RE: Suction Control Valve

[Timothy W Goins]

NFPA 20 

4.15.5* Valves.

4.15.5.1 A listed outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) gate valve shall be installed 
in the suction pipe.

 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

 

…"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." Jn 3:3 NASB

 

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and 
the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the 
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 3:5-6 NASB

 

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse 
you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you 
a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of 
stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Ezk 36:25-26 NASB

 

 

Reply to   <mailto:twgo...@outlook.com> mailto:twgo...@outlook.com

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Phillips, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:42 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Suction Control Valve

 

They may know the ahj or saw it in the specs

 

 

 

Sent from my cell phone. Please excuse spelling etc.

 

 









Mark​

 

Phillips



Vice President of Fire Protection

, 

Kirlin Carolinas, LLC




t:   919-526-1584

 | 

m:   919-610-0490



 <mailto:mphill...@jjkllc.com> mphill...@jjkllc.com

 | 

 <https://kirlingroup.com/> https://kirlingroup.com



8000 Brownleigh Dr

, 

Raleigh

, 

NC

 

27617




 <https://twitter.com/KirlinGroup> 


 <https://www.facebook.com/kirlinllc> 


 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/133201/> 




 <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KirlinCarolinaSurvey> 

 <https://www.kirlingroup.com/join-our-team-careers/#opportunity> 

 <https://kirlingroup.com/> 

 Original message 

From: Brian Harris  

Date: 6/18/19 4:41 PM (GMT-05:00) 

To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 

Subject: RE: Suction Control Valve 

 

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

I just got a quote for a pump on a project and they’ve (pump supplier) have 
included one. Most of the jobs I’ve done don’t have one…

 

Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

bvssytemsinc.com <http://bvssystemsinc.com/> 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Suction Control Valve

 

Every case I’ve had one is because the water purveyor required it.

 

 <http://www.mfpdesign.com/> MFP_logo_F

Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET

MFP Design, LLC

3356 E Vallejo Ct

Gilbert, AZ 85298

480-505-9271

fax: 866-430-6107

 <mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com> tm...@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>
 https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 

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

 

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

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Brian Harris
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:39 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Suction Control Valve

 

Who/What determines when a Suction Control Valve is needed?

 

Brian Harris, CET

BVS Systems Inc.

Design Manager

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

RE: Maximum Load for Top Beam C-Clamps

[Timothy W Goins]

Even the stamped TBC's are stronger than that. Check out the specs;

http://www.vikingcorp.com/sites/default/files/usrelated/tolco/fig65_66.pdf

 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

 

."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the
kingdom of God." Jn 3:3 NASB

 

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and
the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of
the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 3:5-6
NASB

 

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will
cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I
will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove
the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Ezk
36:25-26 NASB

 

 

Reply to   <mailto:twgo...@outlook.com> mailto:twgo...@outlook.com

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Hairfield
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 7:09 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Maximum Load for Top Beam C-Clamps

 

I have a structural Engineer stating that the maximum load for top beam
c-clamps is 50 lbs.

for 2 1/2" schedule-10 pipe for a building with bar joists spaced 5'-0" o.c.

 

His notes state that the maximum spacing would be 8'-6" o.c. for 2 1/2" pipe
and 2'-0" o.c.

for the 6" crossmains.

 

Have we as sprinkler contractors been designing systems inappropriately all
these yearsLOL

 

Mike

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

RE: Texas 2 story apart building required to be sprinklered

[Timothy W Goins]

HUH?

Texas is not strange.

Go on line to the Texas Department of Insurance and you will find the list of 
CODES | STANDARDS that are required to be followed (At the minimum)

Out uniform fire CODE is the one that they have adopted

Cities must adopt a building CODE but we, as contractors, are still required to 
follow the minimum standard adopted by the State FM office and modified by the 
building code of a particular city.

 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

 

…"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." Jn 3:3 NASB

 

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and 
the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the 
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 3:5-6 NASB

 

Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse 
you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you 
a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of 
stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Ezk 36:25-26 NASB

 

 

Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of fpdcdes...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Sprinklerforum
Subject: Re: Texas 2 story apart building required to be sprinklered

 

Texas is special in that they have no uniform state fire code. All decisions 
are made at the county or local level and may depend on what the current FM 
wants (unless this is a big city then they may have their own standards). If 
the properties had been previously grandfathered, they may be required to be 
sprinklered as if new due to the rebuild. 

 

I did a group home project in one community in TX where it was approved as a 
13D, but when the new FM came in mid-project, he required it to be upgraded to 
13R. 


Todd G Williams, PE

Fire Protection Design/Consulting

Stonington, CT

860-535-2080 (ofc)

860-553-3553 (fax)

860-608-4559 (cell)






On Jun 20, 2017 at 2:18 PM, mailto:inspect...@ifacilityconsulting.com> > 
wrote:

Good afternoon. Do you have any idea why three rebuilt 2 story apartment 
buildings (after fire) in Texas would be required to have a fire sprinkler. 

 

There is nothing special about these, but there are 24 total buildings and 
three have burned down in each of the past 3 years. 

The fire marshal has required the 3 rebuilt ones to be fully sprinklered with 
fire alarm system.

 

Thank you,

Joe

  
<https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZW5naW5lZXJpbmdkZXNpZ25lckBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=30ebd451-5c38-4860-a080-114c537d4495>
 ᐧ

___ 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: Omni Cadd

[Timothy W Goins]

I do

 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

 

…"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." Jn 3:3 NASB

Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:18 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Omni Cadd

 

Does anyone on the forum use OmniCadd software?

 

Matt 

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

RE: Provision for flushing CPVC

[Timothy W Goins]

1½” grooved adapter with a grooved cap/plug works great.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Verhei
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Provision for flushing CPVC

 

A extra foot of pipe, with glued on cap?




On Aug 25, 2016, at 16:50, Brad Casterline  wrote:

That might be a bingo right there Timothy, thanks!

On Aug 25, 2016 6:47 PM, "Timothy Goins"  wrote:

You'd be surprised how much trash and debris gets into a system when the 
utility company or a plumber is careless.

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 25, 2016, at 6:12 PM, rongreenman .  wrote:

Why would you need to flush CPVC?

 

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Brad Casterline  
wrote:

Thanks Charles.

 

I'm just the stocklister at this point Scott :)

 

Brad

 

  _  

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Scott Futrell
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:40 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Provision for flushing CPVC

 

Replace them with steel…

 

Scott

 

Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2  

Cell: (612) 759-5556

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Brad Casterline
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Provision for flushing CPVC

 

Hello,

 

Can someone tell me the most economical way for providing for flushing 1.5" and 
2" CPVC mains please?

 

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





 

-- 

Ron Greenman


4110 Olson Dr., NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

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-)

___
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: Solenoid Valve for domestic side of 13D system riser

[Timothy W Goins]

The rsv-1 should be around $600 and is "listed" I don't think you'll find a 
"listed" solenoid valve. 

At the very least when it fails it should close off the domestic water, which 
means that when power fails then the domestic side will have no water. I can 
see a lot of complaints and changes by God only knows who in the future if you 
go that route.

The rsv-1 is listed for 13d, the rsv-2 is listed for 13d & r.



"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 1:25 PM,   
> wrote:
> 
> Or use a solenoid valve that is energized open and let the flow switch break 
> the circuit. If/when the valve fails, it will get fixed.
>  
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:57 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Solenoid Valve for domestic side of 13D system riser
>  
> What’s easier, more cost-effective and (most important) more failsafe and 
> reliable in light of the fact that this product will NEVER be ITM’d after 
> it’s installed?I assume you’re designing to an undersized meter.  Either 
> get relief from the water agency to add the 5 GPM to the intermittent flow 
> rate of the sprinklers (as opposed to the continuous flow for which the meter 
> is rated) or have the owner bite the bullet and buy a larger meter?
>  
> I’m sure there are people who will disagree with me, but relying on an 
> electrical device that is not subject to regular exercise or inspection isn’t 
> my idea of reliable.
>  
> SL
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Owen Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Solenoid Valve for domestic side of 13D system riser
>  
> Hi Don,
>  
> Thanks for responding. I checked out the RSV-1 from Tyco and the list price 
> is $1,000.00. I about fell out of my chair. It is on the sprinkler riser with 
> a branch off to the domestic. When fire sprinklers flow the pressure change 
> causes the valve to shut off the domestic. It is non-electric, maybe that is 
> why it is so expensive. It has been years but the one I have seen was a 
> simple solenoid valve that is attached to the domestic water and simply 
> closes when it receives an electric current from the activated flow switch.  
> HELP anybody!
>  
> Owen Evans
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Don Casey 
> To: sprinklerforum 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 10:20 am
> Subject: RE: Solenoid Valve for domestic side of 13D system riser
> 
> Check out Tyco’s RSV-1 valve
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Owen Evans
> Sent: 2016/08/03 1:17 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Solenoid Valve for domestic side of 13D system riser
>  
> Hello Folks,
>  
> Anybody have a source in southern California where I can get a 1" electric 
> solenoid valve to shut off domestic flow (activated by the flow switch)? This 
> is so I can eliminate the 5 gpm from the 13D calculations.
>  
> Thank you,
> 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: Calculating extended coverage

[Timothy W Goins]

Use the small room rule where the head is allowed to be 9' from one wall and 
calc as if it were a 16 x 16. Less pressure and water overages. 4 head calc for 
900 sqft.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Jay Stough  wrote:
> 
> I have a nursing care facility that I am trying to calc.  Must be 13 (2007) 
> light.  Can not use room design or residential method per state AHJ.  The 
> building is shaped like an upper case H with the bottom legs cut off.  There 
> are 4 rooms on one side of the corridor and 3 rooms on the other side of the 
> corridor in each upper leg that use extended coverage sprinkler in each room. 
>  Also 1 standard spray sprinkler in a closet and one standard spray sprinkler 
> in a bathroom in each room.  Sprinklers in the corridor are standard spray 
> also.  Since I am using extended coverage sprinklers, I need to calculate 5 
> minimum.  The sprinklers cover 16'3 X 14', so need to calc at the 18' X 18' 
> rate.  22.4.6.2 allows me in "rooms like closets, washrooms and similar small 
> compartments requiring only one sprinkler shall be permitted to be omitted 
> from calculations within the area of application".   Can I calculate 6 
> extended coverage sprinklers, without the corridor or "small rooms or 
> compartments" for my 1500 sq ft?  Or should I calc 5 extended coverage and 
> the hallway sprinklers in the 1500 sq ft?  
> 
> Jay Stough 
> NICET IV LAYOUT 
> NICET III ITM
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Base of riser on placards

[Timothy W Goins]

Main drain testing should only be compared to other main drain testing. The 
usual Venturi effect on the supply/system gauges do not give you an accurate 
pressure reading when reading the residual pressure as the water passes by on 
its way to the drain.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:28 PM, rongreenman .  wrote:
> 
> So I have the total demand at the BOR and the expected pressure loss from 
> static with the entire design area flowing. How does a main drain test 
> simulate this? My understanding of the main drain test is a comparative 
> analysis of pressure drop as recorded at acceptance from the Contractor's 
> Above Ground Materials and Test Certificate with the pressure drop at the 
> time of the test. I presume that original data is what is noted under the 
> area of the placard for "Supply Data" and is irrelevant regarding the 
> calculations. 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Steve Leyton  
>> wrote:
>> The information of value at least once a year when you do the main drain 
>> test.   Maybe you could add both BOR and Source demands, but I don’t agree 
>> with posting Source data in lieu of BOR.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Todd Williams
>> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 10:15 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Base of riser on placards
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I'll ask the unthinkable question, is the BoR demand on the placard 
>> worthwhile? Hydraulic calculations are done back to the effective point of 
>> the flow test. The underground losses, hose demand and sometimes backflow 
>> preventer losses are taken before the BoR. Consequently you cannot compare 
>> the BoR demand to a new public water test and make a valid conclusion 
>> without a full set of original plans and calculations. Wouldn't it make more 
>> sense to put the demand at the water source on the placard? 
>> 
>> Todd G Williams, PE
>> 
>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> 
>> Stonington, CT
>> 
>> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>> 
>> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sent using CloudMagic
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Ed Kramer  wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve asked this question in the past and the answers have been all over the 
>> board.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I tend to think the BOR location needs to be consistent from project to 
>> project, whether it’s a single system riser or multiple system risers. In 
>> our part of the universe, most (but not all) backflow preventers are located 
>> inside the building immediately downstream of the underground flange. I 
>> locate the BOR at the underground flange on all systems. By placing data 
>> from that location on the Hydraulic Design Placard, it makes it easier for 
>> someone else to compare the sprinkler system demand to water supply data.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I believe the intent is to include the combined hose allowance, but got 
>> nothing from the standard to back that up. With a strong water supply (lots 
>> of volume), available pressure while flowing the sprinkler plus hose demand 
>> is going to be virtually the same as pressure available while flowing only 
>> sprinkler demand. But many of the water supplies we work with are marginal. 
>> Removing 100, 250 or 500 gpm combined hose allowance from the water supply 
>> can make a very significant difference in available pressure. So when 
>> comparing sprinkler demand to water supply data, knowing the combined hose 
>> allowance is very helpful.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Respectfully,
>> 
>> Ed Kramer
>> 
>> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Ben Young
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:06 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Base of riser on placards
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What's the general consensus on the location of the 'base of riser' for 
>> hydraulic placards that everyone uses? See Figure A 24.5 in the 2010 Edition 
>> of 13 and/or 24.5.2
>> 
>> I feel its supposed to be at the base of each sprinkler riser (where you 
>> have multiple systems) where it ties into a common header.
>> 
>> Others in my office think its where the incoming flange comes into the riser 
>> room.
>> 
>> If you have a vertical riser with a vertical backflow, then these two points 
>> would be the same with either method in my line of thinking.
>> 
>> 
>> Also, is the hose indicated on the placards supposed to be inside hose only, 
>> or combined in and out?  I just realized after reading this today that it 
>> could only be referring to inside hose, but I've always put the combined 
>> hose there...
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> Benjamin Young

ESFR to Anti-Freeze ESFR

[Timothy W Goins]

I have a customer who would like to convert 3- ESFR K25 systems to
anti-freeze.

Systems are not connected to a domestic water supply.

Temps are to be maintained to 36°F in all areas.

Is it feasible? Or even necessary? Could we not convert and NOT have
problems?

Right now the systems use a 2500 GPM pump with shotgun risers.

I know we'd have to calculate the systems again due to specific gravity of
the anti-freeze.

Has anyone else ever converted a system similar to this?

Timothy Goins
 A & T Services


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

Re: POZ-LOC System RFI

[Timothy W Goins]

Recalled years ago. No longer produced or accepted due to the use of schedule 5 
pipe.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On May 18, 2016, at 5:43 PM, accentf...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Greetings to All From New Mexico:
>  
> I have a Client (hotel) with a wet-pipe fire sprinkler system, two floors, 
> all POZ-LOK pipe and 'fittings'. Transitioning from Hampton Inn to Marriott 
> format. Can anyone offer input/ comments about keeping the POZ-LOK in place 
> while, at same time, is anyone aware of where said pipe and fittings might be 
> purchased or is it all "gone"?? Some revisions to the system will be required 
> for new walls/ceilings, etc., thus, Owner needs to be able to procure parts.
>  
> Any and all responses will be most welcome. Obviously, we are trying to avoid 
> removing the entire system and 'starting over'.
>  
> Gracias from Nuevo Mejico!!
>  
> Jerry
> accentf...@aol.com
>  
> Jerry D. Watts, MSFPE
> President & Co-Founder
> ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.
> Santa Fe, New Mexico USA
> (800) 503.1961 nationwide
>  
>  
>  
> In a message dated 5/13/2016 2:27:47 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 
> jdavid...@davidsonassociates.net writes:
> Tim,
> 
>  
> 
> There are some NFPA13 R pump manufacturers that have a fire pump skid and 
> tank assemblies for NFPA 13-R water supplies.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Davidson Associates
> 
> 
> Fire Protection Engineering   
>   
>P. O. Box 4002
> 
> Code Consultants  
>   
> Greenville, DE  19807
> 
>   
>   
>(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.
> 
>  
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Tim Stone
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 10:16 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Polyethylene Tanks
> 
>  
> 
> Are there any requirements in NFPA 22 not allowing the use of Polyethylene 
> water storage tanks for residential or commercial sprinkler systems? These 
> tanks are installed above ground usually in Basements.
> 
> The local State agency is getting ready to adopt the 2013 edition of NFPA 22 
> and I am being told NFPA 22 only permits Fiberglass. I don’t see where 
> Polyethylene is excluded.
> 
>  
> 
> Thoughts please.
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: UG 5 ft outside building

[Timothy W Goins]

In Texas if it's a fireline, a fire sprinkler contractor, minimum of a
SCR-U, must do it.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 3:01 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: UG 5 ft outside building

Generally it is an insurance deal. Utility contractors covered to with in
5'-0"

Jurisdictions differ.

R/
Matt

Matthew J. Willis
Project Manager
Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
*NEW ADDRESS*
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605.348.2342
Direct Line-605.593.5063
Cell-605.391.2733
Fax:-605.348.0108






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 2:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: UG 5 ft outside building

Is there a rational explanation why the sprinkler contractor should bring in
the last piece of underground from 5 ft outside the building?

Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT
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]
___
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

[Timothy W Goins]

Sounds like it's outside the scope of a simple 13d system. 13d is a combination 
domestic/fire 1&2 family dwelling not dwellings.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this 
> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all 
> play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here 
> according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now 
> they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
>> 
>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss 
>> prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and 
>> ask for approved basis of design?
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
>> 
>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore 
>> you can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but 
>> they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it 
>> is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour 
>> construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family 
>> dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore 
>> tampers are required. Am I correct?   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
>>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
>>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>>> 
>>> Steve L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
>>> 
>>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
>>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
>>> Dwellings, 13D.
>>> 
>>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
>>> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
>>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
>>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>>> 
>>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
>>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
>>> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
>>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
>>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>>> 
>>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
>>> DCVA would need tampers, correct? 
>>> 
>>> Owen Evans
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> ___
>>> 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
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Photo of recessed sprinkler with "Oops Ring"

[Timothy W Goins]

Do you mean with a Kydex ring?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On Apr 17, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Does anyone have a clear photo of a recessed pendent sprinkler with an
> Oops Ring around it?   All the images I've found on the web are of a
> sprinkler that's extended out flush with the ceiling and I'm looking to
> illustrate the semi-recessed position for an architect client.  We've
> overseen the installation of these things on several projects (required
> for seismic out here) but they're all in schools and going to a site to
> take a photo will require an appointment ...
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Leyton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: High Pressure Backflow and Sprinklers

[Timothy W Goins]

Why not take the suction through the BFP?

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Richard Mote
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: High Pressure Backflow and Sprinklers

What I failed to mention, which I realized right after I hit send. The test
hydrant elevation is about 20' above the flange elevation in the building.
My feeling is we need a pressure reducing valve, however the backflow has to
come first so I still need a 184 psi backflow.

Richard Mote CET
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: High Pressure Backflow and Sprinklers

You are at 184 at the floor? As long as the heads are more than 18 ft up you
are good with 175 rating. Hard to get hps with sprinklers much under 18 ft
high so you might be good.

Chris Cahill
Fire Protection Engineer
Burns & McDonnell
ccah...@burnsmcd.com
952-656-3652 Richard Mote wrote:
Does anyone know of a CMDA Extended coverage sprinkler rated above 175 psi?
Same question for a backflow preventer?
I have looked at all the manufacturers data sheets and I don't see any, but
as sure as I state categorically that there isn't any such animal, someone
will say but what about XXX mfg.
We have a job with a static of 184, residual of 122 and a flow of 1500, want
to use CMDA K14.0 or 25.2, and would like the extra pressure.

Richard Mote CET
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, 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


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

RE: Fire pump drip - when is it excessive?

[Timothy W Goins]

1 drip per second is perfect.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 9:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Fire pump drip - when is it excessive?

I am aware that some fire pump seals drip, but at what point is it excessive?
1 drip/hr
1 drip/minute
1 drip/sec

Also , are these seals supposed to drip on vertically mounted mounted pumps as 
well as horizontally mounted?  I have seen many that leaked horizontally, but 
never any (in the past) that leaked vertically.
?
___
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: Poz lok

[Timothy W Goins]

POZ LOK was a SCH 5 thin wall pipe. It was re-called and removed the market.
I believe the time as expired on getting any help with it.

When I used it there were thread adaptors made especially for it. I don't
believe they made any GRV adaptors but each size had a threaded adaptor.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of markloganryan
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 5:19 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Poz lok

I was hoping to get some information about poz lok. Mainly I was needing
information on transitioning to threaded or grooved pipe. Does the pipe have
the same O.D? Can it be grooved?


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
___
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: Small Room Rule

[Timothy W Goins]

No worries, 1 EC (20x20) head in the middle will suffice. No need to even
think of the small room rule.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 8:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Small Room Rule

A circular room is 18 feet in diameter. The exact center is an available
sprinkler location. How many standard coverage sprinklers are required?
There is only one wall in this case and it is 9 feet from the center.


On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:28 PM, IPA  wrote:

> Regardless of if you're 9 ft off a wall your overall coverage still 
> cannot exceed the values in 8.6.2.2.1(a).
> 
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Parsley Consulting < 
> parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jerry,
>>I don't know what anyone else is going to use to answer this, 
>> however I've always regarded the answer as "yes".  Here's why - by 
>> definition a small room does not exceed 800 square feet, per 3.3.21.  
>> Let's say for argument that the room you're looking at is 800 square 
>> feet.  You would need at least two sprinklers, since the maximum 
>> coverage for any single sprinkler cannot exceed 400 square feet, per 
>> 8.5.2.2.2.  It's still a small room, if light hazard, and those rules 
>> 8.6.3.2.4.1 still apply.  NFPA 13 points to allowing more than one 
>> sprinkler in a small room in 8.6.2.1.2.1, as it suggests that the 
>> coverage area per sprinkler is based on the square footage of the 
>> room divided by the number of sprinklers (plural) in the room.
>> 
>>Seems to me you can.
>> *Ken Wagoner, SET
>> *Parsley Consulting***
>> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
>> *Escondido, California 92025
>> *Phone 760-745-6181*
>> Visit our website  ***
>> 
>> On 9/26/2014 8:48 AM, Jerry Van Kolken wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been reading this thread and come to think I've miss understood 
>>> how to apply this exception.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Based on NFPA 13(13ed)Fig A.8.6.3.2.4 I've always thought the only 
>>> time you would exceed the 15'-0" spacing for a sprinkler is when you 
>>> have a single sprinkler in a small room.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In a situation where an L shape room 12x18 with a 4' pop out for the 
>>> entry in one of the corners along the 18' side, Could you get away 
>>> with 2 sprinklers or do you need 3?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jerry Van Kolken
>>> 
>>> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
>>> 
>>> 101 Copperwood Way, Suite H
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
> ___
> 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: CMSA Sprinkler Question

[Timothy W Goins]

VIKING has a 19.? CMSA

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:17 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: CMSA Sprinkler Question

Craig,

I don't see the "whole lot more" of CMSA you are referring to.  I am tied to
the K16.8 because of storage height, storage configuration, expanded and
non-expanded group A plastics, and idle wood pallets.  My alternate is
0.65/2500, and I was trying to avoid that.

The Victaulic below is not CMSA so that doesn't help. I have been unable to
get to Victaulic's website today.  Every attempt ends up at a Victaulic
China website and wants me to translate. I see the Victaulic 25.2 ESFR
refers to a 16.8 CMSA, but I haven't found it on the Chinese website yet!

A "CMSA" search on the Reliable website only comes up with the N252 I listed
below, not a 16.8 CMSA.

Scott
 
(763) 425-1001x12 Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of craig.pr...@ch2m.com
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: CMSA Sprinkler Question

Victaulic lists a 16.8 ESFR
Reliable list a 16.8 CMSA

There are whole lot more CMSA sprinklers than just three if you're looking
cross the different K-factors.

The internet is a wonderful tool for doing searches on information like
this.  ;)

Are you tied to a 16.8 for any reason?


Craig L. Prahl 
Fire Protection Group Lead
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC  29303
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension  74102
craig.pr...@ch2m.com



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: FW: CMSA Sprinkler Question

Okay.  Thanks John D. for pointing out that I wrote, "...the two below" and
then listed three.

Let me try again.

I need a CMSA K16.8 sprinkler to meet specific criteria in NFPA 13, 2013,
for a design project I am specifying.

Is Tyco the only manufacturer of a CMSA K16.8 sprinkler?

If not, who else has one?

Thanks and thanks John!

Scott
 
(763) 425-1001x12 Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell

-Original Message-
From: Scott A Futrell 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 11:13 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Subject: CMSA Sprinkler Question

Forumites:

I need a CMSA K16.8 sprinkler to meet specific criteria in NFPA 13, 2013.

Are the only CMSA sprinklers available the two below?
Reliable, N252 EC - CMSA, RA0842
Tyco, Ultra K-17-231, TY7153
Viking, K19.6, VK592

Thanks!

Scott Futrell
 
(763) 425-1001x12 Office
(612) 759-5556 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


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

RE: CMSA Sprinkler Question

[Timothy W Goins]

VIKING has a couple listed as CMSA, one smaller and one larger.

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Scott A Futrell
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: FW: CMSA Sprinkler Question

Okay.  Thanks John D. for pointing out that I wrote, "...the two below" and
then listed three.

Let me try again.

I need a CMSA K16.8 sprinkler to meet specific criteria in NFPA 13, 2013,
for a design project I am specifying.

Is Tyco the only manufacturer of a CMSA K16.8 sprinkler?

If not, who else has one?

Thanks and thanks John!

Scott
 
(763) 425-1001x12 Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell

-Original Message-
From: Scott A Futrell 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 11:13 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org'
Subject: CMSA Sprinkler Question

Forumites:

I need a CMSA K16.8 sprinkler to meet specific criteria in NFPA 13, 2013.

Are the only CMSA sprinklers available the two below?
Reliable, N252 EC - CMSA, RA0842
Tyco, Ultra K-17-231, TY7153
Viking, K19.6, VK592

Thanks!

Scott Futrell
 
(763) 425-1001x12 Office
(612) 759-5556 Cell

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


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

Re: Help Identify this pipe

[Timothy W Goins]

Shell Chemicals re-call and law suit many years ago? Late 80's and early 90's?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

> On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Richard Carr  wrote:
> 
> Yes, if it is grey, can you see if the fittings are melted on?
> 
> 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 Mike Hairfield
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 11:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Help Identify this pipe
> 
> It may be polybutylene pipe!
> 
> 
>> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:54:27 -0500
>> Subject: Help Identify this pipe
>> From: g...@livingwaterfp.com
>> To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> We have discovered some grey pipe supplying sprinklers in a restaurant 
>> that has "LIFEProTech" printed on the side.
>> 
>> My research has been fruitless except that it appears that it might 
>> have been associated with Alarm work. Can anyone help with this product?
>> 
>> Thank You!
>> 
>> Greg McGahan
>> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 
>> 1160 McKenzie Road
>> Cantonment, FL 32533
>> 850-937-1850
>> fax 850-937-1852
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> ___
> 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: 1/2" and Seismic

[Timothy W Goins]

They used to call them California 90's just because of the use in that state
predominately.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Charles
Thurston
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 5:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: 1/2" and Seismic

Hello Ron,

Yes Ron that started the thread, I just use it as a transition. I thought
they were, but several industrial plumbing shops in Wilmington were unable
to find them for me. 

Todd

NFPA 13 2013

8.15.20.5 Revamping of Hydraulic Design Systems.

8.15.20.5.1 When hydraulically designed systems are re- vamped, any existing
bushing shall be removed and a nipple not exceeding 4 in. (100 mm) in length
shall be permitted to be installed in the branch line fitting.

8.15.20.5.2* Calculations shall be provided to verify that the system design
flow rate will be achieved.

8.15.20.5.3 When it is necessary to pipe two new ceiling sprinklers from an
existing outlet in an overhead system, any bushings shall be removed and the
use of a nipple not exceeding 4 in.
(100 mm) in length and of the same pipe thread size as the existing outlet
shall be permitted, provided that a hydraulic calculation verifies that the
design flow rate will be achieved.

| 8.15.20.5.4 Where an armover is attached to connect to a sprinkler, 
| the use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter shall not 
| be permitted where seismic design is required on the system.

I don't have my 2010 here to see if 8.15.20.5.3 is in it, But 2013 shows it
as a change. This was permitted and started under the 2010 code.

Yes we seismic brace in the Myrtle Beach Area.

This is an existing system. 1 1/2" branch with 1/2" outlet "T"s for heads,
They added a L/O ceiling 6" below the top of the pipe in the parking deck.
Now need to nipple over to a Dry Wax Over Lead (Local Ordnance) Dry Head.
Another contractor submitted plans, calcs and got a permit for this a 1/2"
Close, 1/2" x 1" 90, 1' Close nipple, 1" T with plug for the head. The other
contractor's foreman smarted off to one of the owners and they got thrown
off the site. Material is all there, Just need the labor to put it in.

Friday, January 17, 2014, 5:33:21 PM, you wrote:

> I thought this was about using 1" st ells in a tight spot, not 
> changing uprights to pendants. And of course you can use them and 
> they're readily available through plumbing suppliers if your sprinkler 
> supplier doesn't have them. They come in reducing types, in black 
> steel, galvy, stainless, bronze, and in weights (strength) equivalent 
> to schedule 40, 80, 120 & 160. Very common for industrial boiler
application.

> Sent from my iPhone

>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Todd - Work  wrote:

>> Charles, I would be careful. You can't use 1/2" nipples in an earthquake
zone (8.15.19.4.4). Given your proximity to Charleston, this may be a
concern. I would assume street elbows (if permitted) would fall under the
same category. 

>> Todd G Williams, PE
>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> Stonington, CT
>> www.fpdc.com
>> 860-535-2080 (ofc)

>>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Kenneth Berman 
wrote:

>>> close nipples are as close as street ells. 1/2 x 1/2 x 1 tees and 
>>> you can leave the uprights, or for tight spaces where you can 
>>> eliminate the upright, use 1 x 1 x 1/2 with a 1" plug.


>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Charles Thurston
wrote:

 Hello All,

 I do wish I could find some 1/2" Male x 1" Female Street ells for a 
 upright to pendant conversion project.

 Friday, January 17, 2014, 4:25:23 PM, you wrote:

> I think it comes down to if the street elbows are made according 
> to the appropriate ASTM standard from Table 6.4.1. In your 
> defense,
> 6.4.6.1 states that unless circumstances exist where hex bushings 
> are allowed, one piece reducer fittings shall be used for a change 
> in
 pipe size.

> Todd G Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> www.fpdc.com
> 860-535-2080 (ofc)

>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 3:43 PM, "Morey, Mike"  wrote:

>> So I seem to remember this being a "no-no" but the code doesn't 
>> seem to
 explicitly prohibit us from using them.  I have a tight squeeze where a
1"
 male x female "street" elbow would be helpful, but I want to make 
 sure I'm not missing something in 13 that prohibits it, we use the 2010
edition.


>> Mike Morey, CFPS, SET
>> Planner Scheduler/Designer
>> BMWC Constructors, Inc.
>> 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222
>> O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 
>> mo...@bmwc.com | www.bmwc.com<
 http://www.bmwc.com/>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri
 nkl

Re: Residential Sprinkler System effects on water potability

[Timothy W Goins]

Install a BFP downstream of the fireline connection...

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Gary Stites  wrote:

> Some of the water agencies are really "up in arms" about 13D systems with
> "dead ends". They are trying to limit the length of an armover etc. Any
> good literature or discussions on potability issues on "stagnate" water in
> the end of an armover, drop etc.? I have an AHJ ready to go head to head
> with a water purveyor...looking for ammunition.
> 
> Gary Stites
> 
> Design Manager, CAD/BIM
> 
> RLH Fire Protection
> 
> *gsti...@rlhfp.com* **
> 
> 661-213-9379
> 
> 805-769-4626
> 
> 
> RLH 
> Google+ 
> Mr. Ricky 
> ___
> 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: WPIV

[Timothy W Goins]

More like using a Viking recessed head with a TYCO recessed escutcheon, not
tested together so they are not listed together.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
rfletc...@aerofire.com
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: WPIV

It would be like using a grooved coupling made by Victaulic on an elbow made
by Viking. Clearly not a UL listed as and assembly.

Ron F

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy
W Goins
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: WPIV

"buy" not by. It's getting late.

Goodnight and buy buy

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy
W Goins
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: WPIV

Assemblies are listed as Assemblies, any change from the approved listing
and it is no longer  an approved assembly. The model and serial numbers must
continue to match with the listed valves installed at the time of
manufacture. You can by listed DCA's less valves but they MUST be installed
with the approved control valves to maintain the approvals. Sometimes the
purchase of the DCA less the valves may be necessary because of vandalism or
theft or whatever.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby
Gillett
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: WPIV

I may be wrong, but I was thinking they were only Listed for Fire Protection
with the valves, even though they are Listed both ways. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:00 PM, "Tom Duross"  wrote:

> It's a listed assembly but listed with and without valves.
> Buy an assembly without valves and put your wall post and NRS, OS&Y or 
> butterfly wherever you please.
> TD
> 
> Bill, I'm surprised your water guys are letting you do this. Happy 
> about it, but surprised. This side of the hills that wouldn't happen 
> as
the "listing"
> would void if you change the valve type/style that comes with the
assembly.
> I even asked USC about this as the only difference between OS&Y, NRS, 
> & PIV is the operating mechanism. They said no. Maybe something has
changed.
> 
> 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-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: WPIV

[Timothy W Goins]

"buy" not by. It's getting late.

Goodnight and buy buy

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy
W Goins
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: WPIV

Assemblies are listed as Assemblies, any change from the approved listing
and it is no longer  an approved assembly. The model and serial numbers must
continue to match with the listed valves installed at the time of
manufacture. You can by listed DCA's less valves but they MUST be installed
with the approved control valves to maintain the approvals. Sometimes the
purchase of the DCA less the valves may be necessary because of vandalism or
theft or whatever.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby
Gillett
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: WPIV

I may be wrong, but I was thinking they were only Listed for Fire Protection
with the valves, even though they are Listed both ways. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:00 PM, "Tom Duross"  wrote:

> It's a listed assembly but listed with and without valves.
> Buy an assembly without valves and put your wall post and NRS, OS&Y or 
> butterfly wherever you please.
> TD
> 
> Bill, I'm surprised your water guys are letting you do this. Happy 
> about it, but surprised. This side of the hills that wouldn't happen 
> as
the "listing"
> would void if you change the valve type/style that comes with the
assembly.
> I even asked USC about this as the only difference between OS&Y, NRS, 
> & PIV is the operating mechanism. They said no. Maybe something has
changed.
> 
> 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-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: WPIV

[Timothy W Goins]

Assemblies are listed as Assemblies, any change from the approved listing
and it is no longer  an approved assembly. The model and serial numbers must
continue to match with the listed valves installed at the time of
manufacture. You can by listed DCA's less valves but they MUST be installed
with the approved control valves to maintain the approvals. Sometimes the
purchase of the DCA less the valves may be necessary because of vandalism or
theft or whatever.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby
Gillett
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: WPIV

I may be wrong, but I was thinking they were only Listed for Fire Protection
with the valves, even though they are Listed both ways. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:00 PM, "Tom Duross"  wrote:

> It's a listed assembly but listed with and without valves.
> Buy an assembly without valves and put your wall post and NRS, OS&Y or 
> butterfly wherever you please.
> TD
> 
> Bill, I'm surprised your water guys are letting you do this. Happy 
> about it, but surprised. This side of the hills that wouldn't happen as
the "listing"
> would void if you change the valve type/style that comes with the
assembly.
> I even asked USC about this as the only difference between OS&Y, NRS, 
> & PIV is the operating mechanism. They said no. Maybe something has
changed.
> 
> 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-firesprinkler.org


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

RE: WPIV

[Timothy W Goins]

Either

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: WPIV

I have a situation where a backflow w/ bfly valves is being used.  A WPIV is
also required.  In this situation is the proper place for the WPIV before or
after the BFP?  I would think before, just from a maintenance standpoint,
but I have learned over the years that what I think isn't necessarily right.

Thanks,

Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.firebyknight.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: Flushing

[Timothy W Goins]

I suggest an obstruction/flushing test of the system. If ANY debris is found 
then I think he has cause. The obstruction/flushing test can be done with the 
heads in place.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Jul 29, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ron Greenman  wrote:

> I'm really not suggesting that you do this, but ask him if he'll require
> the same procedure for every possibly affected system anytime the city
> works on the municipal piping since debris could enter the pipe (a real
> problem we see over and over). If that's his intent I'd bet tar and
> feathering and a ride out of town on a rail might become a one-time
> reinstated social comment made by the citizens to the government and it's
> representatives.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:45 AM,  wrote:
> 
>> Keep in mind that NFPA #13 now requires that all removed sprinklers be
>> replaced with new so it could really get expensive.
>> 
>> Ron F
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson
>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:34 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Flushing
>> 
>> Re: permit XXX
>> 
>> Dear Sir,
>> 
>> Recently your Department requested that my company remove all of the
>> sprinklers we installed on this project and inspect for debris inside of
>> the piping.
>> 
>> As a licensed contractor we practice due diligence in our installations.
>> Our employees on this project have completed an apprenticeship program
>> through the state. In this apprenticeship they received training on how to
>> handle pipe on the job.
>> 
>> It is standard practice for the fabrication shops to drop ship pipe
>> without protective covers to the job site. Our employees are trained to
>> inspect the interior of the piping for any obstructions and to remove
>> debris prior to installation.
>> 
>> If you like I am more than willing to meet with you and discuss our
>> quality control standards.
>> 
>> I respectfully request that you rescind your Departments request to have
>> all sprinklers removed and reinstalled,which would result in unreasonable
>> expense to the system owner and our company.
>> 
>> Respectfully,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jul 29, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Mike Hairfield  wrote:
>> 
>>> Have a project where the building official has an on-site inspector,
>>> he has made a statement that there is a potential that debris might
>>> have entered the piping since the fabricator did not install protective
>> plugs on the weld-o-lets and caps on the ends of the piping.
>>> 
>>> He is demanding that all of the sprinkler heads be removed and
>>> inspected for damage, the pipes be flushed/cleaned prior to
>> re-installation of the heads.
>>> 
>>> How does one go about changing his mind without stepping on his toes?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Mike Hairfield
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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)
> ___
> 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: Extended Coverage & FM Global

[Timothy W Goins]

RASCO Model  N252 EC both pendent and recessed

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Harris
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 9:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Extended Coverage & FM Global

Does anybody know of an FM approved extended coverage recessed pendent head?
I know Tyco makes the head FM approved but not the escutcheon plate...

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

RE: CPVC leak

[Timothy W Goins]

Testing CPVC with air is a No-No, and very dangerous. How do you KNOW
there's a leak if there is NO evidence? Could the control and or check
valves be leaking back?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: CPVC leak

Be very careful about introduction of a foreign substance into a CPVC pipe
system, need to check if the odorant is compatible with CPVC piping. You do
not want to introduce a substance that could cause environmental stress
cracking. If you do, you have just brought the system.

Regards

Jim

DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES

Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4010
Code ConsultantsGreenville, DE  19807-0010
Medical Gas Systems Engineering (302) 994-9500
Fax (302) 234-1781

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: CPVC leak

Did the owner who drained it note anything about the leak? Is there any
evidence of water/glycerin staining?

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

*Licensed in KS & MO 

913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
913.927.0222 cell
www. AFPsprink.com 


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: CPVC leak

Need some input:  Working on an existing CPVC system which original owner
drained glycerin out of the system because of a leak.  We have tried to find
the leak with 40 psi of air pressure, still unable to find a leak.  Has
anyone introduced a smell into the system with the air pressure to find such
a leak.  If so, what could we use for the smell?

 

Steve Johnson

Office:801.295.1189

  Fax: 801.295.1193

  Cell: 801.301.3950

 

 www.chpfire.com

   

 

 

 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14568 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL:

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 959 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL:

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 937 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: 20 PSI Minimum

[Timothy W Goins]

Thanks to all for your comments...

Systems are to protect apartment buildings and Club House w/ offices (One
NFPA 13 the rest 13R w/ standpipes?)
The system(s) are coming off an 8" loop that has BFP's installed at both
connection points
Spec also requires a 10 PSI safety for future supply deterioration thereby
making it 30 PSI minimum
Some buildings are 4 stories
Spec also requires a NFPA standpipe in each building with a 100 PSI end
pressure up to 1000 GPM
A fire pump will be needed if any standpipe system is installed due to the
fact that our pressures here are about 55-65 PSI Static
I don't believe the water purveyor had anything to do with this spec, it
seemed canned to me.
This project is for bids in 2 different locals, same spec, one a little
larger than the next
No flow tests, but down here we usually run about 31 PSI @ 1100 GPM
Here's some more of the SPEC

"The  fire  protection  systems  shall  not  be  designed  to  operate  if
the  residual pressure of the existing water service falls to 20 psi or
lower at design flow requirements.
The fire protection system design shall include a minimum  of 10 psi safety
factor to allow for future losses in the water service pressure
characteristics.
The   maximum   allowable   system  velocities   shall   not  exceed  20
Ips   unless alternate criteria are required by the Owner's Insurance
Underwriter.
The   guestroomautomaticsprinklerdesign   criteria   may   be
hydraulically calculated for the room design method as outlined in NFPA 13
if acceptable to the local governing 
authorities and the Owner's Insurance Underwriter.
Dwelling  units shall be completely  protected by automatic  sprinklers.
Sprinklers may be omitted from bathrooms less than 55 sq. ft. and guestroom
closets less than 24 sq. ft. if 
acceptable  to the local  authorities  and the Owner's  Insurance
Underwriter."

I just wondered how the rest of the forum was handling these situations?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamey
Prentice
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: 20 PSI Minimum

I read it to mean that they do not want the design flow of the sprinklers to
draw the municipal water service below 20 PSI, this happens quite often with
pump installs. 

Regards,

Jamey 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garrison
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 20 PSI Minimum

I'd say they want the Fire Sprinklers to SHUT-OFF if the City water drops
below 20 psi.

They must consider back-siphonage into the CIty Water system more dangerous
than the fire that is NOT getting water poured on it from Sprinklers.

I wonder if the Fire Dept. has the same instructions?

Jeff Garrison
Detroit


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Timothy W Goins  wrote:

> How are others addressing the 20 PSI minimum operating pressures of 
> the fire sprinkler system? Here is a quote from a spec that I have 
> received.
>
> "The fire protection systems shall not be designed to operate if the 
> residual
>
> pressure of the existing water service falls to 20 psi or lower at 
> design flow
>
> requirements."
>
>
>
> Timothy W Goins
> A & T Services
>
>
>
> "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
> God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16
>
>
>
> Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com
>
> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac
> hments/20121112/9c2eef0f/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
s/20121112/2378f6b7/attachment.html>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

20 PSI Minimum

[Timothy W Goins]

How are others addressing the 20 PSI minimum operating pressures of the fire
sprinkler system? Here is a quote from a spec that I have received.

"The fire protection systems shall not be designed to operate if the
residual

pressure of the existing water service falls to 20 psi or lower at design
flow

requirements."

 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

 

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16

 

Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121112/9c2eef0f/attachment.html>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Hospital Privacy Curtains

[Timothy W Goins]

TDA has inspected these facilities. But please back to the question.

How to apply the standard?
When chapter 8.6.5.2.2.1 says that the 70% mesh curtain with a 22" from
ceiling to bottom of mesh "shall not" be considered as an obstruction why do
we even have to discuss it?
Why can't they be accepted, as is, until the standard is changed?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

And I believe the Academy is certifying the inspectors in FL and other
locales as an alternative to NICET.

George L.  Church, Jr., CET  
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
g...@rowesprinkler.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Wagner
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

Bill,
NICET has an excellent program for Sprinkler Inspectors and many states like
North Carolina use this program for licensing of individual Inspectors and
for licensing of Companies.
George

George Wagner
Executive Director
American Fire Sprinkler Association
Virginia Chapter
4558 Sandy Valley Road
Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111
Home-804-779-3921
Cell-804-514-3154
wagn...@mindspring.com
www.afsavirginia.com

 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:47 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

What are the qualifications for an NFPA 25 sprinkler system inspector?
Seems pretty open ended to me. We routinely look for NICET qualifications
for designers but what about the inspectors?  I'm trying to establish a
specification for NFPA 25 inspections and originally thought I'd say
qualified persons "per NFPA 25" but now I'm not so sure.
Is there a NICET program focused on inspections?

Thank you.

Bill Brooks

William N. Brooks, P.E.
Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc.
372 Wilett Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146-1904
410-544-3620
410-544-3032 FAX
412-400-6528 Cell 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

[Timothy W Goins]

TDA has inspected these facilities. But please back to the question.

How to apply the standard?
When chapter 8.6.5.2.2.1 says that the 70% mesh curtain with a 22" from
ceiling to bottom of mesh "shall not" be considered as an obstruction why do
we even have to discuss it?
Why can't they be accepted, as is, until the standard is changed?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

And I believe the Academy is certifying the inspectors in FL and other
locales as an alternative to NICET.

George L.  Church, Jr., CET  
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
g...@rowesprinkler.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Wagner
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

Bill,
NICET has an excellent program for Sprinkler Inspectors and many states like
North Carolina use this program for licensing of individual Inspectors and
for licensing of Companies.
George

George Wagner
Executive Director
American Fire Sprinkler Association
Virginia Chapter
4558 Sandy Valley Road
Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111
Home-804-779-3921
Cell-804-514-3154
wagn...@mindspring.com
www.afsavirginia.com

 

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bill Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:47 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Qualified NFPA 25 Persons

What are the qualifications for an NFPA 25 sprinkler system inspector?
Seems pretty open ended to me. We routinely look for NICET qualifications
for designers but what about the inspectors?  I'm trying to establish a
specification for NFPA 25 inspections and originally thought I'd say
qualified persons "per NFPA 25" but now I'm not so sure.
Is there a NICET program focused on inspections?

Thank you.

Bill Brooks

William N. Brooks, P.E.
Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc.
372 Wilett Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146-1904
410-544-3620
410-544-3032 FAX
412-400-6528 Cell 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Hospital Privacy Curtain

[Timothy W Goins]

We have the rules, how do we apply them?
 When chapter 8.6.5.2.2.1 says that the 70% mesh curtain with a 22" from
ceiling to bottom of mesh "shall not" be considered as an obstruction why do
we even have to discuss it?
Why can't they be accepted, as is, until the standard is changed?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hospital Privacy Curtain

Peter,

I'd agree your argument is sound relative to all the rules, but in actuality
what hospital will have sprinklers more than four inches below the ceiling
in a room with a privacy curtain? I can see the curtain manufacturers going
nuts with a rule that gives them no specific parameter that they can make
their product to. What I can't see is an architect allowing pendants that
exposed to view, even on 401s, much less  those even longer 40Xs, and how
about exposed pipe with uprights. Older hospitals?
Well they'd not be subject to rules from 2002 or 2007 and so  curtains would
need to be addressed on a case by case basis.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Larrimer, Peter A (CEOSH) <
peter.a.larri...@va.gov> wrote:

> This relatively new hospital privacy curtain criteria seems to be 
> flawed to me.
>
> The patient privacy curtain criteria changed in the 2007 edition 
> compared to the 2002 Edition.  In 2002, the 70% open mesh curtain was 
> to be 18 inches down from the sprinkler deflector.  In the 2007 
> Edition, the 70% open mesh curtain is to be 22 inches down from the 
> ceiling.  How does that make any sense when the deflector position 
> relative to the ceiling is not fixed?  I think one should still apply 
> the 2002 criteria.  The report on curtain testing referenced for the 
> code change, (if my memory serves me and I could be off base here), 
> does not indicate how far the mesh was down from the deflector nor how 
> far the deflector was down from the ceiling.  What if the deflector is 12
inches down from the ceiling as permitted by the code?
>  Can the mesh only have to be down 22 inches from the ceiling?  The 
> code should go back to the 2002 criteria.
>
> From 2002:
>
> 8.6.5.2.2* Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions.
> The distance from sprinklers to privacy curtains, free standing 
> partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard 
> occupancies shall be in accordance with Table
> 8.6.5.2.2 and Figure 8.6.5.2.2.
>
> A.8.6.5.2.2 The use of mesh can affect the discharge pattern of the 
> sprinkler. Top mesh can be used when it has a minimum vertical 
> distance of 18 in. below the sprinkler deflector with mesh openings 
> having a minimum percent opening of 70 percent or larger.
>
> The figure showed a measurement being a distance measured from the 
> sprinkler deflector.
>
> From 2007:
>
> 8.6.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions.
> The distance from sprinklers to privacy curtains, freestanding 
> partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard 
> occupancies shall be in accordance with Table 8.6.5.2.2 and Figure 
> 8.6.5.2.2.
>
> 8.6.5.2.2.1* In light hazard occupancies, privacy curtains that are 
> supported by fabric mesh on ceiling track and have openings in the 
> mesh equal to 70 percent or greater and extend a minimum of 22 in. 
> (559 mm) from ceiling shall not be considered obstructions as shown in 
> 8.6.5.2.2.
>
> A.8.6.5.2.2.1 Testing has shown that privacy curtains supported from 
> the ceiling by mesh fabric do not obstruct the distribution pattern in 
> a negative way as long as the mesh is
> 70 percent or more open and extends from the ceiling a minimum of 22 
> in. (559 mm).
>
> Thanks
>
> Pete Larrimer
> VA
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:31 PM
> To: tm...@mfpdesign.com; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Hospital Privacy Curtain
>
> That would not apply here, that figure is for open web steel or wood
truss.
> 8.6.5.2.2 and 8.6.5.2.2.1 do apply and to me is quite plain, but the 
> figures and photos in the handbook do not mention and or show a hem.
>
> Another thing is, is the TDA says they are working from the 2000 editions.
> The testing was performed on the new style curtains in 2004, I'm not 
> sure when it first came out in the standards.
>
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis 
> 

RE: Hospital Privacy Curtain

[Timothy W Goins]

That would not apply here, that figure is for open web steel or wood truss.
8.6.5.2.2 and 8.6.5.2.2.1 do apply and to me is quite plain, but the figures
and photos in the handbook do not mention and or show a hem.

Another thing is, is the TDA says they are working from the 2000 editions.
The testing was performed on the new style curtains in 2004, I'm not sure
when it first came out in the standards.

Tim

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack,
SET
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 1:16 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hospital Privacy Curtain

fig 8.6.5.2.1.3 (2010 edition) for Standard spray.  There is one in each
section for SS, EC for the rule.

On 10/12/2012 11:10 AM, Timothy W Goins wrote:
> Where can I find that x3 rule?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis 
> Mack
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Hospital Privacy Curtain
>
> Assuming you are above the 1" hem, as long as you are 3x the distance 
> of the obstruction away, you should be good regardless. I would bet 
> you are more than 3" away from the hem.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 8:51 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]"
>  wrote:
>
>> Funny!
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Timothy W Goins [mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:43 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> Subject: Hospital Privacy Curtain
>>
>> Has anyone heard that a 1" hem at the top of a privacy curtain 
>> creates an obstruction?
>>
>>
>>
>> NFPA 13 2010 indicates that a properly hung privacy curtain "shall 
>> not" be considered an obstruction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Timothy W Goins
>> A & T Services
>>
>>
>>
>> "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
>> God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com
>>
>> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
>> scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/att
>> a chments/20121012/387b44ae/attachment.html>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Hospital Privacy Curtain

[Timothy W Goins]

Bottom of heads are almost level, if not level, with the 1" HEM of mesh
material or similar. Bottom of hem is about 2.5" to 3" down from ceiling.
Solder link heads are a little longer than glass bulb heads. Most of the
solder links are 3.5" to bottom of deflector, 2.5" to 3" to bottom of
deflector on the glass bulb heads. Most heads are approximately 6" from the
side of the track that holds the curtain hooks/curtains. TDA is saying that
the curtain hems are an obstruction.

I remember when the new style curtains were first installed around here. The
old curtains only had a 12" mesh at the top and was considered an
obstruction because of the 18" rule. The new curtains have mesh down to at
least 22" below the ceiling like the standard requires.

This particular inspector doesn't like properties not having deficiencies,
so I think he stretches things a bit. I might be wrong, and probably am.

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16
Reply to  mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hospital Privacy Curtain

Assuming you are above the 1" hem, as long as you are 3x the distance of the
obstruction away, you should be good regardless. I would bet you are more
than 3" away from the hem. 

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 12, 2012, at 8:51 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]"
 wrote:

> Funny! 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Timothy W Goins [mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Subject: Hospital Privacy Curtain
> 
> Has anyone heard that a 1" hem at the top of a privacy curtain creates 
> an obstruction?
> 
> 
> 
> NFPA 13 2010 indicates that a properly hung privacy curtain "shall 
> not" be considered an obstruction.
> 
> 
> 
> Timothy W Goins
> A & T Services
> 
> 
> 
> "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
> God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16
> 
> 
> 
> Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com
> 
> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta
> chments/20121012/387b44ae/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Hospital Privacy Curtain

[Timothy W Goins]

Where can I find that x3 rule?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Hospital Privacy Curtain

Assuming you are above the 1" hem, as long as you are 3x the distance of the
obstruction away, you should be good regardless. I would bet you are more
than 3" away from the hem. 

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 12, 2012, at 8:51 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]"
 wrote:

> Funny! 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Timothy W Goins [mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Subject: Hospital Privacy Curtain
> 
> Has anyone heard that a 1" hem at the top of a privacy curtain creates 
> an obstruction?
> 
> 
> 
> NFPA 13 2010 indicates that a properly hung privacy curtain "shall 
> not" be considered an obstruction.
> 
> 
> 
> Timothy W Goins
> A & T Services
> 
> 
> 
> "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
> God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16
> 
> 
> 
> Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com
> 
> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/atta
> chments/20121012/387b44ae/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Hospital Privacy Curtain

[Timothy W Goins]

Has anyone heard that a 1" hem at the top of a privacy curtain creates an
obstruction?

 

NFPA 13 2010 indicates that a properly hung privacy curtain "shall not" be
considered an obstruction.

 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

 

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16

 

Reply to   <mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com> mailto:tgo...@rgv.rr.com

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121012/387b44ae/attachment.html>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Fire pump annual test (VALVES)

[Timothy W Goins]

Some UL/FM playpipes are listed with and without the tips. I used to have a 
listed " test nozzle also.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:14 PM, "Tom Duross"  wrote:

> This message cannot be displayed because of the way it is formatted. Ask the 
> sender to send it again using a different format or email program. text/plain
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators

[Timothy W Goins]

They're called vibration arresters and I can see where there will be alignment 
problems. Ask your pump supplier if he has a listed assembly that uses them, if 
not supply a letter indicating such to the EOR and a RFI for farther 
instructions.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Todd Williams  wrote:

> Lets think about this. The pump is going to be on springs and will be able to 
> move up and down and side to side. When the pump starts, the impeller will 
> rotate creating a torque. The torque will push down on some springs and lift 
> up on others. Whereas the torque is usually absorbed by the pad, it will now 
> be absorbed by the pipe and fittings attached to it (until the springs max 
> out). I will be outside with a catcher's mitt to collect the flying debris. 
> 
> 
> 
> At 05:05 PM 10/1/2012, you wrote:
>> Might be quicker to ask the specifying EOR where this is permited in #20 
>> because you can't find it and you, and 600 of your sprinkler friends, have 
>> never seen it done. Might be a reason.
>> Plus it might
>> a-make him think 
>> b-make him look at #20
>> c-make him figure it out while you do something productive.
>> 
>> 
>> George L.  Church, Jr., CET  
>> Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
>> PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
>> 877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
>> g...@rowesprinkler.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Gillett
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:39 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators
>> 
>> We do a good share of pumps, doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. I 
>> would definitely run it by the pump representative and get their thoughts.
>> Curious to see who is requiring this and how it shakes out.
>> 
>> Bobby Gillett
>> Sr. Project Manager
>> Key Fire Protection, Inc.
>> (731) 424-0130 office  (731) 424-9285 fax
>> (731) 267-4853 cell
>> www.keyfireprotection.com
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:31 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Fire Pump on vibration spring type isolators
>> 
>> This does not sound like a good idea to me. After a cursory glance at 20, 
>> the Handbook, and a couple of others books I couldn't find anything to back 
>> up my gut opinion. I'm curious as to what others think and know.
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Gregg Key  wrote:
>> 
>>> Formites and fire protection friends,
>>> 
>>> Has anyone here ever installed an electric fire pump on these spring 
>>> type isolators? We usually install them on a pad, but recently had 
>>> someone require us to install on the isolators. Any help would be 
>>> appreciated.
>>> 
>>> C.Gregg Key, SET
>>> Key Fire Protection Services,Inc
>>> Project Manager
>>> (O) 706-790-3473
>>> (C) 706-220-8821
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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)
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> > s/20121001/4b8a028c/attachment.html>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>> 
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> 
> Todd G. Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860.535.2080
> www.fpdc.com
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprink

RE: 13R Bathrooms

[Timothy W Goins]

No, it is now a separate compartment if the lintel is 8" or better.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garrison
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 13R Bathrooms

Seperate bathroom...
On Jul 25, 2012 3:48 PM, "Jay White"  wrote:

> If the vanity area is separated by a floor to ceiling wall with a door 
> from the bathroom area, is it still considered part of the bathroom? 
> The vanity area does have a sink.
>
>
>
> Jay White
>
> Estimator/Design Manager
>
> Dynamic Fire Protection
>
> 1807 Hwy. 25 South
>
> Starkville, MS 39759
>
> Phone: 662-324-1550
>
> Fax:   662-324-1545
>
> Cell:  662-312-2426
>
>
>
> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was 
> scrubbed...
> Name: winmail.dat
> Type: application/ms-tnef
> Size: 3822 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac
> hments/20120725/4ba32df9/attachment.bin
> >
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Draftsperson test exercise

[Timothy W Goins]

I would have said time to get a new clock.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Draftsperson test exercise

Way to go George!  You passed.  It's a funny question that simply requires
paying attention.  Most people figure it to be 5:15.  Sadly, nearly everyone
that took the math test couldn't figure out that 13' x 12' = 156 sf.  Now,
can you build a simple riser?  LOL

Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.firebyknight.com




-Original Message-
From: George Church [mailto:g...@rowesprinkler.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:19 AM
To: b...@firebyknight.com; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Draftsperson test exercise

Just so I know if I had a shot at a job- and I did pass ASCOA's Bennett Test
of Mechanical Comprehension, etc. back in 74- It's noon, right? Checking the
ability to handle a fact given in English, despite induced cognitive
dissonance of a stopped or wrong clock.


George L.  Church, Jr., CET
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
g...@rowesprinkler.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:04 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Draftsperson test exercise

Mike,
When I was in the position to hire I used to use two tests.  The first one
was a math test with simple word problems that used sprinkler terminology.  

For example, You are to design a tree type fire sprinkler system.  The
sprinkler heads are spaced 13'-0" on center along the branch lines, and they
are spaced 12'-0" on center between branch lines.  A remote area of 1500
square feet is required.  Answer the following: a) How many square feet will
be covered per sprinkler head?

Another question, It is noon.  You look at the clock.  The big hand is on
three.  The little hand is on five.  What time is it?

I also gave a CAD test by providing all the required components of a simple
riser. They were than given a picture of the finished product and given 30
minutes to assemble as much of it as possible.

Both of these tests really helped weed out those who didn't have the
aptitude to design.  Some applicants walked out, some just sat there, and
some asked questions.  Most couldn't answer simple math problems.  

I thought that this was a pretty good system to find out what a person was
capable of without hiring someone with a "good" resume only to find out that
they buffaloed their way in.

Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.firebyknight.com



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Morey, Mike
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Draftsperson test exercise

Anyone happen to have some sort of "test exercise" for potential
draftspeople?  I was going to create a small test building, maybe an OH2
shop and 2-3 LH offices, but I figured I'd ask before I took the time.  I'm
not looking to test for sprinkler knowledge so much as the ability to draft
in CAD and solve relatively simple problems when presented with some basic
sprinkler "rules".
 
Mike Morey, SET, CFPS
Sprinkler Designer
BMW Constructors, Inc.
O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111
www.bmwc.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5140 - Release Date: 07/18/12

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5141 - Release Date: 07/19/12

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Drop out ceiling tile area

[Timothy W Goins]

The restrictions are found with the FM/UL listings of the products. Area, as
I recall is NOT a factor but distance from head to ceiling (5'-0" MAX) is
and it must be LH.
They call them burnout/Dropout because of their listings, they will either
shrink with the heat (Burnout) and fall out or they will break from the
weight of the falling water from a broken sprinkler and then fall out
(Dropout). King and Company is the only company that I know that produces
this "listed" type of ceiling.
Their web site is; http://www.thermo-tile.com

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:47 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Drop out ceiling tile area

usually a light foam tile that melt quickly in the event of a fire to expose
sprinklers above it. Out here they tend to show up in old timber frame or
mill buildings where they want to finish a space and not drop sprinklers
below the ceiling. They typically look like crap after about 3 years.

At 02:36 PM 6/14/2012, you wrote:
>Not really answering your question. I have never come across "drop-out"
>ceilings yet. At least if I have, no one has told me they were 
>drop-out. Are they a certain type? Or does the Architect have to denote 
>them as such on the drawings?
>
>Tony
>
>-Original Message-
>From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
>[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd 
>Williams
>Sent: June 14, 2012 9:05 AM
>To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>Subject: Drop out ceiling tile area
>
>Is there a restriction on the square footage that can be protected by a 
>system above a drop-out ceiling? A fire marshal was telling me that 
>there is a restriction in NFPA 13, but I've never heard of it and can't
find it.
>Thoughts?
>
>Todd G. Williams, PE
>Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>Stonington, CT
>860.535.2080
>www.fpdc.com
>
>___
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
>___
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants

[Timothy W Goins]

Most THINK that the AWWA recommends BFP's on ALL firelines, especially deadened 
lines over 100 feet, but the AWWA does NOT recommend backflow protection on 
hydrant only lines.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:56 AM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote:

> accounting departments see plus signs when they see marketing department, 
> lunch n learn, and regulatory agencies on the same spread sheet line lol (and 
> some consulting engineering firms). Steve- can you explain the USC friction 
> loss graphs? there is some diff in turning on and turning off?
> Quoting Ron Greenman :
> 
>> I think the backflow prevention device manufacturers have a lot of
>> influence with a fair share of regulatory agencies.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Steve Leyton 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Private fire service mains in CA have required backflows for years.  The
>>> type of device varies by water authority standards, but pretty much
>>> throughout Southern California the use of an RPDA is standard practice.
>>> Whether the downstream connections are sprinklers only, plus one hydrant
>>> or with multiple hydrants, a backflow appliance is required on a private
>>> fire service main.   The thinking isn't that hydrants represent a cross
>>> connection or contamination threat per se, but that a private property
>>> owner can make whatever connections they want in the dark of night after
>>> final acceptance testing.   So better safe than sorry, bureaucratically
>>> speaking ...
>>> 
>>> SML
>>> In SoCal, where nothing surprises anymore
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of AKS-Gmail-IMAP
>>> Sent: Tue 6/5/2012 7:24 PM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire
>>> hydrants
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am hearing that in Illinois the state plumbing inspectors insist on
>>> RPZ back flow prevention for fire hydrants on dedicated underground
>>> private service mains. What is up with that?
>>> 
>>> Allan Seidel
>>> St. Louis. MO
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- next part --
>>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>> Name: winmail.dat
>>> Type: application/ms-tnef
>>> Size: 4685 bytes
>>> Desc: not available
>>> URL: <
>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120605/c0c6b675/attachment.bin
>>> >
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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)
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: CADdroid?

[Timothy W Goins]

I load a 55000 SQFT building with RCP sprinkler pipe dimensions and all. It 
works great. Drawing capabilities are limited but adequate. Mark up, dimension 
checks, redlining, works great. Automatically makes its on layer for redlining 
and edits. Try it, AutoCad WS is a FREE service.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On May 25, 2012, at 9:55 PM, "Vince Sabolik" wrote:

> Tim,
> How's this do for - say 4-5,000 sq ft of offices with reflected ceilings and 
> the like?
> 
> Sent from my "CERTIFIED" stupid smart phone
> 
> -Original message-
> From: Timothy W Goins 
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Sent: Fri, May 25, 2012 22:18:42 EDT
> Subject: RE: CADdroid?
> 
> I use iPad with AutoCad WS, it's great.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Vince Sabolik
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 5:28 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: CADdroid?
> 
> Hello all --
> 
> Is anyone using tablet for field survey yet?
> Care to provide details?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vince Sabolik, West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.
> 11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136   440238-4800 Fax 440 
> 238-4876
>  
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment
> s/20120525/f1ef5e87/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120525/55531a0d/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: CADdroid?

[Timothy W Goins]

I use iPad with AutoCad WS, it's great.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Vince Sabolik
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 5:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: CADdroid?

Hello all --

Is anyone using tablet for field survey yet?
Care to provide details?




Vince Sabolik, West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.
11351 Pearl Road / Strongsville, Ohio 44136   440 
238-4800 Fax 440 238-4876
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Adobe acrobat app

[Timothy W Goins]

If you can save it to a dwg or dxf format it will work.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:03 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Adobe acrobat app


WS won't work for me because I use Autosprink. They don't have an app yet
(hint, hint Cliff and anyones else out there listening)

My option would be reading PDF files


At 12:14 PM 3/5/2012, you wrote:
>AutoCAD WS is my preferred choice for prints.  If its something quick 
>and dirty, I just use SketchBook Mobile
>
>Benjamin Young
>
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM, David Blackwell 
>> wrote:
>
>> On a related FYI - Autodesk Design Review is what we use for plan 
>> reviews and has an app I have recently added to my iPhone... But I 
>> haven't used it yet in the field...
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:06 AM, "Conlin"  wrote:
>>
>> > I have used an ipad for marking up plans in the field.
>> >
>> > Works great for plans which are not too large as it can becomes a 
>> > pain panning on the ipad.
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
>> > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd
>> Williams
>> > Sent: March-05-12 7:26 AM
>> > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> > Subject: Adobe acrobat app
>> >
>> > Has anyone used the Adobe Acrobat app on a tablet in the field for 
>> > notes
>> and
>> > mark-ups on drawings?
>> >
>> > Todd G. Williams, PE
>> > Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> > Stonington, CT
>> > 860.535.2080
>> > www.fpdc.com
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > No virus found in this message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4852 - Release Date:
03/05/12
>> >
>> > -
>> > No virus found in this message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4852 - Release Date:
03/05/12
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>>
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:

>___
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Adobe acrobat app

[Timothy W Goins]

Try AutoCAD WS

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Conlin
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:06 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Adobe acrobat app


I have used an ipad for marking up plans in the field.

Works great for plans which are not too large as it can becomes a pain
panning on the ipad.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: March-05-12 7:26 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Adobe acrobat app

Has anyone used the Adobe Acrobat app on a tablet in the field for notes and
mark-ups on drawings?

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860.535.2080
www.fpdc.com

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4852 - Release Date: 03/05/12

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4852 - Release Date: 03/05/12

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Electrical Grounding

[Timothy W Goins]

NO ground, just bonding

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
lamarvau...@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:48 AM
To: sprinklerforum: firesprinkler.org
Subject: Electrical Grounding



Hello Forum,

I have had a question posed to me on a project regarding the connection 
of the building electrical ground to the fire protection system,we do 
have a ductile iron service into the building.My first instinct is no 
but wanted to see if there were other opinions.

Thanks,

Lamar Vaughn,SET
McDonough,Ga.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE

[Timothy W Goins]

Sch10 is a standard weight. Dyna-flo, XL and the now not listed Sch5 are none 
standard. Maybe he just wanted to exclude the latter.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Mark Sornsin  wrote:

> Maybe the engineer just stuck the term 'standard weight' in there out of 
> habit; or because his master spec has that in there; or because he thinks 
> he's doing somebody a service by requiring it or possibly, he has a 
> legitimate reason. Sadly, the last option is normally NOT the most likely.
> 
> Sornsin
> Ulteig
> Fargo
> 
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
> [sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] on behalf of George Church 
> [g...@rowesprinkler.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE
> 
> There is no requirement in 13 for a riser to be Schedule 40.
> The EOR must be wanting to increase the robustness of the riser for some 
> other reason.
> Hopefully he doesn't require threaded joints or there may be some guys 
> looking for larger wrenches than they're used to using
> (and maybe some larger muscles than they have).
> 
> While some might quibble that "standard weight" could now be argued to be Sch 
> 10 for sprinkler mains and risers based on industry usage, I don't think 
> they'd win an argument with the EOR that when he said standard weight, he 
> meant Sch 40.
> 
> George L.  Church, Jr., CET
> Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
> PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
> 877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
> g...@rowesprinkler.com
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:29 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE
> 
> In the spec it states; "Each vertical water supply riser shall be standard 
> weight pipe from grade floor level at entry of feed main into building up to 
> the highest horizontal cross main."
> 
> 
> What is that supposed to mean?  I've had more contractor confusion over that 
> statement and I've been trying to find if there's a requirement for the riser 
> to be Schedule 40 instead of allowing it to be Schedule 10 within the NFPA 13 
> Standard.  So far I haven't found anything that dictates pipe weight for a 
> riser.
> 
> Anyone have any insight to offer?
> 
> Craig L. Prahl, CET
> Fire Protection
> CH2MHILL
> Lockwood Greene
> 1500 International Drive
> Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
> Direct - 864.599.4102
> Fax - 864.599.8439
> CH2MHILL Extension  74102
> craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> 
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Re: Multiple Dry Systems Air Maintenance

[Timothy W Goins]

How about using separate by-passes for each system? It could be less expensive 
than pressure regulators for each system.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation 
to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16

On Nov 29, 2011, at 12:49 PM, George Church  wrote:

> Egg Zachary
> 
> 
> George L.  Church, Jr., CET  
> Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
> PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
> 877-324-ROWE   570-837-6335 fax
> g...@rowesprinkler.com
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of David deVries
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:40 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Multiple Dry Systems Air Maintenance
> 
> OK.  A new thought and new question.
> 
> I have four dry pipe systems with air supply manifolded together using a a 
> single AMD.  Each air connection from the manifold to a DPV has its own check 
> valve.  The AMD regulator is set to maintain 35 psi on the dry systems. The 
> air compressor maintains 90 psi in its tank.
> 
> So, when resetting a DPV and I open the AMD bypass to fill the tripped system 
> with air, will the other three systems become over pressurized?  I know that 
> I could tweak the bypass valve to throttle down the 90 psi, but that would 
> take longer then to fill the tripped system.  Any field experience to report? 
>  Might this be another reason to have separate AMD's for each system?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Dave
> 
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:03 AM, David deVries 
> wrote:
> 
>> In summary of this subject, the consensus is that a strict reading of
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

RE: Pipe Dope

[Timothy W Goins]

We've done it for years (25+) My question is which SHOULD be applied first,
the dope or the tape? I have fitters that do it both ways.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
rahe.lof...@gsa.gov
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Pipe Dope



How many out there use pipe dope AND tape on pipe threads?  Is this an
allowable method?  What would be the consequences of this method?

Thank You

Rahe Loftin, P.E.
Region 7 - GSA
Cell - 817-371-3102

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: partial walls in mech rooms

[Timothy W Goins]

Chapter 8.15.22.. Does NOT apply here. I agree that you should protect the
non- or limited combustible concelaed space 15' around the perimeter of the
closet.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:54 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: partial walls in mech rooms


I know that and you know that, but I am loading my guns to fight a very
difficult GC.I just needed chapter and verse.

Thanks for all of the input, but I still very much feel that this is a grey
area that can be argued wither way. Greg

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Thom  wrote:

>
> Your original post said the largest space was 7'x 8' or 56 SF. You may 
> want to discuss the cost of fire sprinklers vs. the cost of a drop 
> ceiling in these spaces.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Greg 
> McGahan
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: partial walls in mech rooms
>
> Well, you have to go 24 feet which ends up being an area of approx, 
> 55' x 54' that you are now required to put heads in. I Although the 
> example in the handbook refers to a warehouse/office space in which 
> the clarification is that protection must extend 24' over the offices 
> and the area of greater hazard is outside the 24' zone, I guess it is 
> similar, but it is a stretch in my opinion.
>
> In this case, the greater hazard is surrounded by a lesser hazard on 4 
> sides, Therefore if 8.15.22.3 applies, we will end up protecting the 
> entire non-combustible interstitial space. Before I argue for this 
> change order I want to make sure this is the intent on the code.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email 
> to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>



-- 
Greg McGahan
Living Water Fire Protection, LLC
1160 McKenzie Road
Cantonment, FL 32533
850-937-1850
fax 850-937-1852 ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Full height walls in exposed room

[Timothy W Goins]

Protection doesn't stop, it's just located below the ceiling.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tony Liddic
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 11:45 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Full height walls in exposed room


11.1.2 requires the more demanding "design" to extend 15' beyond the hazard
but does not say that the actual protection can stop at that point.  Unless
the space above the office ceiling can be considered "concealed", I don't
see any way around full coverage.

Tony Liddic, CET
MRH Sprinkler Design LLC
356 Laurel Glen Dr.
Springboro, OH  45066
937-369-7926
http://www.mrhsprinklerdesign.com tony.lid...@mrhsprinklerdesign.com


-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Medina
Jr
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 12:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Full height walls in exposed room

NFPA-13 (2007ed.) Sec. 11.1.2 and A.11.1.2 might help.


George Medina Jr. 
Sr. Fire Sprinkler Designer 



-Original Message-
From: Dewayne Martinez 
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 8, 2010 8:00 am
Subject: Full height walls in exposed room


Office with ceilings containing a storage room with no ceiling.  I told he
architect that the walls for this room would have to go full height r else
we would need to add sprinklers in the non-combustible space bove the
office.  He is looking for a specific code referenceis here?  For the
full height wall, would it require gyp bd on one side nly or both sides with
all the gaps filled? hanks,

ewayne
__
prinklerforum mailing list
prinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
ttp://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To
Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Full height walls in exposed room

[Timothy W Goins]

Coverage 15' beyond the walls?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dewayne
Martinez
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Full height walls in exposed room


Office with ceilings containing a storage room with no ceiling.  I told the
architect that the walls for this room would have to go full height or else
we would need to add sprinklers in the non-combustible space above the
office.  He is looking for a specific code referenceis there?  For the
full height wall, would it require gyp bd on one side only or both sides
with all the gaps filled? Thanks,
 
Dewayne
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Ductile for FDC Underground

[Timothy W Goins]

C900 PVC with DI fittings is the way to go.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Dave Phelan
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:38 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Ductile for FDC Underground


Greetings -

 

Working on a problem currently - here's the synopsis of it:

 

Building built in 1998-1999 with sprinklers throughout.  FDC is located in
the front at the street approximately 25 feet from actual building.  FD
responds to a fire and supports the FDC (125 PSI) when they notice red muddy
water percolating up through the ground between the building and FDC.  They
cease supplying the FDC and the interior crews save the day.  Now comes the
diagnosis and repair work -

 

Excavate the entire FDC line and it appears to be ductile iron pipe (4") and
runs from the check valve inside the foundation wall straight out of the
building for 24 feet and then has its first fitting to connect to the FDC
base.  No couplings or fittings otherwise in the line.  The FDC check valve
is a Victaulic and is marked 250 PSI Ductile Iron which further supports my
belief the piping is DI.  The wet system piping is ordinary Sch 10 grooved.
Does DI come in 24 foot lengths normally ?

 

Upon cleaning the pipe numerous holes from pins to thumb sized are found
along a four foot section of the piping.  Repairs are being prepared but I'm
curious about the use and selection of DI for a dry - empty FDC line into
the building.  Also wondering if such deterioration is plausible in just 12
years or so.  The fill in this section of pipe is a red clay and not the
cleanest fill (rocks) around but these holes don't appear to be physical
impact damage.

 

Any thoughts - on the DI or better yet another pipe material for the
installation to prevent future problems in 12 years.  I was thinking it
should be galvanized pipe and wrapped in heavy plastic prior to burial and
using clean sand around the pipe but I'm not a designer either.

 

Thanks-

Dave P.

A firefighter with just enough knowledge to be dangerous

 

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: FIRE PUMP: Urgent

[Timothy W Goins]

No, but a remote pump panel is required for monitoring.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of sam b
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:15 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: FIRE PUMP: Urgent


Dear all..

We are in the process of installing *temporary fire protection* for a 30
story builing. The pump installed is a *single diesel engine pump* (Not
listed) for the supplying water for the landing valves in each floor.The
fire pump is located in the basement floor and is barricaded .

The operation of the fire pump will be such that In case of pressure drop
due to opening of the hosereeel or landing valves the pump will start. Now
during the inspection from Client,they asked us why there is no automatic
shutoff . *The scenario they are considering is *. Suppose some labour
accidentally opens the hosreel for anypurpose,the pump will start running
and if there is noone to stop the pump ,will it get damaged.? I suggested we
could provide a fire alarm bell for alerting the people. *Can we provide
automatic shuttoff for the diesel pump. Is it acceptable as per NFPA?* Is
there anyother options available or anything from NFPA to support that we
dont need automatic shutoff?

Please give your valuable inputs.

Sam
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: System Replacement

[Timothy W Goins]

Check the classification again, I believe that FM has done some extensive
testing on some plastic bins and the water demand could be much less than
Group A Plastics.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jim Johnston
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:00 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: System Replacement


Good Friday Morning All:

 

Yesterday I visited a facility that has an existing gridded dry system
installed in 1981 - I assume that was legit back in those days?  The system
is protecting fruit stored in bins in a controlled atmosphere building.  The
system is rotting out and needs to be replaced, I can't find a specific
clause in the codes that say's replace it as it currently is - the problem
being a dry grid.  To further complicate the problem the original
classification was a Class II (fruit in wood bins), today those bins are
HDPE - Group A Plastic.  With this information would you agree that you
can't replace the system as originally installed?

 

Jim Johnston, P.E.

Fire Protection Engineer

Inland Fire Protection, Inc

1100 Ahtanum Road

Yakima, WA 98903

Phone 509-248-4471

Fax 509-248-1180

j...@inlandfireprotection.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Cure times

[Timothy W Goins]

I ALWAYS use the 24 hour cure time and maybe longer, depending on
temperature and humidity.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J.
Willis
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:13 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Cure times


24 hours are required by some of the insurance companies. It is a helpful
way to mitigate water damage. We observe them. Owner must provide fire
watch.., as required by 101.
 
When you look in whichever flavor of CPVC manual you have, be aware of the
temps this time of year. If I am remembering correctly, there is a temp and
size that you are not allowed to glue at all until the temp in the room is
at that level.

R/
Matt

 
Matthew J. Willis, CET
Automatic Fire Sprinklers
Norred Fire Systems L.L.C.
318-387-1134 Voice
318-387-1163 Facsimile
m...@norredfire.com
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Cure times

I have never done the 24 hour. However, after reading this email I am going
to incorporate it into our Standard Operating Procedure and specify in
bidding and contract docs that the owner is responsible for impairment
procedures.

Well, maybe I'm jumping the gun. First I will look into Blazemaster
specifications and instructions. If they are the same as Spears, then that's
what I'm going to do.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Cure times

Afternoon Campers.

Just got the Relmark email and was reviewing the pertinent info. Wondering
how you all are handling the 24 hr. cure times on CPVC cut-ins? I know here
in the big city, we need a detail over 8 hours for occupied property.

TD
(38 days to pitchers and catchers..)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Retro Backflow

[Timothy W Goins]

Read carefully NFPA 13 2007 Chapter 11.2.2 and especially as modified with
Chapter 11.2.2.8.2

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:53 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Retro Backflow


The issue with flowing more than required is not an issue as long as you
don't exceed the velocity of the listing on the device. Exceed that in your
forward flow test and some lawyer will make it look like you intentionally
sabotaged the entire life safety system of the building including the alarm
system. (Besides that fact you probably broke something, that will have to
be replaced.)

Additionally some installation instructions say things like "Minimum 20 PSI
supply pressure recommended" What happens when you draw it down below 20,
cause your overflowing the device? You've violated the installation
instructions, or so the lawyer says.

Overflowing has consequences.

Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel:  970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill


Let's crank it open to 400 and again I don't think anyone, even the lawyers,
would have a beef if you forward flowed more than required.

Chris Cahill, P.E.

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Inadequate Water

[Timothy W Goins]

"maybe looping a few of the branchlines in the most demanding area would
solve things" I always thought that the remote area calcs and design set the
standard/minimum for the entire system. No one knows, but GOD and an
arsonist, where the actual remote area might be or fire may start/be.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ralphy
Henderson
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:10 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Inadequate Water


Isn't an issue of 5 psi really a non issue? I mean, you generally have an
AHJ mandated safety factor (or should) of 5-10%, a hose allowance that may
or may not be used, plus calculations that are based upon Hazen-Williams
which in itself is not as accurate as other methods and provides an
additional safety margin. 
Not only that but there are usually design options as well. Perhaps the
remote area could be re-evaluated - maybe there's that head in the closet
that really doesn't need to be included in the calcs, maybe looping a few of
the branchlines in the most demanding area would solve things, changing BFP
to a more friendly friction loss model, did the hydraulics program use the
modified equivalent lengths based upon NFPA #13 or were these considerably
rounded up by default (I've seen that)? Could changing sprinklers to larger
/ smaller orifice help, sliding up and down the design density curve to meet
actual calculated sq. ft'g (if no reductions are taken) etc.. Even without
consideration of the above it would seem that 5 psi is not lawsuit material
- at least to me. As long as this is not storage or extra hazard I don't see
what the big deal is. -Ralphy




  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Locks

[Timothy W Goins]

Potter Roemer sales a breakable padlock. Locks are NOT a part of the system,
they are to keep honest people honest, to keep untrained people from turning
the valve, the normal person that sees the lock thinks to himself, "self,
someone wants that valve to remain in that position, see they've even
secured it there, self you'd better not mess with it." A person bent on
arson will simply by-pass any system and close the water, set the building
on fire and be gone.

If we have to start paying engineers to tell us the best way to secure a
control valve we're in bad shape.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Michael
O'Brian
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Locks


J,

Most model building codes require electronic supervision of systems. if the
state is using 903.4 of the IBC or IFC it is pretty clear that most
occupancies need electronic supervision of they system.  It seems crazy to
me that someone is fishing on this.  So I guess to the listing is it should
be listed by master lock.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Jay Jay
Blocker wrote:
> I hope someone can shed light on this.  Using this as a baseline:
>> NFPA 13 (2002, Edition) 6.1.1.5
>> Components that do not affect system performance such as drain 
>> piping, drain valves and signs shall not be required to be listed.
>
> I have had a question presented to me regarding locks.  If the control 
> valve is locked utilizing chain and pad lock does the lock have to be 
> listed?  It prevents the valve from operating which affects the 
> operation of the system so therefore the lock affects the operation.  
> This was what was presented to me.
>
> The other side says that it affects stopping operation NOT operation.  
> Basically this would stop someone from shutting off the supply after 
> operation so the lock does not need to be listed.
>
> Any help?
>
> J
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list 
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: 
> techsupp...@firesprinkler.org
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email 
> to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>



-- 
Michael O'Brian
Code Savvy Consultants
O: 313-618-6401
F: 313-557-0294
mobr...@codesavvyconsultants.com
www.codesavvyconsultants.com
www.inspector911.com ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Os&y valve rebuild

[Timothy W Goins]

Really NOT that difficult. If the valves are in good shape, bolts are easy
to remove, and working area is accessible then it would probably be better
to change the packings. Even if you change out the valve, now that you know
about the asbestos, you must dispose of the contaminated products correctly.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
cherokeefire...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Os&y valve rebuild


Yes, the consultant explained that. But the air must he monitored to 
verify that it does not become airborne and the employees must be 
trained on how to handle it so it does not become airborne.


-Original Message-
From: Timothy W Goins 
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:58:48 -0500
Subject: RE: Os&y valve rebuild

Check with an asbestos consultant, but most products containing 
asbestos can
be handled without making the asbestos airborn, thereby only requiring 
that
they be disposed of properly. Product containing asbestos are NOT 
deadly in
and alone of themselves, it's when the asbestos becomes airborn in dust.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest 
Wilson
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:49 PM
To: Forum
Subject: Os&y valve rebuild


To cover all bases, I contacted the local OSHA consult office and was
informed of the following: If the old valve packing contained asbestos, 
then
the asbestos standard would apply.
The air would have to be monitored and workers trained about asbestos
hazards. So it seems it may be cheaper to replace 5 8" os&y valves than
repack. Which got me wondering... Do fire pumps have asbestos packing? I
went through tech training at Peerless and the issue never came up. Are
there other products in this industry which contain asbestos?


Forest Wilson  Project Manager   Cherokee 
Fire
Protection Co. 1855 Bellbrook Ave. Ste C   Xenia OH 45385
888-347-3079 ph 614-455-4324 fx
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: 
techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email 
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: 
techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email 
to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Os&y valve rebuild

[Timothy W Goins]

Check with an asbestos consultant, but most products containing asbestos can
be handled without making the asbestos airborn, thereby only requiring that
they be disposed of properly. Product containing asbestos are NOT deadly in
and alone of themselves, it's when the asbestos becomes airborn in dust.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:49 PM
To: Forum
Subject: Os&y valve rebuild


To cover all bases, I contacted the local OSHA consult office and was
informed of the following: If the old valve packing contained asbestos, then
the asbestos standard would apply. 
The air would have to be monitored and workers trained about asbestos
hazards. 
So it seems it may be cheaper to replace 5 8" os&y valves than repack. 
Which got me wondering... Do fire pumps have asbestos packing? I went
through tech training at Peerless and the issue never came up. 
Are there other products in this industry which contain asbestos?


Forest Wilson  Project Manager   Cherokee Fire
Protection Co. 1855 Bellbrook Ave. Ste C   Xenia OH 45385
888-347-3079 ph 614-455-4324 fx   
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Traverse city os&y valves

[Timothy W Goins]

Pull ONE(1) out, wear gloves, face mask, etc.. (If you're afraid). Measure
it and purchase replacement stock from a pump supplier or parts store.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jay Jay
Blocker
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Traverse city os&y valves


Recently we discovered several valves from Traverse City.  We could not
locate parts from any of our sources so we checked with the water distict. 
They told us to be careful of the packings from those valves because of
Asbestos.  The verdict was that as far as they knew all of those valves had
it.





From: Forest Wilson 
To: Forum 
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 2:55:35 PM
Subject: Traverse city os&y valves

A property has 5 8" os&y valves with leaking packings, all about 30 years
old. 
Made by Traverse City Iron Works. 
Did all valves from that era contain asbestos in the packing material? Does
anyone know what size packing to use to re-pack? Forest Wilson             
    Project Manager              Cherokee Fire Protection Co. 1855 Bellbrook
Ave. Ste C  Xenia OH 45385              888-347-3079 ph           
614-455-4324 fx          
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)



  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Branch line insulation

[Timothy W Goins]

If you can prove that insulation alone will keep the water and pipe above
40° F you can use, other wise it's heat tape.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Branch line insulation


Yeah, I saw that but what I'm dealing with is just branch lines and not
mains.





___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Branch line insulation

[Timothy W Goins]

Check out 8.16.4.1.3

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:34 PM
To: AFSA
Subject: Branch line insulation


NFPA13 2007. Is 8.16.4.1.2 telling me that (steel) branch lines cannot be
insulated (insulation only)? Also is it telling me that only small areas can
be heat traced?

We have always used dry or anti-freeze systems so I'm not up to date on
this.

 

 

 

 

Russell Rewis

Brown Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.

107C Hemlock Street

Valdosta, Georgia 31601

229-244-8130

russ...@brownautomatic.com

 

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Test/Drain at the Riser

[Timothy W Goins]

I respectfully disagree.

The purpose is to test the alarm device during a one head fire flow. Since
we have to time the device, putting it at the most remote area makes more
since, since we are simulating a fire at the most remote area and timing the
activation of the alarm device. The alarm device must activate before 90
seconds (Electric) and or 5 minutes (Water Motor Alarm) you pick.

If you are ONLY checking that the alarm device will work at the riser okay
then, but I don't believe that that is the intent of the ITC.

Just my opinion,

Timothy Goins

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 8:44 AM
To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org'
Subject: RE: Test/Drain at the Riser


Pardon me if this is ground that was already covered-

I specify the Inspector's test Connection to be located at the sprinkler
riser. This is NOT something that is new to NFPA-13 either.  E.g., the 1996
edition (4-15.4.2) does not require the location to be at the riser - it
doesn't specify any particular location. Commentary in the handbook that
year specifically states that the purpose of the connection is to "verify
the operation of the water flow alarm device(s)." The appendix dialogue
recommends locating the connection at the remote location of the system -
but this is by no means a requirement.

Placing the ITC a the end of the system will not guarantee removal of all
air from the system. We specify an air bleed valve be located at the high
point(s) of the system for that purpose.  I know there are automatic air
releases that can be installed as well.

The problems associated with air in the system are valid; that's why a means
should be provided to remove the air.  But excessive pressure from
temperature rises is not one of those problems.  In fact, it is precisely
because of trapped air that that most tree systems don't have excessive
pressure problems.  The grids tend to have these issues because air can't be
as readily trapped.  That's why gridded systems should have a pressure
relief. Of course, if you facilitate the removal of most air from a tree
system, then a pressure relief is warranted on that system as well.

Locating the ITC at the riser will help reduce the amount of new air into
the system, as well as reduce the amount of freshly oxygenated water as a
result of testing.  This will reduce the potential for additional internal
corrosion resulting from the oxygen in the system. (I seem to recall that
this logic is used 'Down Under' as a means to extend the life of system
piping)

So, given that the purpose of the ITC on a wet system is to test the flow
alarm, it makes more sense to have it at the riser where it is more
convenient to facilitate the testing. Removal of air should be completed by
air bleed valves or automatic air releases.

Mark A. Sornsin, PE
Fire Protection Engineer
Ulteig Engineers, Inc.
3350 38th Avenue S.
Fargo, ND 58104-7079

Direct:701. 280.8591
Fax:701.280.8739
Cell:701.371.5759

mark.sorn...@ulteig.com
www.ulteig.com

Confidentiality Notice
This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you
think, for any reason, this message may have been addressed to you in error,
you   must not disseminate copy or take any action in reliance on it, and we
would ask you to notify me immediately by return email to
mark.sorn...@ulteig.com.



-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Medina
Jr
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Test/Drain at the Riser

I?agree with you.


George Medina Jr.
Sr. Fire Sprinkler Designer
95-1015 Ka'apeha Pl.
Mililani, HI 96819
808-388-5974 CL#


-Original Message-
From: Byron Blake 
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 6:29 am
Subject: Test/Drain at the Riser


Here here. We witness the very same problem on large wet gridded systems,
just as your experience and research indicates.? ? We have one AHJ would
REQUIRES test/drain ITCs. Guess where my false alarming issues are? I
suspect this AHJ requirement is for their convenience and is not based on
scientific laws of hydraulics and certainly not based on NFPA
recommendations or typical trade practice. We have to live with the
unintended consequences as a result of this "design
compromise/requirement".? ? Byron? ? Byron Blake, CET? Service/Inspections?
Freedom Fire Protection, LLC? Longmont, CO? ? -Original Message-?
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org?
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rodney Hamm?
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 5:38 PM?
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org?
Subject: RE: statistics?
?
If anyone has any pull or influence with the development of NFPA 13?
? Please discuss the idiotic approach of install

RE: keith Delivery Status Notification(Failure)

[Timothy W Goins]

Me too

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of G. Tim Stone
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:30 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: keith Delivery Status Notification(Failure)


I received about three or four of these emails earlier todaytoo.

G. Tim Stone


NICET Level III Engineering Technician
Fire Protection Sprinkler Design
and Consulting Services

117 Old Stage Rd. - Essex Jct., VT. 05452
TEL: (802) 434-2968  Fax: (802) 434-4343
tston...@comcast.net

> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum- 
> boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:45 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: keith Delivery Status Notification(Failure)
> 
> Yes. I fear Keith is a traitor and a spy for the NAHB. It is sabotage 
> and must be stopped.
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: "George Church" 
> 
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:42:26
> To: 
> Subject: keith Delivery Status Notification(Failure)
> 
> 
> Is anyone else getting a slew of
> Delivery Status Notification(Failure)
> Listing recent Forum topics as Subject,
> As not being received by Keith's Blackberry?
> 
> I'm omitting Keith's last name from this in case he's a "lurker"; If 
> you're getting these, you'll know who it is. I've also separately 
> email Keith and asked if he's getting these from others.
> I've gotten 44 bounces this afternoon..
> 
> glc
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd 
> Williams
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:08 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: 13R ATTIC Protection
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Sprinklering the attic is not always voluntary. Some jurisdictions are 
> requiring it
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:49 AM 2/9/2009, you wrote:
> >Right - I mean to say that if you VOLUNTARILY sprinkler the attic, as 
> >you might to satisfy the draft-stopping and compartmentalization 
> >provisions of the building code, THEN it becomes an area outside the 
> >dwelling unit and you protect per 13.  It's consistent with the
> language
> >and intent of the 13R standard.
> >
> >WRT to the "big deal", I understand it's potentially WAY more
> expensive
> >in areas subject to freezing.   I meant "no big deal" in terms of it
> not
> >being a complicated code formula and that the determination of what's 
> >required is straightforward.  Obviously, cost and logistics might 
> >make draft=stopping a much more attractive alternative if you had to 
> >use anti-freeze or dry pipe, or if it meant the difference between 
> >pump/no pump.
> >
> >Steve Leyton
> >Protection Design & Consulting
> >San Diego, CA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> >[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom 
> >McMahon
> >Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:33 AM
> >To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> >Subject: RE: 13R ATTIC Protection
> >
> >Actually "Areas Outside of the dwelling unit" In 13R Refer to
> "Occupied"
> >areas, and do NOT require areas, not otherwise required to be
> protected
> >in a
> >13R system, to be protected. Similarly because you have to protect an 
> >area per 13 in a 13R building, does NOT require it comply with all of 
> >13, such as
> >Hose or concealed combustible space protection.
> >
> >I understand how in So. Cal, a LH attic is "No big Deal" that's not 
> >always the case in the rest of the country, where Dry, Antifreeze or 
> >pre-
> action
> >systems would be required. We find in cold country that the drywall 
> >is always cheaper, and that doesn't even take into account the cost 
> >of on-going maint. Testing and inspection of another entire system.
> >
> >Thom McMahon, SET
> >Firetech, Inc.
> >2560 Copper Ridge Dr
> >P.O. Box 882136
> >Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
> >Tel:  970-879-7952
> >Fax: 970-879-7926
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> >[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve 
> >Leyton
> >Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 5:14 PM
> >To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> >Subject: RE: 13R ATTIC Protection
> >
> >Haven't seen an unprotected attic with a 13R system absent 
> >draft-stopping before, but have done at least 3 or 4 projects with 
> >13R
> >and the attic sprinklered in lieu of draft-stopping.   It's no big
> deal
> >- light hazard, same as it ever was.   It's one of those "areas
> outside
> >the dwelling units" that gets protected per 13.
> >
> >Steve Leyton
> >Protection Design & Consulting
> >San Diego, CA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> >[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.

RE: MRI

[Timothy W Goins]

Used to be, water carries current through the shielding into the space and
used to cause problems. They may have made improvements now?

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: MRI


Where can I find some information regarding protection of an MRI 
space? Most of the installations have seen or designed are pre-action 
systems. I am now looking at one with a regular wet system with a 
valve and dielectric coupling. Are there any issues with water-filled pipe?

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
www.fpdc.com
860.535.2080  
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: end-of-line tester

[Timothy W Goins]

AGF

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Splawn,
Shannon
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: end-of-line tester




Shannon Splawn, CFPS

Jacobs

Fire Protection Engineer | Mechanical Engineering Dept.

513.674.3822

shannon.spl...@jacobs.com
 
 

Does anyone know of a make/manufacturer of end-of-line testers/drain that is
sometimes installed at the end of branch lines on a tree system?

Thanks.

Shannon Splawn
Jacobs Engineering

NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing,
copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended
recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
it from your computer. ___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: BFP height requirements

[Timothy W Goins]

Requirements can vary per purveyor, but the standard is 5'-0" MAX AND 1'-0"
MINIMUM AT BOTTOM AND SIDES. Some districts require 1'-0" plus the nominal
pipe diameter. Be sure to leave enough room to service and test the BFP.

-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: BFP height requirements


Anybody versed in plumbing code able to tell me the minimum & maximum height
above finish floor for a horizontal BFP?

 

Thanks,

Ed Kramer

Littleton, CO

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: subdivdied tenant spaces

[Timothy W Goins]

Firewalls for seperation purposes must meet code and extend up through the
roof to be considered TRUE seperations.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 10:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: FW: subdivdied tenant spaces



I guess I have never ran into this exact situation before. 

Tenant buildout similar to a strip mall with mostly larger mall type stores
- Victoria's Secret, Brooks Brothers etc of 3,000-5,000 sq ft... Every unit
has its own control valve and is calculated individually. There are a few
small space that are tucked between the larger spaces - 4-7 heads with their
own control valve of course, 400-600 sq ft in area. All of the demising
walls are fire rated.

Should we calculate just the space or do we need to cross the fire walls to
get the required remote area.

Thanks for your help and NO the AHJ is not helpful

Greg McGahan
Operations Manager

Living Water Fire Protection
1160 McKenzie Road
P.O. Box 877
Cantonment, Florida 32533
(850) 937.1850 | Fax (850) 937.1852 | Cell (850) 554.3231
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Existing Pipe Scheduled System Water Supply

[Timothy W Goins]

Thom,

I think you have missed the point of my questions. And I know I don't have
to calculate the entire system, all I have to do is meet the pressure/gpm
demand/duration as selected from the Table. I wanted opions on which Hazard,
Lower or Higher GPM's and Lower or Higher durations.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:15 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Existing Pipe Scheduled System Water Supply


We need to be careful in our use of words here. This building is a light
hazard occupancy. 

All light hazard occupancy buildings will contain some areas of Ordinary
hazard, such as kitchens laundry rooms, or electrical/mechanical rooms.
These areas do not change the classification of the hazard for the entire
building, or the hose stream requirements. 

While these areas must be protected per their specific hazard for density,
if your largest OH II area is only 600 Sf then you only provide OH II
density for that 600 SF area, and any smaller areas of the same hazard.
Usually this is done by reducing the spacing per head to like 75 Sf per head
with 5.6K will give you 0.20 at just about 7 PSI. So for your 600 Sf you
would calc 8 heads unless your Light hazard area required more than 8 heads,
or was more remote, with the same number of heads.

Now because this was installed pipe schedule, you need to know if OH pipe
schedule was used in the OH areas? Actually you need to Hydraulic the entire
system to ensure the loss from the backflow will allow it to work per NFPA
13, 2007 8.17.4.6.2.  But as far as your question goes "The Occupancy is
Light Hazard" for the use of 11.2.2.1 so 15 Psi and the 30-60 Min. duration
is OK.

Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel:  970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926



Timothy:

You must design for Ordinary Hazard in the Ordinary Hazard areas; Light in
the Light Hazard Areas.  There is no "overall building design approach"; the
building is not Light Hazard unless ALL areas of the building are light
hazard.

Mark A. Sornsin, PE

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Existing Pipe Scheduled System Water Supply

[Timothy W Goins]

A water supply analysis (Flowtest) for the proposed installation of a
backflow preventer on a pipe scheduled system (Nursing Home) indicates that
there is 531 GPM @ 8 PSI at the BOR. It will need a fire pump and storage
tank. Please help me with the follwing questions...
 
1.  The nursing home is "Light Hazard" but has "Ordinary Hazard" areas such
as the Kitchen and Linen storage areas. I say we need to provide for the
"Ordinary Hazard" (Worse Case) but the owner naturally wants the lower
demand. What say ye?
 
2.  11.2.2.7 NFPA 13 2007 says I can use the lower gpm/duration of Table
11.2.2.1 when the system is monitored, but 11.2.2.9 says I can only use the
lower values when the building is noncombustible or there is
compartmentalization of 3000 ft² (LH) or 4000 ft² (OH). The building is NOT
noncombustible construction and does not meet the compartmentalization
criteria. Does this statement pertain to existing structures?
 
3.  Since I will have to use a pump and tank, can I deduct the hose streams
from the chosen supply requirements of Table 11.2.2.1?
 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth;…" KJV Romans 1:16

Reply to   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Fire line FDC and Inside controls

[Timothy W Goins]

This arrangement would defeat the very purpose of a backflow device.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Fire line FDC and Inside controls


I think 13 allows the FDC to be connected to the fire line, regardless of
what devices are located inside the building.  Section 8.17.2.4.4 infers it
is acceptable, but you'll still need to install a check valve and the
control valve upstream of the FDC connection point (to satisfy 8.17.2.4.1
and 8.16.1.1.4).

Ed Kramer
Littleton, CO

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:49 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Fire line FDC and Inside controls
> 
> Forum,
> I have a situation where the fire department is requiring a post 
> indicator valve and free standing FDC outside the building.  We will 
> also need a backflow preventer installed inside in the sprinkler 
> control room.  Is it permissible to install the FDC so it ties into 
> the fire line prior to the backflow control valves, or would we need 
> to install a separate FDC line into the building? I know 8.16.1.1.1.3 
> does not allow a shutoff valve in the line, but it seems contradictory 
> with Figure A.8.16.1.1 2007 NFPA 13. Thanks,
> Jamie Seidl
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject 
> field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Lubricant

[Timothy W Goins]

I always try to use the white lithium "kitchen grade" so as not to
contaminate the water system in case of backflow.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Lubricant


I use never seize, I think it lasts longer than grease.
Work's great on gland bolts too.
Tom



Yes, I did look at a bunch of manufactures and found nothing. Well per 25
2002, we are required to lube the stem so I wanted to make sure I was using
the right stuff. 12.3.4.1 The operating stems of outside screw and yoke
valves shall be lubricated annually.

Joe,

I suspect you did the same as me. I went to a couple of valve manufacturers
looking for maintenance info and none of them said anything about
lubricating the stem at all. Then as I thought back I've never had any
trouble with an OS&Y due to lack of lubrication. Any problems always were
due to too tight of packing or very high water pressure. Maybe lubricating
stems comes from the same mythological pool as whacking a fire extinguisher
with a rubber mallet to "fluff" the powder or limiting a system to 52K
square feet because you wouldn't want to turn off more than that during any
repair or remodel work.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Joe Burtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the best lubricant to use on the stem of OS&Y valves?
>
> Best regards

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Retro-fit with Backflow Device

[Timothy W Goins]

What does the forum say about retrofitting a pipe scheduled system with a
backflow device? Do we have to use the water supply demand of the NFPA 13
11.2.2.1 (2002 Edition) or calculate various areas to determine the most
remote area (no plans available)?
 
If the NFPA 13; 11.2.2.1 is used, does the backflow device HAVE to be sized
accordingly?
 
I have my own ideas but want the input from the forum please.
 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16

Reply to   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Water Flow Curve

[Timothy W Goins]

I calc'd it at 52.0738 PSI @ 458 GPM

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Harris
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:59 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Water Flow Curve


Forum,
I must be having a brain cramp or something but a little help would be
appreciated. I have a flow test that is Static 54, Residual 47 & Flow is
920, I've plotted that out on N1.85 graph. I just ran my preliminary calc's
using HydraCAD and get the following result: Flow Required 458 gpm @ 42 psi,
if I add the 458 gpm to my graph it says it should be at 52 psi, why the
difference? 
 

Regards,

 
  

 

 




E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)
Database version: 5.10910
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: FLOW / PITOT READINGS

[Timothy W Goins]

Remember that Pitot pressure and Residual pressure are not the same.

For a flow test you use the formula GPM= 29.83 x C x D² x SqRt of the Pitot

C= Hydrant Coefficient
D= Hydrant Butt I.D.


Using your data from below;
1250 GPM flowing from a 2½" (c=.90)the Pitot pressure would be 55.4969 (56
psi)
1250 GPM flowing from a 2½" (c=.85) the Pitot pressure would be 62.2179
1250 GPM flowing from a 2½" (c=.80) the Pitot pressure would be 70.2382

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FLOW / PITOT READINGS


The formula I have is;

Q=29.83*cd2*sqrt of pitot pressure.

29.83*(5.625)*7.41

Q=1243.35


John Drucker
Fire Protection Subcode Official
Borough of Red Bank, NJ
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy W
Goins
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:32 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FLOW / PITOT READINGS

If your pitot pressure is 25.0615 psi it is. (c=.90)


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: FLOW / PITOT READINGS


Am I ignorant on this subject? Please let me know.
If you flow a 2 1/2" hydrant, and the pitot reading is 55 psi the gpm will
always be 1250. Right? (I understand you factor in the coefficient of the
hydrant nozzle). 
My pitot gauge manufac tured by Potter shows BOTH gpm AND psi. 
I'm looking at a flow test paper. Through a 2.5" hydrant outlet. Residual is
90 psi @ 840 GPM. Is this possible?

Forest Wilson
Cherokee Fire Pro.

a 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: FLOW / PITOT READINGS

[Timothy W Goins]

If your pitot pressure is 25.0615 psi it is. (c=.90)


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: FLOW / PITOT READINGS


Am I ignorant on this subject? Please let me know.
If you flow a 2 1/2" hydrant, and the pitot reading is 55 psi the gpm will
always be 1250. Right? (I understand you factor in the coefficient of the
hydrant nozzle). 
My pitot gauge manufac tured by Potter shows BOTH gpm AND psi. 
I'm looking at a flow test paper. Through a 2.5" hydrant outlet. Residual is
90 psi @ 840 GPM. Is this possible?

Forest Wilson
Cherokee Fire Pro.

a 


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Hydraulic Data Plate

[Timothy W Goins]

The question should now be, "Was the system hydraulically designed?" When
did code require systems to be hydraulically designed? I believe sometime or
another it was  only required when a system was gridded.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Hydraulic Data Plate


By 1974 it was in 7-1.2, so I think that if your jurisdiction had adopted a
NFPA 13 1974 or newer it would have been required. Many jurisdictions never
had a formal adoption of 13, they just "Allowed" it to be used when they had
a sprinkler installation, which often allowed it to be used piece meal.

Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel:  970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Autry
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:59 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Hydraulic Data Plate

The requirement is in the 1983 edition, so the requirement was there in
1985. 


It's not in my 1961 edition. So it was added sometime between 1961 and 1983.
LOL

David Autry
Plans Examiner
Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office
246 S. 14th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-471-9659
402-471-3118 fax
www.sfm.ne.gov
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:55 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Hydraulic Data Plate

It seems that the data plates are often left to the end of the job and
forgotten.  I had one job where the same thing occurred, insurance
inspection and the owner was written up for no plates among other things.
While we were fixing the other deficiencies the owner asked about the
plates, I explained what we would need to do to verify the system data,
which he realized wasn't going to be cheap, and then he asked if we could
just fill something in because the inspector wouldn't know the difference
anyway.  It goes without saying that we did not oblige him in that matter.
We finished the other work and that's the last we heard of the situation. He
probably found some jack-leg that filled out the plates for a couple of
bucks.


I've got a 1989 NFPA 13 and it's in there, 7-1.2


Craig L. Prahl, CET   
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ch2m.com 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles
Thurston
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:29 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Hydraulic Data Plate

Hello sprinklerforum,

  When did it the requirement for a hydraulic data plate to be posted
  become a part of NFPA 13?

  I have a customer that just went through an insurance inspection... They
  wrote them up for not having the data plates posted. This is a 10 story
  building and the floors are fed from the standpipe on each floor. The
  company that installed the system back in 85 is not to be found anymore.
  The HOA does not want to tear up the units so we can trace the pipe to
  reproduce the calcs (or pay what I would charge for that). I'm open to
  suggestions. I do have a call in to the AHJ about plans but he does not
  think they exist any more.

--
Best regards,
 Charles Thurston  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Coastal Fire Protection

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Fitter Question

[Timothy W Goins]

Rigid is better but more expensive. If you're going to use it a lot then buy
Rigid, if not Reed. You might also check out the one that ARGCO offers.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 6:48 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Fitter Question


Maybe more suited for chat but I'll throw it out here.

I need to get an in-place groover for an upcoming job.
I've borrowed a friends rigid before but it's gone.
Can any fitters share their likes and dislikes?  
Rigid vs. Reed, or others...

I wish they made one for a 700 as I have to groove old 4" and 6" sch. 40.
I've got to cut-in about 12 FCV's 8-10' in the air. All recommendations and
advice accepted. (I don't like roustabouts)

Tom
GRS
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Do you look up?

[Timothy W Goins]

On vacatoin last year the wife and I went to New York City. While shopping
at the world's largest Macy's I "looked up" and saw nearly ALL of the very
old sprinkler heads painted, what's a guy to do?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of art
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:31 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Do you look up?


The family was on vacation in Maine one year. We had lunch in a quaint
restaurant in an old building with exposed sprinkler pipe. The old
sprinklers looked very clean and bright. I found a place to take a better
look at a stairway. The sprinklers dated back to 193?. During remodeling
someone carefully painted each sprinkler with gold or brass paint. I asked
to speak to the owner to tell him of the deficiency that now required all
the sprinklers to be replaced. He said that a sprinkler inspection had been
made recently and that there were no deficiencies. I gave up trying to be
helpful unless I have an official capacity and was being paid for my
inspection..

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers

[Timothy W Goins]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill 
>Minkel
>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:25 AM
>To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>Subject: RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers
>
>  I think the mechanical contractors are fishing in a way bigger pond 
>than the sprinkler contractors are.
>
>
>Bill Minkel, Designer
>Western States Fire Protection, Dallas
>NFPA Member #2578666
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg 
>McGahan
>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:58 AM
>To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>Subject: RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers
>
>OK, so the plumbers are going to "miraculously" do what the sprinkler 
>industry can't and immediately discover qualified designers behind the 
>rocks OR they are going to be able to train them effectively when we 
>can not?
>
>I am crying foul here - I don't care what code you are using D, R or 
>full 13, the issue is the same. I know we have spent money and time 
>trying to train and I am sure you more experienced guys have spent 
>exponentially more than us "young" guys. The problem is deeper - MANY 
>Americans do not want to work in ANY field and they definitely REFUSE 
>to take responsibility for their own lives and careers.
>
>Bring me a person of character and integrity and I can train them and 
>they will work if they have basic natural ability. I have seen many, 
>dozens of people with the natural ability fail repeatedly due to 
>character and integrity issues.
>
>I am sure the plumbers will take and perform the work; but I am even 
>more certain that they will have the same problems we already do to a 
>much larger degree and with less accountability.
>
>Thank you,
>Greg McGahan
>
>Living Water Fire Protection, LLC
>1160 McKenzie Road
>Cantonment, FL 32533
>850-937-1850
>Fax: 850-937-1852
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
>Vining
>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:58 AM
>To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>Subject: Re: Fire Systems and Plumbers
>
>Not quite.  The NEC has the requirements for wiring of fire alarm 
>systems, but NFPA 72 (laughingly called the National Fire Alarm Code) 
>stands on its own.
>
>On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Timothy W Goins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > Big difference, NFPA 72 is part of the electrical code, or it was 
> > the last  time I checked.
> >
> >
> >  -Original Message-
> >  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John
>Drucker
> >  Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:43 PM
> >  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> >  Subject: RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers
> >
> >
> >
> >  No different then Electrical Contractors that install Line Voltage 
> > Interconnected Smoke/Carbon Monoxide Alarms in Homes versus Alarm 
> > contractors that install Low Voltage Fire Alarm Systems.
> >
> >  Bottom line its about cost. The plumbing contractor who installs
>sprinklers
> >  as an extension of the plumbing system is no different then the
>electrical
> >  contractor who installs smoke alarms as an extension of the 
> > electrical  system.
> >
> >  As for the NFPA, do they really "represent" any particular trade or
>merely
> >  fire safety interests as a whole ?
> >
> >  John Drucker
> >  Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ)  New Jersey
> >
> >
> >
> >  -Original Message-
> >  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Steve
>Leyton
> >  Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:13 PM
> >  To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> >  Subject: RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers
> >
> >  Booyah!  Well put, oh great poobah of sprinkie-stuff.  This is the 
> > dirty  little secret (or 600-lb. gorilla in the living room, 
> > depending
>
> > on your
> >  perspective) that I was alluding to in my rant a few weeks back 
> > about  large plumbing contractors moving into residential 
> > sprinklers.
>Unless
> >  we (WE, the fire sprinkler community, inclusive) seriously ramp up 
> > our
>human
> >  and training resources for designers and installers, it will be
>impossible
> >  to deal with the flood of proposal requests that are
> >  inevitable.   This has been recognized and in some cases is already
> >  being acted upon by certain plumbing firms on a regional basis.
> >
> >  Back to Timothy's question (aren't you glad you opened THIS c

RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers

[Timothy W Goins]

07,  
each and every fire sprinkler contractor in the country would have to  
install 375 single-family fire sprinkler systems.  That is how big  
this market will eventually be, and most fire sprinkler contractors  
don't do many single-family systems when there are plenty of more  
lucrative commercial jobs to dedicate the limited number of employees  
to.

If plumbers are going to do this work and they will let's just  
hope that they feel the need to acquire some TRAINING on the subject  
before they jump head-first into the fire protection business.




Steve Muncy, CAE Fire Sprinklers Save Lives!
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX



On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Timothy W Goins wrote:
> Why would the NFPA journal, MAR/APR 2008 edition, use an advertiser
> for
> residential piping systems that ONLY recommends plumbers to install  
> their
> product? I know the answer is money, but I thought they were looking  
> out for
> our industry and it's standards, both written and installed.
>
> Isn't this like having an architect layout "design" fire sprinkler
> systems?






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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Fire Systems and Plumbers

[Timothy W Goins]

ve Muncy, CAE Fire Sprinklers Save Lives!
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX



On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Timothy W Goins wrote:
> Why would the NFPA journal, MAR/APR 2008 edition, use an advertiser
> for
> residential piping systems that ONLY recommends plumbers to install  
> their
> product? I know the answer is money, but I thought they were looking  
> out for
> our industry and it's standards, both written and installed.
>
> Isn't this like having an architect layout "design" fire sprinkler
> systems?






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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

Fire Systems and Plumbers

[Timothy W Goins]

Why would the NFPA journal, MAR/APR 2008 edition, use an advertiser for
residential piping systems that ONLY recommends plumbers to install their
product? I know the answer is money, but I thought they were looking out for
our industry and it's standards, both written and installed.
 
Isn't this like having an architect layout "design" fire sprinkler systems?
 

Timothy W Goins
A & T Services

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth;." KJV Romans 1:16

Reply to   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Sprinklers in gymnasium

[Timothy W Goins]

BSSU located 12-6" from roof deck. Usually broken heads, as rare as they
are, are from intentional abuse and guards wouldn't make much difference.
Yes the water damage can be significant, but less than fire damage, that's
what property insurance is for.

If you're really concerneed install chicken wire below the sprinkler sytem
:)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Vining
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Sprinklers in gymnasium


Any thoughts about types of sprinklers or protection for them in a school
gymnasium?  I can visualize kids shooting basketballs at them.

-- 
Ed Vining
4819 John Muir Rd
Martinez CA 94553
925-228-879
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Re[2]: Underground Supply.

[Timothy W Goins]

No problem with the boring, if done properly. You still must flush and test
just like open trench.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coastal
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:41 PM
To: Todd Williams - FPDC
Subject: Re[2]: Underground Supply.


Hello Todd,

I will be partly responsible for the installation. They will be my subs
doing the work. One sub for the bore itself and another sub to set the pit
and terminate the ends, Another sub to build the building, Another sub for
the electrical work. It is the main truck driveway into this place. They
think the cement part is only 12 inches thick in that area (I drilled 6
inches into it without getting through). It would be a cut of 100 feet
across that then another 40 feet of asphalt. 

We do a flush before we tie any underground even if we have installed it. 

Friday, January 11, 2008, 6:54:35 PM, you wrote:

> Are you doing the installation? I would be very sure that it is
> flushed and tested before I hooked up to it. How big is this guy's parking
lot?


> At 06:24 PM 1/11/2008, you wrote:
>>Hello sprinklerforum,

>>   Has anybody had an underground supply installed by "boring" under a
>>   parking lot?  What do I need to look for if my customer decides to
>>   install the supply this way instead of digging up his main entrance
>>   parking lot?

>>   Thanks all and have a GREAT weekend.

>>--
>>Best regards,
>>  Charles  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Coastal Fire Protection

>>___
>>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

>>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

> Todd G. Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, Connecticut
> www.fpdc.com
> 860.535.2080  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)



-- 
Best regards,
Charles Thurston 
 Coastalmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Ames In-Build Riser

[Timothy W Goins]

They are made to the same dimensions as DUCTILE iron and C900 PVC
bell/spigot

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Ames In-Build Riser


This will be the first time that I have calc'ed through an Ames In-Build
Riser.  I have searched their product data and I can't find anything on ID.
Does anyone have the ID of stainless steel 304 SST in 4 - 8" diameters?  Or,
can you point me in the right direction to find them?

Thanks for your help,

Bob Knight, CET
(208) 495-2057
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.firebyknight.com


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007
10:35 AM
 

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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: UNDERGGROUND FIRE MAIN TESTING

[Timothy W Goins]

How would you measure the acceptable loss? How would know if the loss was
from a fitting, a joint, a hole, or a valve? How would you see the leak if
there was a small one? Why would you want to test this way?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Loren Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Sprinkler Forum
Subject: UNDERGGROUND FIRE MAIN TESTING


Forum:

We have a situation that just came up.here's the
quick question side of things:

Can listed plastic underground fire main piping be
tested with nitrogen instead of the typical
hydro-static water method?  I've always been told this
is not acceptable, and there are no sections on the
test form that indicate this to be an option. In
addi-tion, since FM Global is the insuance carrier for
this project, there is a very strong possibility the installation would be
unacceptable when field
in-spected.  

Thanks in advance.


Loren Johnson
Peoria, IL 


 


Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Balconies

[Timothy W Goins]

IBC 2003 Requires all balconies to be sprinklered.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 11:20 AM
To: AFSA
Subject: Balconies


Is a balcony that is open on only one side considered "open and attached" as
referred to in NFPA13R? Is a patio which is open on two sides but screened
be considered "open and attached"? Why wouldn't a balcony that qualifies as
"open and attached" need to be sprinklered? What has "open" got to do with
it if the balcony is too far off the ground to jump without killing
yourself?

 

Thanks,

Ronnie 


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007
1:39 PM
 
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Cover Plates

[Timothy W Goins]

Last  check, Lubbock had 12000 of them.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larrimer,
Peter A
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:31 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Cover Plates


A VA facility is claiming that they can not obtain cover plates for GEM
Model F690 Concealed sprinklers.  Would anyone have a stock of these white
cover plates such that the facility might purchase some from them?

Thanks

Feel free to reply to me personally at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Peter

Peter A. Larrimer PE
Safety & Fire Protection Engineer
VISN 4
Voice 412-365-5466
Cell 412-999-1321


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Anyone have experience with Elite Fire

[Timothy W Goins]

Love it

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 4:29 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Anyone have experience with Elite Fire


Does anyone have any experience with the Elite Fire?

We're supposed to be looking at it in place of HASS.   


Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lg.com


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)


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

To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)

RE: Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere Warehouse

[Timothy W Goins]

An article I read says that they blamed FM Global because the annual surveys
failed to get the owner off it's butt and maintain the systems like they
were supposed to.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:09 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere Warehouse


What, there isn't a CSI Lab there? lol 


Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lg.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
- work
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 4:07 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere Warehouse

CSI-Mount Joy?


At 03:59 PM 5/14/2007, you wrote:
>I am sure there is.  Shall we call the team from CSI?
>
>
>Craig L. Prahl, CET
>Fire Protection Group
>Mechanical Department
>CH2MHILL
>Lockwood Greene
>1500 International Drive
>PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax -
>864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd 
>Williams - work
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:42 PM
>To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
>Subject: RE: Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere 
>Warehouse
>
>There is more to this than meets the eye...
>
>At 03:28 PM 5/14/2007, you wrote:
> >So many questions.
> >
> >I wonder if the propane powered fork trucks were figured as being 
> >stored in there plus after 10 weeks of occupancy, who knows if the 
> >space was being used in the manner the sprinkler system was designed 
> >for or per the recommendations.
> >
> >The other point being once again, as a sprinkler 
> >designer/installer/inspector be aware of potential hazards.  Some
high
> >intensity lighting fixtures can drop hot filament and glass fragments 
> >if they break.  Without a guard below it, that would be the wrong
type
> >fixture over combustible products.
> >
> >Plus no fire marshal/AHJ had any responsibility for granting the
C.O.?
> >
> >
> >I would hate to have to explain the technical issues of the fire 
> >protection trade to the average American juror.
> >
> >
> >Craig L. Prahl, CET
> >Fire Protection Group
> >Mechanical Department
> >CH2MHILL
> >Lockwood Greene
> >1500 International Drive
> >PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 
> >864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com
> >
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Smith, 
> >Steven D. (CSFD)
> >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:10 PM
> >To: AFSA SprinklerFORUM
> >Subject: FW: Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere 
> >Warehouse
> >
> >  Interesting reading.
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >Subject: FW: Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere 
> >Warehouse
> >
> >LOOK WHO THEY SAID WAS LIABLE.
> >
> >Ill. Jury Awards $39.5 Million for 2001 Fire at Deere Warehouse
> >
> >Two insurance companies providing coverage for Deere & Co. were
awarded
> >$39.5 million in a case stemming from a warehouse fire six years ago
in
> >Mount Joy.
> >
> >An eight-member jury decided in favor of Royal Indemnity and Federal 
> >Insurance after a monthlong trial in Scott County District Court. ...
> >
> >This article can be found at: 
> >http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2007/05/14/79654.htm
> >___
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> >
> >To Unsubscribe, send an email 
> >to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) 
> >___
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> >
> >To Unsubscribe, send an email
>to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
>Todd G. Williams, PE
>Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>Stonington, Connecticut
>860-535-2080
>www.fpdc.com
>
>___
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
>To Unsubscribe, send an email 
>to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) 
>___
>Sprinklerforum mailing list
>Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 
>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
>To Unsubscribe, send an email
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Put 

RE: Racquetball court

[Timothy W Goins]

Double interlock Pre-Action would be the safest but most expensive.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:36 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Racquetball court


I talked with a guy at Tyco and he said he was dealing with this problem
now. Someone installed a concealed head and the cover plate keeps coming off
when hit. The covers are just not made for being hit all the time.

Karen Purvis
Designer
Facility Systems Consultants
Knoxville, TN 37902
865-246-0164

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Posey, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:34 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Racquetball court

If I am playing racquetball and there is a sprinkler head exposed, I am
going to try and hit that sucker. Forget about exposed pipe.  These court
are smooth boxes.  Try a concealed or an institutional head. 


  Mike Posey
Direct:   972-587-5232
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:22 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Racquetball court

Can you not just run your piping exposed with upright heads?   


Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC  29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lg.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Purvis
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:14 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Racquetball court

Ok guys I need some help. I am trying to find a head that could be used in a
racquetball court. It has to be a sidewall head because to top of the court
is the roof. The court is 20' wide which means I probably need an extended
coverage head. I have talked with Tyco and he had no suggestions. I know
these courts have been around for years so at some point someone has
sprinkled them Any help would be great.

Karen Purvis
Designer
Facility Systems Consultants
Knoxville, TN 37902
865-246-0164


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



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


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

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

RE: NFPA #14 and pressures

[Timothy W Goins]

Steve,

In my opinion the 100 PSI reducer is still required for that reducer and it's 
proposed hose, if it is ever used. If I'm wrong please let me know and I'll 
paste it in my 14.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:36 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #14 and pressures


Timothy:

Check out 7.3.4.1.2 (2007 ed.) and 7.3.4.1 (2003 ed.)

Steve 


-Original Message-
From: Timothy W Goins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:20 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #14 and pressures

The definition os a Clas III requires 1½" Hose statoins (hose included) and 2½" 
hose connections;

3.3.27.3 Class III System. A Class III standpipe system provides 38-mm 
(11⁄2-in.) hose stations to supply water for use by building occupants and 
65-mm (21⁄2-in.) hose connections to supply a larger volume of water for use by 
fire departments and those trained in handling heavy fire streams.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - 
work
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #14 and pressures


And even if they find one, would you trust an untrained person on the end of a 
hose with 100 psi discharge?

At 03:02 PM 1/30/2007, you wrote:
>One thing that does not make sensewhere are these untrained people
>going to get 1 1/2" hose?
>
>Paul J. Pinigis, P.E.
>Chief Life Safety Engineer
>
>
>
>Must meet both criteria. The 1½" hose station is available for
>untrained persons thus the pressure limit.
>

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com 

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

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


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

RE: NFPA #14 and pressures

[Timothy W Goins]

The definition os a Clas III requires 1½" Hose statoins (hose included) and 2½" 
hose connections;

3.3.27.3 Class III System. A Class III standpipe system provides
38-mm (11⁄2-in.) hose stations to supply water for use by
building occupants and 65-mm (21⁄2-in.) hose connections to
supply a larger volume of water for use by fire departments
and those trained in handling heavy fire streams.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - 
work
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #14 and pressures


And even if they find one, would you trust an 
untrained person on the end of a hose with 100 psi discharge?

At 03:02 PM 1/30/2007, you wrote:
>One thing that does not make sensewhere are
>these untrained people going to get 1 1/2" hose?
>
>Paul J. Pinigis, P.E.
>Chief Life Safety Engineer
>
>
>
>Must meet both criteria. The 1½" hose station is available for 
>untrained persons thus the pressure limit.
>

Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com 

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

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

RE: NFPA #14 and pressures

[Timothy W Goins]

If providing 1½" reducers it is assumed that 1½" hoses be provided. Most FD
do not use 1½" hoses to fight fires, they are for clean-up and untrained
persons. If there aren't any hoses then why provide the 1½" reducers?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:02 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #14 and pressures


One thing that does not make sensewhere are these untrained people going
to get 1 1/2" hose?  

Paul J. Pinigis, P.E.
Chief Life Safety Engineer

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy W
Goins
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:00 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: NFPA #14 and pressures

Must meet both criteria. The 1½" hose station is available for untrained
persons thus the pressure limit.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:11 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: NFPA #14 and pressures


NFPA #14 states that when the static pressure at a hose connection exceeds
175 psi, a pressure regulating device shall be provided to limit the
pressure to 100 psi for 1 ½" hose connections and to 175 psi for all other
hose connections.

 

What if the standpipe is a Class III utilizing the fully sprinklered
building exception allowing 2 ½" hose valves with 1 ½" reducers, caps and
chains?

 

Does the pressure need to be limited to 100 psi or 175 psi?

 

 

Dave

 

 

David K. Thompson

Vice President

Allstate Fire Sprinkler, Inc.

P.O. Box 2350

Hartford, CT  06146

Phone = 860-246-7711

Fax = 860-246-7707

 

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

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

**
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They 
are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the 
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies

thereof.

**

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

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