section A.17.2.3.5 to read as follows:
A.17.2.3.5 The Fire Protection Research Foundation conducted a series of 
full-scale fire tests at Underwriters Laboratories
to develop protection criteria for the rack storage of exposed expanded Group A 
plastic commodities. The tests are
documented in the report, “Protection of Rack Stored Exposed Expanded Group A 
Plastics with ESFR Sprinklers and
Vertical Barriers.” The criteria for exposed expanded plastics are based on 
Tests 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the series, which
investigated a 40 ft (12.2 m) ceiling with a range of storage heights. The 
tests used K-25.2 intermediate-temperature ESFR
sprinklers with vertical barriers attached to the rack uprights at nominal 16 
ft (4.9 m) apart. Vertical barriers of sheet metal
and 3⁄8 -in. plywood were both investigated. In Tests 1 through 6, transverse 
flue spaces between commodities were
blocked. Comparing the results of Test 6 with blocked transverse flue spaces 
and Test 7 with no blocking of transverse
flue spaces, the number of operated sprinklers decreased from 11 to 7 and 
improved suppression of the fire. The criteria
for exposed expanded plastics are based on Tests 9 and 10 of the series, which 
investigated a 30 ft (9.1 m) ceiling with a
range of storage heights. The tests used K-25.2 intermediate-temperature ESFR 
sprinklers with vertical barriers attached
to the rack uprights at 16 ft (4.9 m) (nominal) apart. Vertical barriers of 3 
⁄8 -in. plywood was investigated.
The area limitation between the vertical barriers and aisles indicated in 
17.3.3.5.9.2 will limit the depth of a multiple-row
rack arrangement. The hose stream allowance and water supply duration 
requirements considered the burning
characteristics of the exposed expanded plastic commodity that generates a high 
rate of heat release very quickly, but the
commodity involved in the combustion process is then quickly consumed after 
fire suppression or control is achieved.
While the resulting criteria is available to be used for ceiling heights up to 
40 ft (12.2 m), more cost-efficient protection
criteria could be available from other sources for ceiling heights of 30 ft 
(9.1 m) and less. The research planning was
based on the availability of design criteria from other sources for ceiling 
heights of 30 ft (9.1 m) and less.

3. Revise section A.17.3.3.5 to read as follows:
A.17.3.3.5 The Fire Protection Research Foundation conducted a series of 
full-scale fire tests at Underwriters Laboratories
to develop protection criteria for the rack storage of exposed expanded Group A 
plastic commodities. The tests are
documented in the report, “Protection of Rack Stored Exposed Expanded Group A 
Plastics with ESFR Sprinklers and
Vertical Barriers.” The criteria for exposed expanded plastics are based on 
Tests 2, 3,7 and 8 of the series, which
investigated a 40 ft (12.2 m) ceiling with a range of storage heights. The 
tests used K-25.2 intermediate-temperature ESFR
sprinklers with vertical barriers attached to the rack uprights at nominal 16 
ft (4.9 m) apart. Vertical barriers of sheet metal
and 3 ⁄8 -in. plywood were both investigated. In Tests 1 through 6, transverse 
flue spaces between commodities were
blocked. Comparing the results of Test 6 with blocked transverse flue spaces 
and Test 7 with no blocking of transverse
flue spaces, the number of operated sprinklers decreased from 11 to 7 and 
improved suppression of the fire.
The area limitation between the vertical barriers and aisles indicated in 
17.3.3.5.9.2 will limit the depth of a multiple-row
rack arrangement. The hose stream allowance and water supply duration 
requirements considered the burning
characteristics of the exposed expanded plastic commodity that generates a high 
rate of heat release very quickly, but the
commodity involved in the combustion process is then quickly consumed after 
fire suppression or control is achieved.
While the resulting criteria is available to be used for ceiling heights up to 
40 ft (12.2 m), more cost-efficient protection
criteria could be available from other sources for ceiling heights of 30 ft 
(9.1 m) and less. The research planning was
based on the availability of design criteria from other sources for ceiling 
heights of 30 ft (9.1 m) and less.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com

RE: Thrust block vs Restrainers - Underground

[Pete Schwab]

10.8.1.1 indicates an OR so either method is acceptable


10.8 Joint Restraint.
10.8.1 General.
10.8.1.1* All tees, plugs, caps, bends, reducers, valves, and hydrant
branches shall be restrained against movement by using
thrust blocks in accordance with 10.8.2 or restrained joint systems
in accordance with 10.8.3.



Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 2:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Thrust block vs Restrainers - Underground

It is required to furnish thrust restraint at mechanical joints.  Mechanical 
restraints and thrust blocks are both widely accepted forms of restraint, so 
either one is acceptable.   It is not required to furnish both, but I've seen 
many applications where both methods were used together for one reason or 
another.

Steve Leyton
Protection Design & Consulting





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Gerzayn Fuentes @ CEPI.MX
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:47 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Thrust block vs Restrainers - Underground

Hello, folks!

I am working with underground pipe PVC DR14 C900 for a fire sprinkler system 
and I do understand that if we use restrainers (for example:
SIGMA PV-LOK-PVM and PVP) in/near the MJ fittings, we do not need to use thrust 
blocks. ¿Is this true?

I would appreciate if someone could share an Excel file to calculate the thrust 
block size.

Thanks

Best regards!
___
Gerzayn Fuentes
CEPI - Mexico
T. + 52 (81) 1766-0800
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Air Venting in NFPA 13 (2016)

[Pete Schwab]

It should be in the 2016 edition unless someone successfully appeals to the 
Standards Council and they overturn the floor action (highly unlikely)

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Air Venting in NFPA 13 (2016)

Am I understanding correctly that air venting will be required 13-2016?

 

There was a motion to NOT require it, but that motion failed, right?

 

thanks,

 

Brad Casterline, NICET IV

Fire Protection Division

 

FSC, Inc.

P: 913-722-3473

bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com

www.fsc-inc.com

 

Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment

 

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

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

RE: standpipes in fire separated building

[Pete Schwab]

If the piping supply is connected (common supply piping) then I would say you 
have to calculate until you reach 1250 GPM (since the garage is not 
sprinklered).

7.10.1.2.3* Common supply piping shall be calculated and
sized to provide the required flow rate for all standpipes connected
to such supply piping, with the total not to exceed the
maximum flow demand in 7.10.1.1.5.

A.7.10.1.2.3 Flow is added at nodes in a standpipe system in
250 gpm (946 L/min) increments without requiring additional
flow, which might occur from higher pressures at that
node (balancing the system). The common supply piping
should be hydraulically calculated based on the required
flow rate [500, 750, 1000, or 1250 gpm (1893, 2840, 3785, or
4732 L/min)] for the standpipe system. The calculated
pressure for the standpipe system does not have to be balanced
at the point of connection to the common supply
piping.

It should be noted that the above is my opinion.  It has not been processed as 
a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing 
Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as 
the official position of the NFPA or its Committees.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com







-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Greg McGahan
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 7:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: standpipes in fire separated building

I will find out tomorrow but this is one lot so I presume it is a fire wall. 
The separation into two different buildings appears to not be necessary per the 
excerpt from 14. They appear to meet definition of fire AREA. At least that is 
indeed what I hope. 



Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:21 AM, John Drucker - Home  
> wrote:
> 
> Greg,
> 
> So the garage is classified as a separate building and the two systems are 
> independent ?  Two (2) Hour Rated Wall needs clarification, if it’s a fire 
> wall or PARTY WALL (See 706.1.1 below) then two separate buildings. Ask the 
> architect. That’s the key.  
> 
> 706.1 General. Each portion of a building separated by one or more 
> fire walls that comply with the provisions of this section shall be 
> considered a separate building. The extent and location of such fire 
> walls shall provide a complete separation separation. Where a fire 
> wall also separates occupancies that are required to be separated by a 
> fire barrier wall, the most restrictive requirements of each 
> separation shall apply.
> 
> 706.1.1 Party walls. Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent 
> buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two 
> buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall in accordance with 
> Section 706.
> Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create 
> separate buildings.
> 
> 
> Here's the IBC/IFC Code Sections;
> 
> [F] 905.2 Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed 
> in accordance with this section and NFPA 14.
> 
> 905.3.1 Height. Class III standpipe systems shall be installed 
> throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is 
> located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) above the lowest level of the fire 
> department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest 
> story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) below the highest level 
> of fire department vehicle access.
> Exceptions:
> 1. Class I standpipes are allowed in buildings equipped throughout 
> with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 
> 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.
> 2. Class I manual standpipes are allowed in open parking garages where 
> the highest floor is located not more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) above 
> the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.
> 3. Class I manual dry standpipes are allowed in open parking garages 
> that are subject to freezing temperatures, provided that the hose 
> connections are located as required for Class II standpipes in 
> accordance with Section 905.5.
> 4. Class I standpipes are allowed in basements equipped throughout 
> with an automatic sprinkler system.
> 5. In determining the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, 
> it shall not be required to consider:
> 5.1. Recessed loading docks for four vehicles or less, and 5.2. 
> Conditions where topography makes access from the fire department 
> vehicle to the building impractical or impossible.
> 
> [F] 905.4.2 Interconnection. In buildings where more than one 
> standpipe is provided, the standpipes shall be interconnected in 
> accordance with NFPA 14.
> 
> 2014 NFPA-14
> 
> 7.10 Flow Rates.
> 
> 7.10.1 Class I and Class III Systems.
> 
> 7.10.1.1* Flow Rate.
> 
> 7.10.1.1.1 For Class I and Class III systems, the minimum flow

RE: 13R Valve Monitoring

[Pete Schwab]

Same here in Florida.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matthew J Willis
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring

If the system is "Required" per building code, then Electrical Monitoring is 
required.
I believe 101 states this as well.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis
Project Manager
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
1805 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Owen Evans
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:05 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: 13R Valve Monitoring

Do the OS&Y valves on a double check that serves a 13R system required to have 
tamper switches or is a lock and chain alone permitted?


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

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

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

RE: Recalled SPRINKLERS

[Pete Schwab]

Steve
You cannot submit PI to NFPA 13 for any extracted sections in Chapter 22. Those 
PI's need to be submitted directly to the extracted standard.
So with that said... start writing.
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Recalled SPRINKLERS

Right.   Todd and I have been corresponding off-forum about this.
There's a mess o' heads in Chapter 22 where all the special occupancy 
requirements have been brought in from other standards.  So someone in NFPA's 
Codes and Standard's Dept. should have their filters set a little tighter, 
perhaps but that Chapter is not really the work of "our" TC.
Having said that, I stand even more firmly by what I said:  "Sprinkler Head" or 
"Head" as it may refer to sprinklers is NOT a defined term.
Head is an expression of pressure, normally measured in feet and equal
to .434 PSI/vertical foot.

Note to Pete Schwab - we need to write a bunch of clean-up proposals to Chapter 
22 for the 2019 ...

SML





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:10 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Recalled SPRINKLERS

Ron, before you jump on the bike and "head" out, I filtered ones that 
specifically referenced sprinklers.

Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
www.fpdc.com
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-608-4559 (cell)
Sent using CloudMagic
[https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2]
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:03 PM, sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 wrote:
Oooo, I just want to go down a road of degradation and filthy language 
right now. How many colloquialisms is head either wholly or a part of?

http://www.peckerheadmotorcycleracing.com

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Todd - Work  wrote:

 > Steve, I hate to burst your bubble, but NFPA 13 references "head"
about
17
 > times
 > when referring to sprinklers.
 >
 > Todd G Williams, PE
 > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
 > Stonington, CT
 > www.fpdc.com
 > 860-535-2080 (ofc)
 > 860-608-4559 (cell)
 > Sent using CloudMagic [
 > https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pi&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2]
 >
 > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM,
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 >  wrote:
 > We all have pet peeves. My longtime industry friends, TC colleagues and  > 
 > employees have likely endured my rant on this issue in both sober and  > 
 > altered states. I've subscribed to the Forum since its inception
- when  > was that, 1997? And all this time I've managed to keep this under my  
> hat but can't take it any longer - the steady stream of emails with the  > 
subject header "Recalled Heads" is more than I can bear.
 >
 > To Whom It May Concern:
 >
 > There is no such thing as a sprinkler head. It does not exist; it is
> not a defined term in any NFPA document. The correct term is "fire  >
sprinkler" or just "sprinkler".
 >
 > Steve L.
 >
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Sprinklerforum mailing list
 > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 >
 >
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
 > ___
 > Sprinklerforum mailing list
 > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 >
 >
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
 >



--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405

rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu

http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/

253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)

Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC

They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, 
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)

A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor 
and engineer (1876-1958) ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org

RE: Corridor shadow areas

[Pete Schwab]

Actually they were concerned that people would apply the shadow to obstructions 
such as ductwork vs. the 3 or 4 times rule.
At least that is how I remember it

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Corridor shadow areas

the 13 committee rejected attempts to add a max shadowed area similar to 13R 
because it was too RESTRICTIVE.


Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Ben Young  wrote:
> 
> Larry,
> 
> Thanks, I found it in the 2013 ROC, comment 13-143.  Its a shame, 
> because it sounds like they agreed but didn't like the backwall part 
> for some other reason.  McPhee's commentary in 13-135 would have made 
> the appendix language include areas behind sidewalls, but without 
> something like that, I have an AHJ basically telling me that this 
> scenario is only allowed in a 13R installation.  My indentations 
> aren't even as severe as those shown, they're only 12" deep by 5 feet 
> wide!  Oh well, I guess have something to submit next cycle now.
> 
> 
> Benjamin Young
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Larry Keeping 
> wrote:
> 
>> The illustration that was first submitted for their consideration, 
>> was adjusted by the Technical Committee before it was accepted for 
>> addition into NFPA 13. The original submission showed a 9 ft wide by 
>> 2 ft deep entry vestibule on both sides of the corridor. I believe 
>> that when the figure was revised the "2 ft 0 in. max." should have been 
>> edited out.
>> 
>> Larry Keeping
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben 
>> Young
>> Sent: April-23-15 12:01 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Corridor shadow areas
>> 
>> Does anyone know if there's an error with figure A.8.1.1(3)(a) in the 
>> 2013 edition of NFPA 13?
>> There appears to be an extraneous bit at the bottom that says '2 ft 0in.
>> max'
>> 
>> It looks like this is a holdover from a modification made to figure
>> 6.4.6.3.3.2 in the 2013 edition of NFPA 13R.
>> 
>> I'm wondering if the bottom of the figure accidentally got chopped 
>> off in the 13 version of the figure, and that the shadow areas behind 
>> the sidewalls in a hallway are allowed in a 13 system as well as a 13R 
>> system.
>> 
>> I checked the 2016 first and second draft reports but didn't see any 
>> comments or proposals regarding this, though.
>> 
>> Is this just wishful thinking on my part, or did someone goof up when 
>> they put the figure in?
>> 
>> Any thoughts?
>> 
>> Benjamin Young
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler.org ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler.org
>> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org

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

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

Heat Tracing

[Pete Schwab]

I am searching for an installer of heat tracing (Listed for fire protection) in 
Florida
If you have a contact you can share it is greatly appreciated.
Thanks

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



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

RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building

[Pete Schwab]

Jeremy
The 200 ft travel distance does not apply to the roof if it is not intended for 
occupancy
Pete

7.3.2.2* Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered
floor or story is located in excess of 150 ft (45.7 m) of travel
distance from a hose connection in or adjacent to a required
exit or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story
is located in excess of 200 ft (61 m) of travel distance from a
hose connection in or adjacent to a required exit, additional
hose connections shall be provided, in approved locations,
where required by the local fire department or the AHJ.

7.3.2.2.1 The distance requirements in 7.3.2.2 shall not apply
to the roof if it is not intended for occupancy.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



Please check out our website for the details! 



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Jeremy Frazier
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:36 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building

You shouldn't need a roof hydrant if you are under 200' from your last fire
hose valve to the furthest point on the roof,   but you do need to put the
fire hose valve at the highest landing to the roof hatch.
NFPA 14 2010
7.3.2 Class I systems shall be provided with 2½" hose connections in the 
following locations.
(5) At the highest landing of stairways with stairway access to a roof, or on 
roofs with a slope of less than 4/12 where stairways do not access the
roof.   

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of tad.tay...@continental-fire.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 12:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building

We are having some differences of opinion with a local fire marshall requesting 
the installation of roof hydrant valve.  We are protecting a 4-story building 
that will be fully sprinklered utilizing a Class 1 - combination standpipe in 
the north stairwell and south stairwells.  Two standpipe stacks were provided 
to get the 200' travel distance across the building. Hose valves are located on 
intermediate landings.
Near the center of the building on the top floor there is a permanent ladder 
leading to a roof hatch.  The owner does not intend to utilize the roof for any 
type of occupancy, only service for MEP. Since the owner does not intend to use 
the roof for occupancy, our travel distance from our standpipe through the roof 
hatch is approx. 180'-0", and our roof slope is less than
4/12 we were not planning on installing any additional hose valves / roof 
hydrant valves in the small room where the roof hatch is located.
Were we right by leaving out the hose valve in this roof on the original design?
Thank you

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

__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
__

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

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

RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

[Pete Schwab]

Based on the 2nd draft, this is what the 2016 language will say unless it is 
Successfully NITMAM ed

6.2.1.1*  
When a sprinkler is removed from a fitting or welded outlet, it shall not be 
reinstalled except as permitted by 6.2.1.1.1.
6.2.1.1.1  
Dry sprinklers shall be permitted to be reinstalled when removed in accordance 
with the manufacturer's installation and maintenance instructions.

A.6.2.1.1  
Sprinklers should be permitted to be reinstalled when the sprinkler being 
removed from the system remains attached to the original fitting or welded 
outlet, provided care has been taken to ensure the sprinkler has not been 
damaged. Flexible hose connections are considered a fitting.
In new installations, where sprinklers are installed on pendent drop nipples or 
sidewall sprinklers prior to final cut-back, protective caps and/or straps 
should remain in place until after the drop nipple has been cut to fit to the 
final ceiling elevation.

This is my opinion only and does not constitute the official opinion of the 
NFPA.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com


 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of michael G
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

I would have to agree with Richard,  He is not pulling the head out of the 
piping, the Boss of the sprinkler is taking no extra strain and there is no 
extra stress added on the sprinkler head its self.  Only the piping is being 
removed, cut threaded and reinstalled.  We basically do this when we install a 
system

We run the branch line, install a 0-2 and elbow, the drop and a head with the 
support ring installed already, so that when we do our initial testing for 
leaks, the drops are tested all the way to the sprinkler head. The reason for 
this is, 1) to eliminate the number of potential leaks at the end of the job 
while conducting the final pressure test. 2) if there is a bad head or 
something wrong, i.e.  cracked 1 x 1/2" RC, it is easier to change it out then, 
instead of over finished floor and product.


Mike 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Duane Johnson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

6.2.1.1 (2013) When a sprinkler has been removed for any reason, it shall not 
be reinstalled.


Duane Johnson
Strickland Fire Protection


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Richard Carr
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 3:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

If he is not pulling the head how is it a violation of NFPA?

Richard Carr, SET
Branch Manager
Cox Fire Protection, Inc
6555 Grace Lane.
Jacksonville, Fl. 32205
rc...@coxfire.com
904-781-8227


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Duane Johnson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

The problem is, you won't find this in the standard unless you print out the 
ROC...


Duane Johnson
Strickland Fire Protection


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Duane Johnson
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

Not permitted. There was a proposal submitted on the last cycle to allow this, 
but it was rejected.


Duane Johnson
Strickland Fire Protection


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Art Tiroly
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 3:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Relocate sprinklers with drops

I am having an argument with a contractor that is removing heads and drops then 
moving them to a new position. Sprinklers are QR less than 5 years old.
He is not removing the head from the drop or the 1x1/2 RC. He says he is not 
reusing sprinklers just relocating them with the drop nipple. He says this is 
standard practice. 
Does this violate 6.2.1.1? Do not reuse sprinklers removed from the system.


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



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

RE: residential sidewall sprinklers

[Pete Schwab]

8.10.3.4 Residential sidewall sprinklers shall be permitted to be
installed on opposing or adjacent walls, provided no sprinkler is
located within the maximum protection area of another sprinkler
or unless separated by baffles that comply with the following:
(1) Baffles shall be arranged to protect the actuating elements.
(2) Baffles shall be of solid and rigid material that will stay in
place before and during sprinkler operation.
(3) Baffles shall be not less than 8 in. (203 mm) long and 6 in.
(152 mm) high.
(4) The tops of baffles shall extend between 2 in. and 3 in.
(51 mm and 76 mm) above the deflectors.
(5) The bottoms of baffles shall extend downward to a level at
least even with the deflectors.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:07 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: residential sidewall sprinklers

In the section on standard spray sidewall sprinklers, NFPA 13 prohibits 
sidewall sprinklers being on adjacent or opposing walls if they are in the 
spray pattern of another sidewall.  Does this prohibition exist for residential 
sidewall sprinklers? I can not seem to locate it if it does.  I am reviewing a 
set of plans and this comment was brought up.  I wanted to have a section of 
the standard to verify if the requirement does exist.  Can anyone help with the 
section reference, or help confirm that it is not in the section on residential 
sidewall sprinklers?

Thanks!

--
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:tm...@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

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

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

RE: What's YOUR response??

[Pete Schwab]

Brad, correct. That was the intent of the committee.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 9:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: What's YOUR response??

Good point Allan!

My take is this:
 example 1-- Light Hazard-- Q.R. required-- Sprinkler= "Acme Model A" listed 
Q.R. at max 14 x 14 and S.R. up to 20 x 20-- so max spacing = 14 x 14.
 example 2-- Ord Haz-- same sprinkler-- max spacing = 20 x 20, BUT if it 
happens that some coverage areas are 14 X 14, it is NOT considered mixing Q.R. 
and S.R.

Brad


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 12:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: What's YOUR response??

If the intent for this section were to also consider the standard-response 
spaced sprinklers as being declared quick-response then it would have also 
stated that in addition to stating they could be mixed within the same 
compartment. Mixing them in this way means quick response has not been used 
throughout as is required by some building codes for various situations. The 
installation could wind up not building code compliant.

Allan Seidel
St. Louis, MO


> On Dec 18, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Pete Schwab  wrote:
> 
> For the 2016 edition, the following language should appear
> 
> 8.3.3.5
> Where a sprinkler carries a listing for both standard-response 
> protection
and quick-response protection at different coverage areas, that sprinkler shall 
be permitted to be installed within a compartment at the spacing for both the 
quick- response and standard-response listings without any separation between 
the areas so covered.
> 
> Peter Schwab
> VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies
> 
> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
> 222 Capitol Court
> Ocoee, Fl 34761
> 
> Mobile: (407) 468-8248
> Direct: (407) 877-5570
> Fax: (407) 656-8026
> 
> www.waynefire.com
> 
> 
> 
> We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out 
> our
website for the details! 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland 
Huggins
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:05 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: What's YOUR response??
> 
> look at 8.3.3.2 - if QR is used, all sprinklers within that 
> COMPARTMENT
must be QR.
> 
> Also not that some EC (aka 20 x 20) with a fast response link are not QR.
> 
> Roland
> 
> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
> Dallas, TX
> http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Vince Sabolik  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi forum ... this hurting my brain today.
>> 
>> If standard response sprinklers are installed in a given space - a 
>> retail tenant, can QR extended heads be used in a subsequent addition.
>> The two areas will have the same ceiling and I want to use extended 
>> heads
in the addition because of intense surface strip lighting.
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

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

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

RE: What's YOUR response??

[Pete Schwab]

For the 2016 edition, the following language should appear

8.3.3.5 
Where a sprinkler carries a listing for both standard-response protection and 
quick-response protection at different coverage areas, that sprinkler shall be 
permitted to be installed within a compartment at the spacing for both the 
quick- response and standard-response listings without any separation between 
the areas so covered.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: What's YOUR response??

look at 8.3.3.2 - if QR is used, all sprinklers within that COMPARTMENT must be 
QR.

Also not that some EC (aka 20 x 20) with a fast response link are not QR.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Vince Sabolik  wrote:
> 
> Hi forum ... this hurting my brain today.
> 
> If standard response sprinklers are installed in a given space - a 
> retail tenant, can QR extended heads be used in a subsequent addition. 
> The two areas will have the same ceiling and I want to use extended heads in 
> the addition because of intense surface strip lighting.

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

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

RE: Hydraulic Placard

[Pete Schwab]

In states like Florida with a 2 tag system, a missing hydraulic placard is a 
deficiency and automatically gets a red tag. That really makes building owners 
happy.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 4:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Placard

A starting point is to identify that it is a non-critical deficiency (along 
with the categories for any other deficiencies).  Then the owner can prioritize 
what is to be fixed and when.  If we could get some owners to just fix the 
impairments, we’d be a long way down the road.

The discussion obviously will be different when the state requires tagging and 
notification of the AHJ.  What do you guys and gals see in these states on what 
to bring to the AHJ’s attention?

Roland

 
Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 





> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Jeff Bridges  wrote:
> 
> An earlier thread brought up a good point and a common problem- 
> Hydraulic Placards
> 
> Missing Hydraulic Placard is a common deficiency found during routine 
> inspections.
> 
> Owners and AHJ's seldom (read never) have copies of the Approved plan, 
> so the only method of re-determining these numbers can be costly and 
> time consuming.
> 
> Owners scoff at the price and even the importance- AHJ's have waived 
> the requirement on some instances leaving the Sprinkler contractor looking 
> bad.
> 
> What's your experience on how do you react when it comes to the 
> missing Hydraulic Placard?
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Bridges
> 
> JB Fire Protection Inc
> 
> (888) 523-4737 Fax (714) 285-0203
> 
> Fire Sprinklers Save Lives & Property
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org

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

Floating Docks

[Pete Schwab]

Forum
We have a project with a fixed dock connected to a floating dock. We need to 
install a hose connection on the floating dock. NFPA 303 allows flexible 
connections where approved by the AHJ. I am not sure that the Metraflex 
Connector will work for the 3-4 feet of tide variation. Does anyone have any 
suggestions?
Thanks

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026


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

RE: Formality question

[Pete Schwab]

Brad,
Steve is correct. As someone who submits many PI's, the intent is to improve 
the standard. The balance of the committee usually keeps biased Inputs from 
becoming code. Get involved. You don't have to be a member of NFPA to attend a 
committee meeting. You don't have to be a committee member to participate on a 
task group. It is a shame that there is not a line of contractors in the room 
for the sprinkler project. Granted there can only be 6 installer maintainers 
but there are ways to participate in the process. As a contractor, being 
involved in this process has paid for itself 10 times over.
Pete

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, FL 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details!


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:24 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Formality question

Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual 
issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 
of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up.   NFPA 14 was a 
formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, 
intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the 
sections where they belonged.   This extended to the definitions, 
chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007.

You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that 
committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic.  
Who better to propose to that standard?   There's no conflict of interest in 
that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and 
comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a 
Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process 
was truly served.

I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years:  "Don't like it?  
Change it!  Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process."   
How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety 
Conference?   How many stayed for the code hearing?   You know what they say 
about government, right?   People generally get the government they deserve.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline
Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Formality question

It just seems like a conflict of interest,  which is fine for my government, I 
just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24

> On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline  wrote:
>
> And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with 
> one hand and drink wid the other?
>
>> On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's 
>> already on the docket.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>  Original message From: Brad Casterline 
>>  Date:09/19/2014  8:35 PM  (GMT-08:00) 
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: 
>> Formality question 
>> Why do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brad Casterline
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

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

RE: Sprinklers on 3" Pipe

[Pete Schwab]

Cliff
I recall we changed this in the 2013 edition. I do not have in front of me but 
check that edition as well.
Pete

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, FL 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details!


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Cliff Whitfield [cl...@fire-design.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinklers on 3" Pipe

This was bugging me so I had to stop and look it up.

NFPA 13 - 2010

8.6.5.2.1.8  "The requirements of 8.6.5.2.1.3 shall not apply to sprinkler
system piping less than 3 in. in diameter."

The commentary goes on to say that sprigs or riser nipples (or offsetting
the heads) are required on 3" and larger pipe.  This is for SSU heads.  Not
only Large Drop.

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President
Fire Design, Inc.
Ph: 719-488-3479



cl...@fire-design.com
www.fire-design.com


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3" Pipe

Cliff,
 I thought about that, however the only place I could find language like
that in the '07 was in the section on Large Drop sprinklers, which does not
apply to that model. Or maybe it does, it's just that I've been stuck on the
'13 edition for so long I'm a bit confused going backwards.  Could the V3404
be regarded as a CMSA/Large Drop?  The large drop tables I'm looking at in
my '07 edition show the CMSA as having specific pressure requirements, while
the V3404 clearly notes it can be used for storage in an area/density
method.
 Lots to think about.
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website  *** On 9/19/2014 1:02
PM, Cliff Whitfield wrote:
> Ken,
>
> I assumed Jay was talking about having 3" lines without sprigs to the
> sprinklers.  I haven’t been where I could confirm in the book but I
> believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be
> required to be on sprigs.
>
> Cliff Whitfield, SET
> President
> Fire Design, Inc.
> Ph: 719-488-3479
>
>
>
> cl...@fire-design.com
> www.fire-design.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3" Pipe
>
> I'm not sure Jay.  The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to
> suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for
> storage, when using density/area.  I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20.
>
> Did you come across something else?
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  *** On 9/19/2014
> 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote:
>> I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated
>> in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007).  They have Victaulic 3403 upright
>> sprinklers directly on 3" pipe.  Unless I am missing something, I am
>> pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler
>> and cannot be
> installed
>> this way.  I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large
>> orifice standard spray sprinkler.  Am I correct or am I missing a
>> listing for this sprinkler?
>>
>>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
>
>

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

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

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

RE: Residential Closets in NFPA 13 and... 101?

[Pete Schwab]

Agreed. The key is: is this a true dormitory? If each unit has individual 
cooking capabilities then it is an apartment.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Duane Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 7:54 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Closets in NFPA 13 and... 101?

That is for apartments, not dormitories. All this was moved to Annex D in 2010.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 7:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Residential Closets in NFPA 13 and... 101?

If you are on the 2007 edition of NFPA 13, see 21.20.19.2.1. This takes 
precedence over NFPA 13 based on 21.1.1.2.
Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of ampeck
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 7:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Closets in NFPA 13 and... 101?

Good morning Forum,

I'm working on a 8 story dormitory and going by NFPA 13 2010 Edition. The 
building is entirely dorm rooms and common area activity areas.

So I'm taking exception 8.15.8.1 for bathrooms under 55 sq ft. Then there's 
8.15.8.2 for closets under 24 sq ft. I can't take this since it's only 
indicated for hotels/motels. Correct? I'd love to haha. But anyway I can't 
remember for the life of me where in 101, I believe it is, that limits closets 
to 12 sq ft. I usually go by that because it's good to take the most stringent 
of the two. But I can't find it and wanted to re-read it to see what occupancy 
it related to, only 13R or others. Just so perhaps I could use that rule to 
eliminate some.

Any help locating that? Maybe it was in the IBC Fire Code, I honestly forget at 
this point.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

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

RE: Residential Closets in NFPA 13 and... 101?

[Pete Schwab]

If you are on the 2007 edition of NFPA 13, see 21.20.19.2.1. This takes 
precedence over NFPA 13 based on 21.1.1.2.
Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of ampeck
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 7:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Residential Closets in NFPA 13 and... 101?

Good morning Forum,

I'm working on a 8 story dormitory and going by NFPA 13 2010 Edition. The 
building is entirely dorm rooms and common area activity areas.

So I'm taking exception 8.15.8.1 for bathrooms under 55 sq ft. Then there's 
8.15.8.2 for closets under 24 sq ft. I can't take this since it's only 
indicated for hotels/motels. Correct? I'd love to haha. But anyway I can't 
remember for the life of me where in 101, I believe it is, that limits closets 
to 12 sq ft. I usually go by that because it's good to take the most stringent 
of the two. But I can't find it and wanted to re-read it to see what occupancy 
it related to, only 13R or others. Just so perhaps I could use that rule to 
eliminate some.

Any help locating that? Maybe it was in the IBC Fire Code, I honestly forget at 
this point.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

RE: 6 Story Hotel

[Pete Schwab]

Allan
Shafts are allowed between below and above the podium in a 2 hour shaft 
enclosure. Read the NFPA 13R 2013 Handbook supplement on podium buildings. 
Great information - written by Jeff Shapiro and Marshall Klein. Standpipes 
follow the height requirements regardless of the podium (30' highest occupiable 
floor from lowest level of fire department vehicle access). The sprinkler 
system below the 3 hour slab must be a 13 system. Even if it is an occupancy 
that could be exempt (an open garage) it must be sprinklered. One FDC could 
feed both buildings but this is not codified (should be discussed with the 
AHJ). Also no requirements (yet trust me I will be submitting in the 
future) for valving arrangements.
If you have not seen a podium style with 13R wood 4 stories above, you will. 
For infill, this is the way to maximize real estate. And you will see very 
large spaces below the podium (3 hour slab) and multiple 13R protected 
buildings above separated by 2 hour vertical walls above. 
Pete

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, FL 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details!


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of AKS-Gmail-IMAP [aksei...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 8:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 6 Story Hotel

What about how the stairwells are handled? I would guess the top building 
stairwell probably stops at its base and you enter another stairwell to get 
down through the bottom building. The top of that bottom stairwell would be 
above the bottom/top building  3 hr line. Is its sprinkler system independent 
of the bottom building? It cannot be part of the top building system. If the 
floor height is measured from the base then standpipes may kick in. Does the 
bottom building have a standpipe system? How many standpipes are involved for 
that stairwell pair? Does the top building standpipe travel in its own rated 
shaft up to where it starts at the top building? There are at least two FDCs at 
the base of this building stack. How do the other systems for the bottom 
building, like exhaust and air supply, get to the roof? If there is a shaft 
then how does the shaft top negotiate the top building roof? This building 
construction choice seems like it opens up a bunch of sticky situations.

Allan Seidel
St.Louis, MO


On Aug 1, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jim Davidson  
wrote:

> John,
>
> You are correct the most important is the measurement from the grade
> plane which is different than the measurement from the top of the
> pedestal. This trips up a large number of design professionals and
> contractors.
>
> Yes the note at the bottom of Table 508.4 states: S = Buildings equipped
> throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance
> with Section 903.3.1.1. Paragraph 903.3.1.1 only addresses NFPA 13
> sprinkler systems. Where the provisions of this code require that a
> building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic
> sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be
> installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in
> Section 903.3.1.1.1.
>
> Be careful when looking at "Pedestal" construction in the sprinkler
> industry, because "after the fire" there will be experts that will state
> that you have interpreted the IBC incorrectly and therefore installed
> the wrong sprinkler system if a NFPA 123 R was used.  Additionally, if
> the combustible concealed space between the ceiling and the floor above
> when using open web wood joist is not sprinklered the building owner can
> come back in a construction defect lawsuit against the contractor(s)
> involved, and require the contractor(s) to repay the owner for a
> defective sprinkler system installation costs included are: demolition
> of walls, ceilings and improperly installed sprinkler system, tenant
> relocation costs, loss of income, new sprinkler system installation, new
> architectural finishes, and of course lawyer fees (yours and theirs).
>
> Have a fire safe day>
>
> Regards
>
> Jim
>
> DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES
>
> Fire Protection Engineering   P. O. Box 4010
> Code Consultants  Greenville, DE  19807-0010
> Medical Gas Systems Engineering   (302) 994-9500
>   Fax (302) 994-3414
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY
> This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be
> privileged.
> If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this
> report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender
> immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use
> them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...

RE: 6 Story Hotel

[Pete Schwab]

If he/she is using an exception for a system in accordance with 903.3.1.1, I 
agree it must a 13 system. However, a Group R building may have a one story 
increase (building height nor greater than 60'-0") for a System in accordance 
with 903.3.1.2 (13R). There is a 4 story limit for the building. A podium style 
could be a "5" story (4 story building built above a 1 story podium).

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sharon Alves
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: 6 Story Hotel

However, if the architect is using a fire sprinkler system in lieu of height or 
type of construction, etc. it must then be a full 13 system.

Thank you,

Sharon Alves
Senior Fire Sprinkler Specialist, Design Manager, SET



LP Consulting Engineers, Inc.
MEP/FS . Sustainability . CxA
1663 Eureka Rd - Roseville, CA  95661
(916) 771-0778 x114
sal...@lpengineers.com
www.lpengineers.com


This email and its attachments are the sole property of LP Consulting 
Engineers, Inc. and Copyrighted by LP Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2013.  This 
communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally 
privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). 
Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may 
violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all 
copies of the communication.  The sender and its company do not guarantee that 
this email or its attachments is free of viruses nor does it accept any 
liability for same.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 11:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: 6 Story Hotel

NFPA 13R 2013 Edition 

Chapter 4 General Requirements
4.1 Sprinklered Throughout. A building provided with a fire sprinkler system 
designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of this standard, 
including its allowable omissions, shall be considered fully sprinklered 
throughout.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:46 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 6 Story Hotel

IT has been awhile since I looked at this but I think you are reading that 
section out of context. I think there are 2 trade-offs including the reduction 
of the passive rating that is restricted to the presence of a full 13 system 
throughout BUT the IBC considers a building protected throughout even when a 
13R system is installed.

Awaiting input from our code boys and gals.

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org





On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Steele, Andrew  
wrote:

> There are some other building code (and possibly even insurance risk 
> assessment) issues that are likely to arise when using a NFPA #13R system; a 
> 13R system IS NOT a fully protected building.  For example, ICC Table 508 
> "required separation of occupancies" does not recognize 13R systems, so if 
> the building has or gets multiple uses, it's a "non-sprinkled" building, 
> typically doubling the required separation .
> 
> A. Steele

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

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

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

RE: 6 Story Hotel

[Pete Schwab]

NFPA 13R 2013 Edition 

Chapter 4 General Requirements
4.1 Sprinklered Throughout. A building provided with a fire
sprinkler system designed and installed in accordance with
the requirements of this standard, including its allowable
omissions, shall be considered fully sprinklered throughout.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:46 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 6 Story Hotel

IT has been awhile since I looked at this but I think you are reading that 
section out of context. I think there are 2 trade-offs including the reduction 
of the passive rating that is restricted to the presence of a full 13 system 
throughout BUT the IBC considers a building protected throughout even when a 
13R system is installed.

Awaiting input from our code boys and gals.

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org





On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Steele, Andrew  
wrote:

> There are some other building code (and possibly even insurance risk 
> assessment) issues that are likely to arise when using a NFPA #13R system; a 
> 13R system IS NOT a fully protected building.  For example, ICC Table 508 
> "required separation of occupancies" does not recognize 13R systems, so if 
> the building has or gets multiple uses, it's a "non-sprinkled" building, 
> typically doubling the required separation .
> 
> A. Steele

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

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

RE: 8.15.1.2.1 and A8.15.1.2.1 NFPA 13 (2013)

[Pete Schwab]

It's a combustible concealed space. Sprinkler it or fill it with insulation


Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, FL 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details!


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Greg McGahan [g...@livingwaterfp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 8.15.1.2.1 and A8.15.1.2.1 NFPA 13 (2013)

We just a huge discussion about a similar issue and we were not able to get
a consenus..it is quite vague...

Greg


Greg McGahan
Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 
1160 McKenzie Road
Cantonment, FL 32533
850-937-1850
fax 850-937-1852


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Travis Mack  wrote:

> Has anyone been able to determine what is an acceptable amount of
> non-structural wood?  We have a hotel project.  It is TJI construction with
> sheet rock to the bottom of the TJI throughout the building construction.
>  Under that, in the corridor, they have a dropped ceiling that is
> acoustical tile and then every +/-40', there is a 15' span of gyp board
> ceiling.  The builder is framing the gyp board ceiling with wood structural
> members.  In a 200' corridor, there is about 60' of these gyp board areas.
>  Would this qualify as an area needing sprinklers or would you not put
> sprinklers in this area?
>
> --
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

Isolation by Floor

[Pete Schwab]

We are designing a high rise and I recall a requirement somewhere in the IBC 
that we need to zone by floor.
Can someone please point me to the right place or am I just imagining this. I 
know that NFPA 13 made some changes in the 2013 edition but we are on the 2007.
Thanks
Pete

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Angled sidewall sprinklers

[Pete Schwab]

See the last page

http://www.vikinggroupinc.com/databook/sprinklers/spk_accessories/122698.pdf


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 1:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Angled sidewall sprinklers

Anyone know if there's a solution out there for trimming a sidewall with a 
plate or two-piece escutcheon that allows the sprinkler to be angled down the 
with slope of an exterior portico overhang and still make up the escutcheon to 
the vertical wall surface?

 

Steve Leyton

Protection Design & Consulting

San Diego, CA

 

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

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

RE: Cooler Calc

[Pete Schwab]

Bob
See 8.16.4.1.5 Below


8.16.4.1.1* Where any portion of a system is subject to freezing
and the temperatures cannot be reliably maintained at or
above 40°F (4°C), the system shall be installed as a dry pipe or
preaction system.
8.16.4.1.1.1 The requirements of 8.16.4.1.1 shall not apply
where alternate methods of freeze prevention are provided in
accordance with one of the methods described in 8.16.4.1.2
through 8.16.4.1.4.1.
8.16.4.1.2 Unheated areas shall be permitted to be protected
by antifreeze systems or by other systems specifically listed for
the purpose.
8.16.4.1.3 Where aboveground water-filled supply pipes, risers,
system risers, or feed mains pass through open areas, cold
rooms, passageways, or other areas exposed to temperatures
below 40°F (4°C), the pipe shall be permitted to be protected
against freezing by insulating coverings, frostproof casings, or
other means of maintaining a minimum temperature between
40°F and 120°F (4°C and 48.9°C).
8.16.4.1.4 Listed heat-tracing systems shall be permitted in
accordance with 8.16.4.1.4.1 and 8.16.4.1.4.2.
8.16.4.1.4.1 Where used to protect branch lines, the heattracing
system shall be specifically listed for use on branch lines.
8.16.4.1.4.2 Electric supervision of the heat-tracing system shall
provide positive confirmation that the circuit is energized.
8.16.4.1.5 Water-filled piping shall be permitted to be installed
in areas where the temperature is less than 40°F (4°C)
when heat loss calculations performed by a professional engineer
verify that the system will not freeze.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 3:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Cooler Calc

13 words it, in the section on dry pipe systems, at or above 40F.  Where do I 
find it that on a wet system that I don't need to apply the temperature in the 
same way?

Thank You,

Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.Firebyknight.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of John Denhardt
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:01 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Cooler Calc

Agree - we had done numerous cooler boxes and never have had an issue.
Usually the stored products will be damaged if they freeze.  In many case, the 
refrigeration unit shuts down if the temperature drops below a certain set 
temperature; 35 degree F is typical. 

Installing dry sprinklers where they are not required or necessarily is not 
good fire protection in my opinion.

John

Fire sprinklers save lives

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 27, 2014, at 11:54 AM, "rfletc...@aerofire.com"
 wrote:

> Exactly, we do 38F coolers with ESFR's. Never had a ..., I better not 
> say
that might jinx it.
> Ron F
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> John Denhardt
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:49 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: Cooler Calc
> 
> If the area is not subject to freezing, no need for dry sprinklers.  
> NFPA
13 only requires dry sprinklers or other method when the area is subject to 
freezing AND can not be readily maintained above 40 degrees F.
> 
> The above is my personal opinion .
> 
> 
> John
> 
> Fire sprinklers save lives
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jun 27, 2014, at 11:42 AM, "Bob"  wrote:
> 
>> Ron,
>> The temperature is maintained at 38F.  The sprinklers used were EC OH 
>> SR dry sprinklers.
>> 
>> Thank You,
>> 
>> Bob Knight, CET III
>> 208-318-3057
>> www.Firebyknight.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
>> On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:37 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Cooler Calc
>> 
>> A couple questions. If it is a cooler why do you need dry pendent 
>> heads? And if it has to be dry heads and they are on a wet system the 
>> RA could still be reduced couldn't it?
>> 
>> Ron F
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
>> On Behalf Of Bob
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:29 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Cooler Calc
>> 
>> Ron,
>> Yes this is a remodel adding only the cooler.  The existing ceiling 
>> demand was well above the .2 need in the cooler.
>> 
>> Thank You,
>> 
>> Bob Knight, CET III
>> 208-318-3057
>> www.Firebyknight.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists

RE: Cooler Calc

[Pete Schwab]

See the 2013 edition of NFPA 13

23.4.4.1.1.4* Where the available floor area for a specific
area/density design criteria, including any extension of area
as required by 11.1.2 and Section 12.3, is less than the required
minimum design area, the design area shall be permitted to
only include those sprinklers within the available design area.
23.4.4.1.1.5 Where the total design discharge from these operating
sprinklers is less than the minimum required discharge
determined by multiplying the required design density
times the required minimum design area, an additional flow
shall be added at the point of connection of the branch line to
the cross main furthest from the source to increase the overall
demand, not including hose stream allowance, to the minimum
required discharge as determined above.

A.23.4.4.1.1.4 The following steps outline the procedure for
calculation in accordance with 23.4.4.1.1.4:
(1) Calculate the hydraulic design discharge including those
sprinklers within the available floor area.
(2) Calculate the minimum required discharge by multiplying
the required design density times the required minimum
design area.
(3) Subtract the discharge calculated in Step 1 from the discharge
calculate in Step 2.
(4) Where the discharge calculated in Step 3 is greater than 0,
the hydraulic design discharge is recalculated including
an additional flow equal to that calculated in Step 3. The
additional flow is added at the point of connection of the
branch line to the cross main furthest from the source.
(5) Where the discharge calculated in Step 3 is less than or
equal to 0, the hydraulic design discharge is as calculated
in Step 1.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 2:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Cooler Calc

If the job is just the cooler then I think all the heads is sufficient within 
the perimeter of the cooler. If it's a part of the larger job you need to calc 
all the possible design areas. Not knowing the layout I can't say but maybe the 
ceiling somewhere is a design area, the cooler is potentially a design area, 
etc. But he's nuts if he thinks you need to add other sprinklers not in the 
fire area to make the fire area be 1500 sqft.
Real is real. Math is math. Often the twin don't meet.


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Mike Hill  wrote:

> I don't suppose that you are lucky enough to have a fire rated cooler.
>
> Common sense would say that you calculate the cooler.
>
> Common practice would say calculate the cooler and/or a 1500 sq. ft. 
> area outside of the cooler.
>
> Mike Hill
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:47 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Cooler Calc
>
> His stand is that I have one of three options that I have not used:
> (1) Density/area curves of Figure 11.2.3.1.1 in accordance with the 
> density/area method of 11.2.3.2
> (2) The room that creates the greatest demand in accordance with the 
> room design method of 11.2.3.3
> (3) Special design areas in accordance with 11.2.3.4
>
> Keep in mind that this is a jurisdiction that has told me in the past 
> that you can't use the exceptions in 13 (this was before they became 
> part of the body), and that they can't use common sense.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Bob Knight, CET III
> 208-318-3057
> www.Firebyknight.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Tim Stone
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:41 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Cooler Calc
>
> The Cooler is a closed in room with a space above. You calculate all 
> the heads inside the cooler if less than 1500 SF. If the area outside 
> the cooler is fully sprinklered then you probably have performed calcs 
> already. I'd ask the AHJ to review NFPA 13.
>
> Regards,
> G. Tim Stone
>
> G. Tim Stone Consulting, LLC
> NICET Level III Engineering Technician Fire Protection Sprinkler 
> Design and Consulting Services
>
> 117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452
> CELL: (802) 373-0638   TEL: (802) 434-2968   Fax: (802) 434-4343
>tston...@comcast.net
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:12 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Cooler Calc
>
> I have a 1,

RE: Listed Flexible Hose?

[Pete Schwab]

Based on NFPA 303, I would say that as long as the flexible connection is 
acceptable to the AHJ it can be used (Approved vs. listed).

6.4.7 Flexible connections shall be permitted on floating
piers where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We’re hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Listed Flexible Hose?

There may or may not be a listed solution.   Metraflex, the maker of Metraloop 
also manufactures flexible connections for the mechanical trades, and there are 
flexible connectors for supply and return mains that are commonly used at 
cooling towers and building service entries, as well as flexible pump 
connectors that are made of the same materials as their listed sprinkler 
seismic joints, but that are not listed for sprinkler use.  And they may or may 
not have the corrosion resistance you'll need without special treatment, 
preferably factory-applied coating of some sort.

At Disneyland, there are sprinklers in the Indiana Jones ride that have to move 
with the features they're built into.  Same with the carriage that guests ride 
on in the Captain Eo attraction.  They use a ball joint designed specifically 
for a certain range of movement, but not sure if 3' is considered a lot or a 
little for some of these applications.  I would focus my energies on the 
flexible hose solution - www.metraflex.com.

Steve L.
On topic for one lucid moment 

 




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of wmens...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Listed Flexible Hose?

I have an application for a floating dock with a standpipe system.  The dock is 
connected to the seawall with an 8' long ramp which moves up and down with the 
tide ( approx. 3').  I need to connect the 4" main at the seawall to the 2 1/2" 
horizontal standpipe on the dock with some kind of flexible hose. UL listed if 
possible.  Any suggestions? 
Thanks 


Bill Menster 
WFM Consulting Inc. 


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

RE: Mixing EC-QR and SC-QR sprinklers in the same area

[Pete Schwab]

Did you mean to say EC Standard response with QR elements mixed with standard 
coverage QR?


Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com



We're hiring great people at all of our locations!  Please check out our 
website for the details! 

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Sean Lockyer
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:19 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Mixing EC-QR and SC-QR sprinklers in the same area

Can Extended Coverage Quick Response Sprinklers and Standard Coverage Quick 
Response Sprinklers be mixed in the same compartment ? Even though QR and SR 
cannot be mixed within the same compartment (I.E.-Room) there is no rule 
precluding the mixing of EC-QR and SC-QR heads as far as I know.

Does anyone here have any experience in this area ?

  Sean Lockyer
      Project Designer   4617 Parkbreeze 
Court
  Cell    386-279-1197  Orlando, 
Florida 32808
  slock...@aitlifesafety.com      Phone:  407-816-9101
  www.AITLifeSafety.com   Fax:     
407-816-9104


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

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

RE: Sprinkler Systems

[Pete Schwab]

You first
PTS


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:05 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

I would first direct your proposal to ICC.  When the last prescriptive
for 1.5" hose stations is removed from the building code, I'm all in.

SML






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Then I will count on your support for the next cycle.


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed about losing Class II.   And that I'm correct.






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed that you are correct or that you would support losing/removing
Class II standpipes from NFPA 14???



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed.   ;-)






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Steve is correct... My utmost and sincere apologies... I meant to say
"trained fire Brigade" We need to lose Class II standpipes



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

I don't wanna nit-pick too much, but the current definitions and classes
of standpipe systems makes NO provision for occupant use.   I agree with
Pete that the likely use of the term Shotgun is reference to a riser
that doesn't have a control valve and may also not have a check valve.
Out here in fair weather country we put our backflows out at the
property line with FDC's attached to the discharge side, comprising a
complete control-check-FDC manifold.   It is very common to see a
"riser" comprised of no more than a gauge, flow switch and test/drain
valve.

SML






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Smith, David L.(FAC)
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Thanks for clarifying that for me Pete

David L. Smith
Fire Protection Maintenance
City of Lakeland
Public Works / Facilities
228 S. Massachusetts Ave.
Lakeland, Fl. 33801
Office: 863-834-2380
Fax:  863-834-2284
Cell: 863-559-0903
david.smi...@lakelandgov.net



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

David
I am not familiar with a shotgun system. A standpipe system will be a
system that has hose valves for occupant or fire department use. These
days we usually only see standpipes for fire department use. A standpipe
system can also have connections to sprinkler systems. (Typical for 4
story or taller buildings in Florida).
I have heard of a "Shotgun" riser. This is almost always a riser for a
sprinkler system that has a control valve and a check valve. The check
valve has a drain attached to it as well as the gauge assemblies.
I have pasted a link (not sure if it will come through on this forum) to
a "shotgun" riser check valve.

https://imail2.waynefire.com/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&a=ReplyAll&t=IPM.Note
&id=RgDUIy2uEn7QEb6WAKDJDFRrBwBp%2fZ7LzzilS4i%2fDgCOx7xRAAAlYgAoAAAK
Lb28HRUFToXdF0nAlaEnFMC8AAAJ&pspid=_1400861904231_553169776

Pete


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Smith, David L.(FAC) [david.smi...@lakelandgov.net]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:31 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinkler Systems

Can someone explain to me the definit

RE: Sprinkler Systems

[Pete Schwab]

Then I will count on your support for the next cycle.


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed about losing Class II.   And that I'm correct.






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed that you are correct or that you would support losing/removing
Class II standpipes from NFPA 14???



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed.   ;-)






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Steve is correct... My utmost and sincere apologies... I meant to say
"trained fire Brigade" We need to lose Class II standpipes



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

I don't wanna nit-pick too much, but the current definitions and classes
of standpipe systems makes NO provision for occupant use.   I agree with
Pete that the likely use of the term Shotgun is reference to a riser
that doesn't have a control valve and may also not have a check valve.
Out here in fair weather country we put our backflows out at the
property line with FDC's attached to the discharge side, comprising a
complete control-check-FDC manifold.   It is very common to see a
"riser" comprised of no more than a gauge, flow switch and test/drain
valve.

SML






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Smith, David L.(FAC)
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Thanks for clarifying that for me Pete

David L. Smith
Fire Protection Maintenance
City of Lakeland
Public Works / Facilities
228 S. Massachusetts Ave.
Lakeland, Fl. 33801
Office: 863-834-2380
Fax:  863-834-2284
Cell: 863-559-0903
david.smi...@lakelandgov.net



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

David
I am not familiar with a shotgun system. A standpipe system will be a
system that has hose valves for occupant or fire department use. These
days we usually only see standpipes for fire department use. A standpipe
system can also have connections to sprinkler systems. (Typical for 4
story or taller buildings in Florida).
I have heard of a "Shotgun" riser. This is almost always a riser for a
sprinkler system that has a control valve and a check valve. The check
valve has a drain attached to it as well as the gauge assemblies.
I have pasted a link (not sure if it will come through on this forum) to
a "shotgun" riser check valve.

https://imail2.waynefire.com/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&a=ReplyAll&t=IPM.Note
&id=RgDUIy2uEn7QEb6WAKDJDFRrBwBp%2fZ7LzzilS4i%2fDgCOx7xRAAAlYgAoAAAK
Lb28HRUFToXdF0nAlaEnFMC8AAAJ&pspid=_1400861904231_553169776

Pete


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Smith, David L.(FAC) [david.smi...@lakelandgov.net]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:31 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinkler Systems

Can someone explain to me the definition of a Standpipe system and a
shotgun system?

David L. Smith Member
Fire Protection Maintenance
City of Lakeland
Public Works / Facilities
228 S. Massachusetts Ave.
Lakeland, Fl. 33801
Office: 863-834-2380
Fax:  863-834-2284
Cell: 863-559-0903
david.smi...@lakelandgov.net<mailto:david.smi...@lakelandgov.net>





PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE:

All e-mail sent to and received from the City of Lakeland, Florida,
including e-mail addresses and content, are subject to the provisions of
the Florida Public Records Law, Florida Statute Chapter 119, and may be
subject to disclosure.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list

RE: HVAC chiller closet

[Pete Schwab]

There is handbook commentary that supports this as well.



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Cliff Whitfield [cl...@fire-design.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: HVAC chiller closet

Jamie,

If these were located overhead in a non-combustible plenum in every room,
the question would not even be an issue.  No sprinklers would be required.
What you have described is more of a 'chase' than a closet.  I don't see
anything in the code that would require these to be sprinklered.

Cliff Whitfield, SET
President
Fire Design, Inc.
Ph: 719-488-3479



cl...@fire-design.com
www.fire-design.com

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: HVAC chiller closet

I am working on a hotel, sprinklered per NFPA 13 2013. There is a closet
located in each guest room containing a WHSP or water source heat pump
supplied by the hydronic piping.  These closets have no door or access to
the space, only a air supply and return louver. The structure is
non-combustible, so I was going to apply 8.15.1.2.1.1 to omit sprinkler
protection for this area, but to be sure i'm not barking up the wrong
chapter & verse, I'd like to ask the forum what the proverbial collective
opinion on this would be.

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

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

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

RE: Sprinkler Systems

[Pete Schwab]

Agreed that you are correct or that you would support losing/removing Class II 
standpipes from NFPA 14???



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf 
of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:58 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Agreed.   ;-)






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:57 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Steve is correct... My utmost and sincere apologies... I meant to say
"trained fire Brigade" We need to lose Class II standpipes



From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Steve Leyton [st...@protectiondesign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:48 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

I don't wanna nit-pick too much, but the current definitions and classes
of standpipe systems makes NO provision for occupant use.   I agree with
Pete that the likely use of the term Shotgun is reference to a riser
that doesn't have a control valve and may also not have a check valve.
Out here in fair weather country we put our backflows out at the
property line with FDC's attached to the discharge side, comprising a
complete control-check-FDC manifold.   It is very common to see a
"riser" comprised of no more than a gauge, flow switch and test/drain
valve.

SML






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Smith, David L.(FAC)
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

Thanks for clarifying that for me Pete

David L. Smith
Fire Protection Maintenance
City of Lakeland
Public Works / Facilities
228 S. Massachusetts Ave.
Lakeland, Fl. 33801
Office: 863-834-2380
Fax:  863-834-2284
Cell: 863-559-0903
david.smi...@lakelandgov.net



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Pete Schwab
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Sprinkler Systems

David
I am not familiar with a shotgun system. A standpipe system will be a
system that has hose valves for occupant or fire department use. These
days we usually only see standpipes for fire department use. A standpipe
system can also have connections to sprinkler systems. (Typical for 4
story or taller buildings in Florida).
I have heard of a "Shotgun" riser. This is almost always a riser for a
sprinkler system that has a control valve and a check valve. The check
valve has a drain attached to it as well as the gauge assemblies.
I have pasted a link (not sure if it will come through on this forum) to
a "shotgun" riser check valve.

https://imail2.waynefire.com/owa/?ae=PreFormAction&a=ReplyAll&t=IPM.Note
&id=RgDUIy2uEn7QEb6WAKDJDFRrBwBp%2fZ7LzzilS4i%2fDgCOx7xRAAAlYgAoAAAK
Lb28HRUFToXdF0nAlaEnFMC8AAAJ&pspid=_1400861904231_553169776

Pete


From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on
behalf of Smith, David L.(FAC) [david.smi...@lakelandgov.net]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:31 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinkler Systems

Can someone explain to me the definition of a Standpipe system and a
shotgun system?

David L. Smith Member
Fire Protection Maintenance
City of Lakeland
Public Works / Facilities
228 S. Massachusetts Ave.
Lakeland, Fl. 33801
Office: 863-834-2380
Fax:  863-834-2284
Cell: 863-559-0903
david.smi...@lakelandgov.net<mailto:david.smi...@lakelandgov.net>





PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE:

All e-mail sent to and received from the City of Lakeland, Florida,
including e-mail addresses and content, are subject to the provisions of
the Florida Public Records Law, Florida Statute Chapter 119, and may be
subject to disclosure.
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org

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