Re: low flow residential head replacement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Change out what you believe are the most demanding 4 heads and do a bucket 
test. Let’s know what happens. 

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> We are looking at  an apartment complex that was built in the 2000-2001 range 
> using Central low flow k3.0 pendent residential heads. The k3.0’s were listed 
> for flow rates that are under .05gpm/sf for 13R applications before the .05 
> minimum was put into the standard. Some of the sprinkler heads need to be 
> changed out due to the 20 year inspection/testing issues, but we are having 
> trouble figuring out what to use as a replacement. We don’t have any sort of 
> piping layout or design information, and all of the piping is concealed.
>  
> Has anyone run across this before? Are there any approved replacements?
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Matt
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Detached Garage

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

I should have provided more details. In California garages are required to be 
covered. In Redondo Beach a 4 head calc in garage. Any structure 750 sqft or 
greater requires sprinklers. If sprinklers trigger an upsize in meter the water 
company agreed to not charge for install and maintain monthly fee at 5/8” rate. 

Regarding the fire flow tests for 13D systems. For the past couple of months 
developers had to pony up $525 for the FF test for 13D systems before someone 
said something. The water company said it was a city requirement. The city 
denied that claim. No more FF tests for 13D systems. 

Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 3:25 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> 
> Weren’t you the one complaining that a couple hundred dollar flow test was 
> causing significant problems. 
> 
> Now you want to make a detached garage in a 13D system to have NFPA 13 
> densities. Wouldn’t that require a full flow test there?
> 
> That meter upsize is likely far more expensive than the flow test. 
> 
> 13D is about making the systems cost effective to get them into homes with 
> less resistance. 
> 
> Pure 13D says no sprinklers in the garage when it is attached. By making it 
> detached, there would be a more solid argument for not putting sprinklers in 
> it. 
> 
> To the original question: If you have to protect the detached garage, I would 
> follow the requirements of 13D as modified by the local fire code when 
> applicable. 
> 
> Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
> 480-505-9271 x700
> MFP Design, LLC
> www.mfpdesign,com
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2019, at 11:29 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Owen:
>>  Because it could trigger a meter up-size that might cost $$thousands.
>>  Because there's no statistical substantiation for over-protecting a 
>> freestanding garage with dead attic space above,   If it was a dwelling unit 
>> above it would be a .05, so why would a "basic" garage require more?   
>> According to NFPA, fewer than 3% of home fires started in the garage, nearly 
>> all of those from hot work.
>> Because it's not required by the code and referenced standards.
>> The reason it's not required is that the intent of home fire sprinkler 
>> protection is life-safety and not property protection.
>> Now, if you're willing to subsidize the cost impact of a higher density, I'm 
>> sure both the contractor and owner of the subject property would love to 
>> hear from you.   But why stop there - if you look at it as a detached 
>> parking structure, the correct density is .15.
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  on 
>> behalf of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>> 
>> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:02 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>> 
>> Cc: firs...@aol.com 
>> Subject: Re: Detached Garage
>>  
>> The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the structure 
>> and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy time for escape 
>> with .05.  
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This issue was not clearly defined in the current 2016 California code set 
>>> but if you look to the 2019, there is new material that very clearly states 
>>> that this would be per 13D.  Utility occupancies that are accessory to an 
>>> SFD are to be protected by that standard.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Steve Leyton 
>>> 
>>> (Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Original message 
>>> From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 
>>> 
>>> Date: 12/5/19 7:10 PM (GMT-08:00)
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
>>> Subject: Detached Garage
>>> 
>>> I’m a little rusty on my 13D.
>>>  
>>> I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage with a non-storage attic 
>>> above about 860 sqft. If I’m to provide protect the structure would it 
>>> still fall under 13d?
>>>  
>>> Jerry Van Kolken
>>> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
>>> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
>>> Oceanside, CA 92058
>>> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>>>  
>>> _

Re: Detached Garage

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the structure 
and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy time for escape with 
.05.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> This issue was not clearly defined in the current 2016 California code set 
> but if you look to the 2019, there is new material that very clearly states 
> that this would be per 13D.  Utility occupancies that are accessory to an SFD 
> are to be protected by that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Leyton 
> 
> (Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> Date: 12/5/19 7:10 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us
> Subject: Detached Garage
> 
> I’m a little rusty on my 13D.
>  
> I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage with a non-storage attic 
> above about 860 sqft. If I’m to provide protect the structure would it still 
> fall under 13d?
>  
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Detached Garage

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Auxiliary building, easy enough to do a .1 density,  even .15. No reason to do 
.05 density.  

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 5, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I’m a little rusty on my 13D.
>  
> I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage with a non-storage attic 
> above about 860 sqft. If I’m to provide protect the structure would it still 
> fall under 13d?
>  
> Jerry Van Kolken
> Millennium Fire Protection Corp.
> 2950 San Luis Rey Rd.
> Oceanside, CA 92058
> (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730
>  
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Ha! I was wondering. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> When I say I don’t get it, I mean I don’t get why someone wants a full flow 
> test for a two head system.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 19, 2019, at 08:01, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Owen:
>> 
>> How long did you work as a fire official?   More than a couple years if I'm 
>> not mistaken, so I assume in that time you had correspondence with one or 
>> more water purveyors, correct? There are several factors here that do 
>> not serve the community but DO serve the water company.   The cost to the 
>> customer is onerous and simply adds to the cost of the fire sprinkler 
>> system, which is 180° contrary to the State Fire Marshal's mission that the 
>> costs of residential sprinkler systems be closely managed at every turn.  
>> The information generated is superfluous as we don't need the residual at a 
>> high fire flow.   For their sake, they generate a certain amount of revenue 
>> and get to exercise one or more hydrants so they're essentially covering the 
>> costs of what used to be overhead (assuming they actually exercised the 
>> hydrants on their system historically).  
>> 
>> So you can do two things:  1) Roll up your sleeves and be part of the 
>> solution or, 2)  Wave your hands wildly and complain in a loud voice about 
>> the injustice of it all.   Having exercised #2 already, I implore you to try 
>> #1.First, verify with the serving fire department that Static - 10% is 
>> acceptable to them for SFD submittals.  Then, craft a flow test curve and 
>> show the two points provided by the water purveyor and add a point where the 
>> flow rate of the residential sprinkler system falls right next to the static 
>> on that curve.   Write a cover letter addressed to the director of 
>> engineering for the water purveyor explaining how Static - 10% will provide 
>> an accurate basis for these systems and that such a practice is acceptable 
>> to the serving fire department(s) and asking them to change their policy.
>> Emphasize that the added cost goes against best practices and intentions and 
>> is contrary to the overarching mission of raising the level of fire/life 
>> safety in the residential built environment.   Then send it to the DOE with 
>> CC copies to the Director (if public) or the President/CEO/COO (if private) 
>> or General Manager of the water purveyor.   Also copy the serving fire 
>> marshals.
>> 
>> Be part of the solution.
>> 
>> Steve Leyton
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>> On Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:45 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: firs...@aol.com; Bruce Verhei
>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement
>> 
>> Bruce,
>> 13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the 
>> system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal 
>> system. Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two heads 
>> flowing) a water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, residual, 
>> and flow) is not required. The water company charges $600 to perform a flow 
>> test. Our forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a minimal system to 
>> keep the cost down to reduce the resistance from developers and 
>> municipalities. A flow test for a 13D system is monumental waist of time and 
>> money. But try and explain that to the new inspector (who has all the power 
>> yet very little knowledge and training) who is just passing through on the 
>> promotional track. Very frustrating. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
>>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting 
>>>> for it to get done.
>>>> 
>>>> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different 
>>>> positions come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the 
>>>> water purveyor provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This 
>>>> was the third party verification 

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Ron,
Excellent points. Than you. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 9:47 AM, Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Before you can develop a tactical plan of attack, you need a strategy. Who is 
> the perceived enemy? The purveyor and his "unnecessary requirement." What is 
> his rationale? Water safety (within his parvenue as the responsible party)? 
> Does this stratagem of his increase the water quality or safety? He'd have a 
> tough time 'splainin' that one Lucy. Does it increase life and property 
> safety? Nope, and not in his area of jurisdiction.anyway. And you have the 
> numbers to demonstrate that flow data is unimportant for SFDs. Has the 
> community recently been derated for insurance purposes because of a lack of 
> data regarding water availability? This may be a way to get someone else to 
> pay to gather this info. Has he recently been denied a rate increase or the 
> ability to apply standby fees to residential? Again, a way to increase 
> revenue. If these last two reasons have been approved by the overseers of the 
> utility district and depending on the laws of your state, you may have 
> already lost the battle.
> 
> 
> Ron Greenman
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com
> 
> 253.576.9700
> 
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 1:12 AM firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting 
>> for it to get done.
>> 
>> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different positions 
>> come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the water purveyor 
>> provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This was the third 
>> party verification for the development of the calculations by the installing 
>> contractor. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>> >  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Do you have to perform the test or do they do it?
>> > 
>> > Mark at Aero
>> > 602 820-7894
>> > 
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> > 
>> >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Need advice on the best way  to fight a non required requirement. 
>> >> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require 
>> >> a full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a 
>> >> cost of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down 
>> >> residential streets are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. 
>> >> Who on Gods green earth thinks that two residential heads flowing could 
>> >> over-run the municipal water supply, therefore, a flow test is required 
>> >> to develop supply curve, really?
>> >> Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a money 
>> >> grab? 
>> >> Owen Evans
>> >> 
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >> ___
>> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0&s=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw&e=
>> >>  
>> > ___
>> > 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: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Ed, 
Historically (since 1991) the water department provided third party 
verification (per Fire Dept requirement) of the static pressure at the job 
site. Recently, a sprinkler designer routinely requested the static pressure at 
a job site (like it had been done for the last 28 years) and was advised a full 
blown flow test was now required by the water department (at a cost of $600).  
Hmm...?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 8:24 AM, Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> My 2 cents:
> 
> Do you submit your plans to the water purveyor (is their approval required)?  
> If not, I'd calc it per 13D (using static pressure only) and submit to the 
> approving fire authority. 
> 
> Ed K
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:02 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Steve Leyton 
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement
> 
> Owen:
> 
> How long did you work as a fire official?   More than a couple years if I'm 
> not mistaken, so I assume in that time you had correspondence with one or 
> more water purveyors, correct? There are several factors here that do not 
> serve the community but DO serve the water company.   The cost to the 
> customer is onerous and simply adds to the cost of the fire sprinkler system, 
> which is 180° contrary to the State Fire Marshal's mission that the costs of 
> residential sprinkler systems be closely managed at every turn.  The 
> information generated is superfluous as we don't need the residual at a high 
> fire flow.   For their sake, they generate a certain amount of revenue and 
> get to exercise one or more hydrants so they're essentially covering the 
> costs of what used to be overhead (assuming they actually exercised the 
> hydrants on their system historically).  
> 
> So you can do two things:  1) Roll up your sleeves and be part of the 
> solution or, 2)  Wave your hands wildly and complain in a loud voice about 
> the injustice of it all.   Having exercised #2 already, I implore you to try 
> #1.First, verify with the serving fire department that Static - 10% is 
> acceptable to them for SFD submittals.  Then, craft a flow test curve and 
> show the two points provided by the water purveyor and add a point where the 
> flow rate of the residential sprinkler system falls right next to the static 
> on that curve.   Write a cover letter addressed to the director of 
> engineering for the water purveyor explaining how Static - 10% will provide 
> an accurate basis for these systems and that such a practice is acceptable to 
> the serving fire department(s) and asking them to change their policy.
> Emphasize that the added cost goes against best practices and intentions and 
> is contrary to the overarching mission of raising the level of fire/life 
> safety in the residential built environment.   Then send it to the DOE with 
> CC copies to the Director (if public) or the President/CEO/COO (if private) 
> or General Manager of the water purveyor.   Also copy the serving fire 
> marshals.
> 
> Be part of the solution.
> 
> Steve Leyton
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: firs...@aol.com; Bruce Verhei
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement
> 
> Bruce,
> 13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the 
> system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal 
> system. Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two heads 
> flowing) a water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, residual, 
> and flow) is not required. The water company charges $600 to perform a flow 
> test. Our forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a minimal system to 
> keep the cost down to reduce the resistance from developers and 
> municipalities. A flow test for a 13D system is monumental waist of time and 
> money. But try and explain that to the new inspector (who has all the power 
> yet very little knowledge and training) who is just passing through on the 
> promotional track. Very frustrating. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>&g

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Yes Steve, it is absolutely my intent to follow up and be a part of the 
solution.  I worked a total of 10 years as the fire department residential plan 
check inspector. Like me, the people I established relationships with in the 
water department have long since retired. With the changing of the guard 
history can be lost, and with new people new ideas are initiated, many times 
without proper procedure or historical influence. Hence this problem. 

The intent of my initial post on this forum was to elicit from the group any 
others who may have experienced the same issue and/or elicit suggestions on the 
best way to approach it. 
You have offered a detailed and much appreciated approach, thank you. I’ll let 
the group know how it goes. 
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> 
> How long did you work as a fire official?   More than a couple years if I'm 
> not mistaken, so I assume in that time you had correspondence with one or 
> more water purveyors, correct? There are several factors here that do not 
> serve the community but DO serve the water company.   The cost to the 
> customer is onerous and simply adds to the cost of the fire sprinkler system, 
> which is 180° contrary to the State Fire Marshal's mission that the costs of 
> residential sprinkler systems be closely managed at every turn.  The 
> information generated is superfluous as we don't need the residual at a high 
> fire flow.   For their sake, they generate a certain amount of revenue and 
> get to exercise one or more hydrants so they're essentially covering the 
> costs of what used to be overhead (assuming they actually exercised the 
> hydrants on their system historically).  
> 
> So you can do two things:  1) Roll up your sleeves and be part of the 
> solution or, 2)  Wave your hands wildly and complain in a loud voice about 
> the injustice of it all.   Having exercised #2 already, I implore you to try 
> #1.First, verify with the serving fire department that Static - 10% is 
> acceptable to them for SFD submittals.  Then, craft a flow test curve and 
> show the two points provided by the water purveyor and add a point where the 
> flow rate of the residential sprinkler system falls right next to the static 
> on that curve.   Write a cover letter addressed to the director of 
> engineering for the water purveyor explaining how Static - 10% will provide 
> an accurate basis for these systems and that such a practice is acceptable to 
> the serving fire department(s) and asking them to change their policy.
> Emphasize that the added cost goes against best practices and intentions and 
> is contrary to the overarching mission of raising the level of fire/life 
> safety in the residential built environment.   Then send it to the DOE with 
> CC copies to the Director (if public) or the President/CEO/COO (if private) 
> or General Manager of the water purveyor.   Also copy the serving fire 
> marshals.
> 
> Be part of the solution.
> 
> Steve Leyton
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:45 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: firs...@aol.com; Bruce Verhei
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement
> 
> Bruce,
> 13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the 
> system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal 
> system. Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two heads 
> flowing) a water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, residual, 
> and flow) is not required. The water company charges $600 to perform a flow 
> test. Our forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a minimal system to 
> keep the cost down to reduce the resistance from developers and 
> municipalities. A flow test for a 13D system is monumental waist of time and 
> money. But try and explain that to the new inspector (who has all the power 
> yet very little knowledge and training) who is just passing through on the 
> promotional track. Very frustrating. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting 
>>> for it to get done.
>>> 
>>> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different 
>>> pos

Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Bruce,
13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the 
system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal system. 
Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two heads flowing) a 
water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, residual, and flow) is 
not required. The water company charges $600 to perform a flow test. Our 
forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a minimal system to keep the cost 
down to reduce the resistance from developers and municipalities. A flow test 
for a 13D system is monumental waist of time and money. But try and explain 
that to the new inspector (who has all the power yet very little knowledge and 
training) who is just passing through on the promotional track. Very 
frustrating. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting 
>> for it to get done.
>> 
>> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different positions 
>> come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the water purveyor 
>> provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This was the third 
>> party verification for the development of the calculations by the installing 
>> contractor. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do you have to perform the test or do they do it?
>>> 
>>> Mark at Aero
>>> 602 820-7894
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Need advice on the best way  to fight a non required requirement. 
>>>> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require 
>>>> a full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a 
>>>> cost of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down 
>>>> residential streets are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. 
>>>> Who on Gods green earth thinks that two residential heads flowing could 
>>>> over-run the municipal water supply, therefore, a flow test is required to 
>>>> develop supply curve, really?
>>>> Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a money 
>>>> grab? 
>>>> Owen Evans
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> ___
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0&s=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw&e=
>>>>  
>>> ___
>>> 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: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting for 
it to get done.

We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different positions 
come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the water purveyor 
provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This was the third party 
verification for the development of the calculations by the installing 
contractor. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> Do you have to perform the test or do they do it?
> 
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Need advice on the best way  to fight a non required requirement. 
>> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require a 
>> full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a cost 
>> of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down residential 
>> streets are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. Who on Gods 
>> green earth thinks that two residential heads flowing could over-run the 
>> municipal water supply, therefore, a flow test is required to develop supply 
>> curve, really?
>> Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a money 
>> grab? 
>> Owen Evans
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0&s=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw&e=
>>  
> ___
> 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

Not required, requirement

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Need advice on the best way  to fight a non required requirement. 
Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require a 
full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a cost of 
$600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down residential streets 
are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. Who on Gods green earth 
thinks that two residential heads flowing could over-run the municipal water 
supply, therefore, a flow test is required to develop supply curve, really?
Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a money grab? 
Owen Evans

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

13D CAD and Calc Program

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

Hello all,

I've been drawing 13D systems by hand on reflective ceiling plans for years. 
I'm now looking for recommendations for a CAD program for 13D systems, 
something simple and inexpensive if possible.

I've been using Hydronics to run the calculations. There is a problem with this 
program when trying to plug in a pump. I would like to know who is using what 
as far a as calculation program. Any recommendations on computer drawing and 
calculation programs.

Thanks all!
Owen Evans
Sent from my iPhone
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 13D GPM to use?

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

The AHJ wanted the friction loss to reflect the gpm. 1.5 meter and BFP. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:37 PM, cliff--- via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Owen,
>  
> It sounds like the AHJ is simply trying to determine if the water meter and 
> BFP that are being used can actually flow the 61 gpm that you have in the 
> calcs.  Some meters and BFP aren’t listed for those flows.
>  
> Cliff Whitfield, SET
> President
>  
> Fire Design, Inc.
> 184 Comfort Place
> Burnsville, NC 28714
> Ph: 828-284-4772
>  
> 
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 4:34 PM
> To: John Irwin 
> Cc: firs...@aol.com; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: 13D GPM to use?
>  
> I’m in California. I believe the sprinkler head cut sheet requires a 4 head 
> calc if heads are on a slope or in beams. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:15 PM, John Irwin  wrote:
> 
> 
> Where you live does the AHJ have the authority to write his own fire code? In 
> Florida we would say "that's great that you want that, but no."
> 
> 13D is two sprinklers.  Do you even have 4 sprinklers in a single compartment?
> 
> This kind of thing makes me crazy.
> 
> John Irwin
> West Coast Branch Manager 
> Quick Response Fire Protection 
> 727-282-9243
> 
> Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive spelling errors, 
> typographical transgressions and grammatical gaffs.
> 
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  on 
> behalf of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 4:11:34 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: firs...@aol.com 
> Subject: 13D GPM to use?
>  
> I have an AHJ who wanted a 4 head calculation on a 13D system. The heads 
> being used flow 13 gpm. 13 x 4 + 5 domestic = 57 gpm.  
> 
> After running the calculations, the calculations indicate that head 1 is 
> flowing 13 gpm, head 2 flowing 13.2 gpm, head 3 flowing 14 gpm, and head 4 
> flowing 15.6 gpm, plus 5 gpm domestic, for a total of 60.8 gpm flowing. 
> 
> The AHJ wants that gpm used to obtain friction loss through the water meter 
> and BFP. I mean, that sounds legit, but is it?  And if so, why wouldn’t he 
> require the friction loss through all the pipes and fittings using that gpm?
> 
> Scratching my head. 
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
>   Virus-free. www.avast.com
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: 13D GPM to use?

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

I’m in California. I believe the sprinkler head cut sheet requires a 4 head 
calc if heads are on a slope or in beams. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:15 PM, John Irwin  wrote:
> 
> 
> Where you live does the AHJ have the authority to write his own fire code? In 
> Florida we would say "that's great that you want that, but no."
> 
> 13D is two sprinklers.  Do you even have 4 sprinklers in a single 
> compartment? 
> 
> This kind of thing makes me crazy.
> 
> John Irwin
> West Coast Branch Manager 
> Quick Response Fire Protection 
> 727-282-9243
> 
> Typed on tiny keys, just for you. Please forgive spelling errors, 
> typographical transgressions and grammatical gaffs.
> 
> 
> From: Sprinklerforum  on 
> behalf of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 4:11:34 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Cc: firs...@aol.com 
> Subject: 13D GPM to use?
>  
> I have an AHJ who wanted a 4 head calculation on a 13D system. The heads 
> being used flow 13 gpm. 13 x 4 + 5 domestic = 57 gpm.  
> 
> After running the calculations, the calculations indicate that head 1 is 
> flowing 13 gpm, head 2 flowing 13.2 gpm, head 3 flowing 14 gpm, and head 4 
> flowing 15.6 gpm, plus 5 gpm domestic, for a total of 60.8 gpm flowing. 
> 
> The AHJ wants that gpm used to obtain friction loss through the water meter 
> and BFP. I mean, that sounds legit, but is it?  And if so, why wouldn’t he 
> require the friction loss through all the pipes and fittings using that gpm?
> 
> Scratching my head. 
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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

13D GPM to use?

[firstin--- via Sprinklerforum]

I have an AHJ who wanted a 4 head calculation on a 13D system. The heads being 
used flow 13 gpm. 13 x 4 + 5 domestic = 57 gpm.  

After running the calculations, the calculations indicate that head 1 is 
flowing 13 gpm, head 2 flowing 13.2 gpm, head 3 flowing 14 gpm, and head 4 
flowing 15.6 gpm, plus 5 gpm domestic, for a total of 60.8 gpm flowing. 

The AHJ wants that gpm used to obtain friction loss through the water meter and 
BFP. I mean, that sounds legit, but is it?  And if so, why wouldn’t he require 
the friction loss through all the pipes and fittings using that gpm?

Scratching my head. 

Owen Evans


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

Re: Tamper or not

[firstin]

Thank you Steve. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> So figure out which edition of the CBC was applicable to the building you’re 
> looking at and then refer to §903.4, which is where the monitoring 
> requirement resides.  The threshold and language have changed over the past 
> several editions but the section number hasn’t.   
>  
> Steve
>  
> Also:  Q M
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Owen Evans
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 7:27 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Tamper or not
>  
> Good question, I don't know. I observed this behind the convention center at 
> the Disneyland resort. This is a fenced in area with a corrugated metal roof 
> serving maybe 10 heads. One control valve on the check valve assemble had a 
> tamper installed but not hooked up, wires tied up in knot, no electrical 
> installed to serve. The other control valve did not have a tamper. It was 
> like in the middle of the install they realized it was not required (my 
> assumption). I believe 20 or less heads does not require an FDC, I was 
> thinking maybe the same kind of rule applies to electrical monitoring in 
> California.
>  
> Owen Evans
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Leyton 
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 1, 2019 6:47 am
> Subject: Re: Tamper or not
> 
> Which edition of the building code are you using?
>  
>  
>  
> Steve Leyton 
>  
> (Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.)
>  
>  
>  
>  Original message 
> From: firs...@aol.com
> Date: 6/30/19 8:37 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Tamper or not
>  
> Please fill in the blank.
> In California tampers are not required on the control valves if the system 
> has (blank) or fewer heads. 
> Thank you,
> Owen Evans
> Residential Design 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> ___
> 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

Tamper or not

[firstin]

Please fill in the blank.
In California tampers are not required on the control valves if the system has 
(blank) or fewer heads. 
Thank you,
Owen Evans
Residential Design 

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

Re: Protection from weather

[firstin]

Thank you Mark. I missed that. 
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Mark Sornsin [FAR]  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
> Section 8.16.4.2 (2016 ed.) deals with Protection of Piping Against 
> Corrosion.  8.16.4.2.3 specifically addresses exposure to weather.
> 
> 
> Mark Sornsin
> Sr. Fire Protection Engineer
> Summit Companies
> Direct: 701-499-1391
> Cell:701-526-8585
> 
> The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
> person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by 
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
> received this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of 
> this information.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:00 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Protection from weather
> 
> Are risers, mains and branch lines required to be protected (painted) when 
> exposed to weather? I can’t find it in 13. Would it be in 25?
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

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

Protection from weather

[firstin]

Are risers, mains and branch lines required to be protected (painted) when 
exposed to weather? I can’t find it in 13. Would it be in 25?

Owen Evans

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

Pipe protection from weather

[firstin]

Is steel pipe that is exposed to weather required to be protected, painted? 
System risers, mains, branch? I can’t seem to find it in 13. 
Regards,
Owen Evans

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

Re: Ceiling Grids and Flex Drops

[firstin]

URG!
AHJ's that have their own requirements in their head without back-up from 
standard, code or amendment. I had an inspector require heads in a 13D driveway 
overhang (not a car port). The inspector wouldn't budge. The fire marshal said 
I had to prove to him the heads weren't required. Really? I handed him the 13D 
standard and said the requirement wasn't in there. He told me that wasn't good 
enough. Palm to Face. I then provide a position paper from NFPA. Done. This 
fire marshal was finishing his 30 year suppression career by doing one year in 
fire prevention before retiring. Catch my drift? So frustrating.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 30, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Kyle.Montgomery  wrote:
> 
> You could refer him to 2016 NFPA 13
>  
> 9.2.3.5.2.2 Unless flexible sprinkler hose fittings in accordance with 
> 9.2.1.3.3.1 are used, the hanger closest to the sprinkler shall be of a type 
> that prevents upward movement of the pipe.
>  
> Then show him that you are in compliance with 9.2.1.3.3, and explain that the 
> reason the hanger closest to the sprinkler does not have to prevent upward 
> movement, is specifically because the bracket that is provide with the listed 
> flex drop assembly does the job of preventing the upward movement.
>  
> If you want to make him not feel so bad, you could say something about how he 
> is correct in thinking this would be an issue, if not for the bracket 
> attached to the ceiling.
>  
> Maybe show him how they attach. He would have to be pretty dumb to see one 
> installed correctly and still think this would be an issue.
>  
> -Kyle M
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Richard Mote
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:59 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ceiling Grids and Flex Drops
>  
> I have a AHJ that is questioning the use of Flex Drops especially the 
> Victaulic ones. He says that they are so flexible that when a sprinkler goes 
> off the jet effect is going to lift the sprinkler up through the ceiling. I 
> told him that the drops are mechanically attached to the ceiling grid and in 
> order to lift up they would have to lift the entire weight of the ceiling 
> grid, ceiling tiles, the lights and HVAC diffusers. His answer prove, it 
> either by letter from the manufacturer or from someone a lot higher up the 
> food chain than either he or I am. Or something specific in NFPA 13 that says 
> he is wrong.
>   
> Richard Mote
> Design Manager
> 
> W: 877.324.ROWE  ·  F: 570.837.6335
> PO Box 407 · 7993 US Route 522, Suite 1 · Middleburg, PA 17842
> 505 A Cornerstone Court · Hillsborough, NC 27278
> RoweSprinkler.com  ·  rich...@rowesprinkler.com
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Protective Cap

[firstin]

That's a great idea when used during drywall mud or painting. But if they're 
sanding, especially with extension sticks, there's the risk of hitting a head. 
Thank you for the info. 
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 27, 2018, at 10:20 AM, John Paulsen  wrote:
> 
> I'm sure there are going to be those that disagree, but I have seen paper 
> "sandwich" bags put over the head and secured with paper tape.
> The theory being that the bag would burn away in the event of a fire.
> I have seen this used in paint spray booths and other areas subject to 
> overspray, with AHJ approval of course.
> 
> John Paulsen 
> Crown Fire System Design 
> 
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  on 
> behalf of Matthew J Willis 
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 10:45:03 AM
> To: Forum
> Subject: Re: Protective Cap
>  
> Maybe plastic baggies or paper.
> 
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On May 27, 2018 9:09 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> This is a very large retail area going through major remodel with hotel 
> above. At the end of work day they must remove 100+ caps via scissor lift, 
> then replace the following day. This will go on for weeks. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On May 26, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Matthew J Willis  wrote:
> 
>> The answer is no. The sprinklers are sensitive by their design. Anything 
>> added to them will affect their performance.
>> Why do you ask?
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
>> On May 26, 2018 9:08 PM, Michael Goodis  wrote:
>> What kind of protection are you looking for?   Damage or paint/Sheetrock mud?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On May 25, 2018, at 1:34 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> > 
>> > Is there a protective cap out there that can remain on the head yet allow 
>> > the sprinkler head to function normally? Trying to fix a major headache. 
>> > 
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> > ___
>> > 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: Protective Cap

[firstin]

This is a very large retail area going through major remodel with hotel above. 
At the end of work day they must remove 100+ caps via scissor lift, then 
replace the following day. This will go on for weeks. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 26, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Matthew J Willis  wrote:
> 
> The answer is no. The sprinklers are sensitive by their design. Anything 
> added to them will affect their performance.
> Why do you ask?
> 
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On May 26, 2018 9:08 PM, Michael Goodis  wrote:
> What kind of protection are you looking for?   Damage or paint/Sheetrock mud?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On May 25, 2018, at 1:34 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> > 
> > Is there a protective cap out there that can remain on the head yet allow 
> > the sprinkler head to function normally? Trying to fix a major headache. 
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > ___
> > 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: Protective Cap

[firstin]

It's a very large retail space going through remodel. They are in various 
stages of drywall, mud, sanding and paint. At the start and end of each day 
they must install then remove the caps, upward of 80 caps using a scissor lift. 
This will go on for a week or two. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Phillips, Mark  wrote:
> 
> Not sure of the problem or the particulars. 
> 
> Have used these during construction before putting the system in final 
> service. 
> 
>  Just a suggestion
> 
> https://www.coverdome.com/
> 
> 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
> mphill...@jjkllc.com   |  https://kirlingroup.com
> 8000 Brownleigh Dr,   Raleigh ,   NC  27617
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  Original message 
> From: firs...@aol.com
> Date: 5/25/18 1:35 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> Subject: Protective Cap
> 
> Is there a protective cap out there that can remain on the head yet allow the 
> sprinkler head to function normally? Trying to fix a major headache. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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

Protective Cap

[firstin]

Is there a protective cap out there that can remain on the head yet allow the 
sprinkler head to function normally? Trying to fix a major headache. 

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

Re: Assembly or Not?

[firstin]

Thank you Steve. And that was a good guess with Orange County? Ha!
I'm not involved, nor would I want to be. I heard about this situation and was 
curious to know what you all thought. Thank you for your input. 
BTW, it was many years ago that I attended a fire sprinkler class that you and 
Bob Caputo were team teaching. That was the best class I ever took, very 
informative and entertaining. 
Owen
  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> 
> I’m not going to get into a 3rd party conversation with you about what an AHJ 
> might be thinking.  I offered the (accurate) observation that if the building 
> is an open parking structure it doesn’t require sprinklers but if it’s a 
> Group A, that might be why it is being required.   We did a “temporary” motor 
> court entry relocation at the Grand Hyatt in downtown San Diego, using a 
> glass curtain wall system that the AHJ said needed to be rated.  The 
> developer stridently objected by the city held its ground, so we were forced 
> to add window sprinklers on the fixed glazing and they conceded spray 
> sprinklers on the moving casements such as the sliding doors.  This was to be 
> in place for one year and occupied the very front of the right driveway 
> entrance to the parking garage.   I offer this detailed description because I 
> know you’re in Orange County, so if you ever come down to SD you should pop 
> your head into the parking garage because today, you can still see this 
> “temporary” feature that became the hired car pickup point (now Uber, Lyft 
> and other fleet cars) once the project ended.  In the year 2001.So 
> temporary is relative.  
>  
> If you would like to know what the permanent installation would/will require, 
> I recommend you look in the California Building Code with consideration for 
> the fact that this would require an occupancy separation from the S1.  I’d 
> also recommend you be well prepared to engage this AHJ because it seems like 
> they’ve heard this song before.
>  
> 
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 6:11 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Assembly or Not?
>  
> So, since there is a large number of people congregating (waiting for tram) 
> in the open parking structure, can the AHJ call the open garage an assembly 
> and require fire sprinklers?
>  
> Since this was a temporary relocation (lasting 18 months) a compromise was 
> made that if the resort provides a fire watch the AHJ would not require fire 
> sprinklers. 
>  
> I would like to know, had this been a permanent configuration would the AHJ 
> be correct in calling the open garage an A occupancy?
>  
> This load / unload area is very small compared to the overall size of this 
> massive structure. No cars are parked in this area and the deck (ceiling) 
> above is at least 25', again, no walls. 
>  
> For me, I can't see it being an assembly. But I'm just a 13D designer. 
>  
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 20, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> I think he means that the AHJ is calling it a Group A (Assembly) Occupancy, 
> which would vaporize the sprinkler exception for open parking structures.
>  
> SL
>  
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy 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
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Assembly or Not?

[firstin]

So, since there is a large number of people congregating (waiting for tram) in 
the open parking structure, can the AHJ call the open garage an assembly and 
require fire sprinklers?

Since this was a temporary relocation (lasting 18 months) a compromise was made 
that if the resort provides a fire watch the AHJ would not require fire 
sprinklers. 

I would like to know, had this been a permanent configuration would the AHJ be 
correct in calling the open garage an A occupancy?

This load / unload area is very small compared to the overall size of this 
massive structure. No cars are parked in this area and the deck (ceiling) above 
is at least 25', again, no walls. 

For me, I can't see it being an assembly. But I'm just a 13D designer. 

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> I think he means that the AHJ is calling it a Group A (Assembly) Occupancy, 
> which would vaporize the sprinkler exception for open parking structures.
> 
> SL
> 
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy 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

Assembly or Not?

[firstin]

At a large resort there is a 10,000 vehicle multi-level, concrete open parking 
structure, no walls. 

Their is a load/unload area for the transportation tram that transports people 
from the parking structure to the resort. This load / unload area is outside, 
adjacent to the parking structure. The resort had to temporarily relocate the 
load/unload area due to construction. The load/unload area is temporarily just 
inside the structure on the ground floor. This load/unload area has a footprint 
of approximately 78,000 sqft with a transient occupant load of approximately of 
800. The AHJ claims the structure is now an assembly and is required to be 
sprinklered. The resort saw $$ flying out the window. 

Given that: 1) On any given normal day (before construction) the transient 
occupant load can be 100 to 500 +, (cars arriving / leaving, people walking to 
and from their vehicle within the structure.
2) This is a six level concrete parking structure with no walls.
3) The definition of a "building" is having a roof and four walls.

Is the AHJ correct in calling this an assembly and therefore can require fire 
sprinklers?

Curious...  

Owen Evans
First-In Residential Fire Sprinkler Design 



Sent from my iPhone


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

Use of E-pipe

[firstin]

Has anyone heard of an AHJ approving the use of E-Pipe (epoxy lining) for 
copper sprinkler pipes that are springing pinhole leaks? 

Owen Evans

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

Re: Electric monitoring of control valves

[firstin]

Ok, so the tamper switch on the PIV sends a unique signal, different from the 
tamper on the DCV that it is connected to in series? It should indicate the PIV 
tamper is moving at the panel? I just assumed a unique wire ran back to the 
panel for each tamper. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Charles Thurston  wrote:
> 
> Hello 
> 
> Ken nailed it right on the head. I do try not to tie devices all over the 
> building to the same circuit, BUT could. Like I said what it shows on the 
> panel can be programmed by the alarm system programmer. If the Local AHJ does 
> not like what it shows it is a very simple matter to change.
> 
> Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 11:54:48 AM, you wrote:
> 
> 
> Owen,
> 
> First, per NFPA 72 a tamper switch is defined as a supervisory 
> signal-initiating device in chapter 17.16 [2013].  It functions when a switch 
> is closed, completing a circuit.  In this respect it is no different than a 
> smoke detector as the alarm signal, in this case supervisory, is only created 
> when the valve is moved two or fewer revolutions of the hand wheel of the 
> valve or upon motion of the control apparatus of the valve of more than 1/5th 
> of its travel distance.
> 
> As for how many of these devices can be supplied by one pair of wires that 
> answer is only limited by NFPA 72, which limits the number of such devices on 
> a circuit. Section 23.8.5.6.2 [2013] advises that:
> 
> The number of supervisory signal–initiating devices permitted to be connected 
> to a single initiating device circuit shall not exceed 20.
> There may be limitations established by the device manufacturer, or the 
> panel, or the addressable modules and the listing of those devices should be 
> reviewed prior to raising an alarm [no pun intended].
> 
> Further, the explanatory text in the handbook gives the following information 
> [all emphasis is mine]:
> 
> The Code permits up to 20 supervisory signal–initiating devices on a single 
> initiating device circuit because doing so does not degrade the reliability 
> or operability of the fire alarm system. Site specific needs and conditions 
> might dictate that a circuit serves fewer devices. For example, if a facility 
> has 20 sprinkler control valves each equipped with a supervisory switch, all 
> the valve supervisory switches could be connected to the same initiating 
> device circuit and still comply with the Code. However, if a supervisory 
> signal were received, it would require that someone check every valve to find 
> the one initiating the signal. Supervisory signal–initiating devices include 
> valve supervisory switches, air pressure switches, building temperature 
> switches, fire protection water tank level and temperature switches, and other 
> devices that are designed to ensure that fire protection and life safety 
> features are in service at the time of a fire. Refer to the defined terms 
> supervisory signal-initiating device and supervisory signal in 3.3.132.5 and 
> 3.3.257.9.
> So, there doesn't appear to be any reason that such an arrangement as you've 
> described would not be in compliance with the applicable code.  You might 
> also ask for testing to prove that the tampers on all of the valves generate 
> the required signal at the panel.
> 
> sincerely,
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> Parsley Consulting
> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025
> Phone 760-745-6181
> Visit our website
> On 07/04/2017 9:38 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Here is the situation on an installation at a new hotel. The DCVA has tamper 
> switches. Two PIV's near by do not have tamper switches. The hotel is 
> complete, no wiring had been run to the PIV's. (CFC 903.4) The DCVA and PIV's 
> sit within the same large planter with lots of finished concrete between the 
> valves and the alarm panel, about 150'. So the alarm guys tapped into the 
> wiring of the DCVA tampers and ran it to the PIV's to install tampers. Is 
> that legal? If a PIV is closed will it show at the panel or monitoring 
> company as a DCVA tamper? I'm not knowledgeable on the wiring of devices. 
> Owen Evans
> 13D Design
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Charles Thurston  thurst...@pyebarkerfire.com
> MYRTLE BEACH FIRE SAFETY GROUP
> A Division of Pye-Barker Fire Safety
> 1445 Cannon Road
> Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
> (843) 916 - 8787
> (843) 839 - 3473 facsimile
> 
> 
> ___
> 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/sprinkle

Re: Electric monitoring of control valves

[firstin]

I get parallel / in series for power but how is that possible for addressing? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Parallel, series, whatever. Wiring by others.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Kenneth Berman 
> Date: 7/4/17 6:16 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Electric monitoring of control valves
> 
> You must mean in parallel.
> 
> 
> On Jul 4, 2017 7:43 PM, "Steve Leyton"  wrote:
> Lets assume this isn't a plot to overthrow the local government. If the 
> installer did this per code and good practices, then wiring tamper switches 
> in series isn't uncommon. If they did it right, it's perfectly okay and you 
> can sleep at night, secure in the knowledge that nobody will spontaneously 
> burst into flames at this particular facility.
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: firs...@aol.com 
> Date: 7/4/17 9:39 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Electric monitoring of control valves
> 
> Here is the situation on an installation at a new hotel. The DCVA has tamper 
> switches. Two PIV's near by do not have tamper switches. The hotel is 
> complete, no wiring had been run to the PIV's. (CFC 903.4) The DCVA and PIV's 
> sit within the same large planter with lots of finished concrete between the 
> valves and the alarm panel, about 150'. So the alarm guys tapped into the 
> wiring of the DCVA tampers and ran it to the PIV's to install tampers. Is 
> that legal? If a PIV is closed will it show at the panel or monitoring 
> company as a DCVA tamper? I'm not knowledgeable on the wiring of devices. 
> Owen Evans
> 13D Design
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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

Electric monitoring of control valves

[firstin]

Here is the situation on an installation at a new hotel. The DCVA has tamper 
switches. Two PIV's near by do not have tamper switches. The hotel is complete, 
no wiring had been run to the PIV's. (CFC 903.4) The DCVA and PIV's sit within 
the same large planter with lots of finished concrete between the valves and 
the alarm panel, about 150'. So the alarm guys tapped into the wiring of the 
DCVA tampers and ran it to the PIV's to install tampers. Is that legal? If a 
PIV is closed will it show at the panel or monitoring company as a DCVA tamper? 
I'm not knowledgeable on the wiring of devices. 
Owen Evans
13D Design

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

Re: special inspections

[firstin]

I can not stand nor do I tolerate an inspector who states "you shall because I 
say so". They do this because they stand behind a badge while having very 
little knowledge, or respect, for the codes that stand behind them. It's an 
abuse of power, it's ignorance of the codes and ego. 
Don't stand for it!
MHO
Owen Evans
Former municipal plan check inspector, now designer and consultant.   

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 8, 2017, at 10:27 AM, rongreenman .  wrote:
> 
> So it seems that once again because we aren't part of the initial design 
> process, experts on the interealtion of building/life safety systems at a 
> detail level far above the that of most architects and engineers are not 
> consulted until a plan is finalized. Sad. 
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM Steve Leyton  
>> wrote:
>> One of our local AHJ’s observed that there are UL listed assemblies for 
>> floor ceiling assemblies and that the addition of insulation in fact voids 
>> the listing of some that aren’t insulated (remember, this is sunny CA).
>> So for plans submitted to that particular agency, we not only have to pick 
>> between the 3,000 sq. ft. (or 8-sprinkler) design area or using insulation.  
>> In the case of the latter, they want a detail of the floor-ceiling and/or 
>> roof-ceiling assembly showing the insulation AND the UL listing number for 
>> the assembly.   On the sprinkler plans.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> At first, we were frustrated because they hadn’t codified this and we were 
>> just getting back plan review comments.  But I see why they’re doing it and 
>> I agree with this practice.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
>> On Behalf Of John Drucker
>> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 9:29 AM
>> 
>> 
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: special inspections
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ahhh I was waiting for that question. Because it's in the sprinkler 
>> standard, noted on the sprinkler plans by the sprinkler designer, and often 
>> the architect nor engineer know the sprinkler designer took that option, or 
>> it conflicts with the architects design.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As a result we deny such applications unless the insulation fill is also 
>> shown on the architectural plans. In New Jersey it is also an adopted 
>> regulation that any plans, shop drawings etc prepared by other than the 
>> principal designer have to be reviewed and approved by the principal 
>> designer with an accompanying letter at the time of submission to that 
>> affect. Often enough we get back from the principal designer that the method 
>> submitted by others is not approved.
>> 
>> On May 8, 2017 12:14 PM, "rongreenman ."  wrote:
>> 
>> Seems to me that if the architect or GC wants to fill the space with 
>> insulation instead of sprinkle ring it's between him and the insulator to 
>> get it right. If the AHJ wants to get involved then OK, but with them. If 
>> you don't put in sprinklers because insulation has been approved what 
>> business is it of the sprinkler guy?
>> 
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:54 AM John Drucker - Home 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Members,
>> 
>> When an interstitial space is filled entirely with non-combustible 
>> insulation we coordinate with the contractor and perform the inspection 
>> ourselves.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> John Drucker, CET
>> Assistant Construction Official
>> Fire Protection Subcode Official
>> Electrical Subcode Official
>> Building Inspector
>> Borough of Red Bank
>> Red Bank, New Jersey
>> Email: jdruc...@redbanknj.org
>> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> -- 
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> 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: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?

[firstin]

David, thanks for responding. The building is new. The problem is the fire 
inspector has made mistakes all over the map on many different projects. It's 
extremely frustrating because his mistakes are falling on blind eyes with fire 
admin, he's being protected. I believe this will be the straw. Having this guy 
as an inspector is not fair to the many designers and installers who do 
competent, quality work. I just can't stand the abuse of authority. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Smith, David  wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> I don’t think I saw this in any previous responses but is this an existing 
> building? If so, when was the system installed and what was required at the 
> time it was installed? Unless the requirements for being electrically 
> monitored is a retroactive requirement, whatever was required at the time of 
> installation is typically all that would be enforced or necessary.
>  
> Who is asking the question and is there something that is prompting them to 
> ask? Was this noted on an annual inspection report as a deficiency?
>  
> As an AHJ who takes IT&M reports seriously and reviews/reads them with 
> intent, it’s sometimes a bit time consuming to sort through comments listing 
> deficiencies that are not in fact deficiencies. What happens is technicians 
> who are supported and trained by their employers (keep it up!!) will complete 
> and report on inspections based upon the current standard. The reports then 
> list deficiencies such as “No hinge kit, need to install to be compliant” for 
> a kitchen exhaust fan when a commercial kitchen exhaust system is cleaned 
> (NFPA 96). However the hood was installed 20 years ago and a hinge kit wasn’t 
> required at that time.  I then have to spend time explaining to the property 
> owner why it’s not really a deficiency that they are “required” to fix but is 
> in fact beneficial for other reasons.
>  
> That is why I’m curious as to WHO and WHY is this question being asked, if 
> you are willing/able to share.
>  
> David Smith | Deputy Fire Marshal
> P 503.635.0378 | F 503.635.0376
> dsm...@ci.oswego.or.us
> 300 B Avenue | PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Owen Evans
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:26 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?
>  
> As most of you know, I work exclusively with 13D systems. I do on occasion 
> get questions on the big boy systems, 13 and 13R.  The property in question 
> is a boutique hotel, two buildings. One building is a two story, fifty room 
> hotel and the other building is two story, restaurant on the first floor and 
> banquet facility on second floor with a roof deck. Each building has a FDC 
> and a PIV. I am in California which is under the 2013 IFC.
>  
> I recently had the question asked "does the PIV require electrical 
> supervision?"  NFPA states a lock is adequate, the 2013 IFC states electrical 
> supervision is required, with exceptions. I get different answers form 
> different people. I'm thinking it's the more restrictive  2013 IFC. Which is 
> it?
>  
> Thank you,
> Owen Evans
> PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of 
> Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure 
> under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the State Retention 
> Schedule.
> ___
> 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: PIV Supervisor, lock or tamper switch?

[firstin]

Thanks for responding Steve. It would be the 2013 IFC with California 
amendments renamed the CFC, correct?
O

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> 
> Correction – you are NOT working with 2013 or 2016 IFC, but instead with the 
> CFC.  State amendments preclude those alternate means of supervision and 
> require it to be electronic (903.4 and 903.4.1).
>  
> Steve Leyton
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of Owen Evans
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:26 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?
>  
> As most of you know, I work exclusively with 13D systems. I do on occasion 
> get questions on the big boy systems, 13 and 13R.  The property in question 
> is a boutique hotel, two buildings. One building is a two story, fifty room 
> hotel and the other building is two story, restaurant on the first floor and 
> banquet facility on second floor with a roof deck. Each building has a FDC 
> and a PIV. I am in California which is under the 2013 IFC.
>  
> I recently had the question asked "does the PIV require electrical 
> supervision?"  NFPA states a lock is adequate, the 2013 IFC states electrical 
> supervision is required, with exceptions. I get different answers form 
> different people. I'm thinking it's the more restrictive  2013 IFC. Which is 
> it?
>  
> 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

Re: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?

[firstin]

Thanks Ken, the way you phrased your response I thought I had miss something 
the last several years. 
Cheers!
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> for at least the last fifteen years that has been the case.
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> Parsley Consulting
> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025
> Phone 760-745-6181
> Visit our website
>> On 01/23/2017 10:40 AM, Owen Evans wrote:
>> Hello Ken, thanks for responding.
>> 
>> So California adopts the IFC with California amendments and then calls it 
>> the CFC, correct?
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Parsley Consulting 
>> To: sprinklerforum 
>> Sent: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 10:27 am
>> Subject: Re: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch?
>> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>> The California Fire Code is very specific, and it would seem unambiguous 
>> for the conditions you describe.  
>> 903.4 Sprinkler system supervision and alarms. All valves controlling the 
>> water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and 
>> temperatures, critical air pressures and water-flow switches on  
>>  all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed 
>> fire alarm control unit. 
>> Exceptions:
>> 1. Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings.
>> Doesn't apply to the buildings you've described
>> 
>> 2. Limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers.
>> Doesn't apply to the buildings you've described
>> 
>> 3. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in 
>> accordance with NFPA 13R where a common supply main is used to supply both 
>> domestic water and the automatic sprinkler system, and a separate shutoff 
>> valve for the automatic sprinkler system is not provided.
>> Depending on the underground supply, might or might not apply
>> 
>> 4. Jockey pump control valves that are sealed or locked in the open position.
>> Doesn't apply to the PIV
>> 
>> 5. Control valves to commercial kitchen hoods, paint spray booths or dip 
>> tanks that are sealed or locked in the open position.
>> Doesn't apply to the PIV
>> 
>> 6. Valves controlling the fuel supply to fire pump engines that are sealed 
>> or locked in the open position.
>> Doesn't apply to the PIV
>> 
>> 7. Trim valves to pressure switches in dry, preaction and deluge sprinkler 
>> systems that are sealed or locked in the open position.
>> Doesn't apply to the PIV
>> It does appear, based entirely on the information you've provided, that 
>> electrical supervision is required for the PIV.
>> 
>> And, not to split hairs or to be pedantic, California is not under the 
>> regulations in the 2013 IFC.  California, as it does with almost everything, 
>> has made it's own modifications to that document and has issued the 2013 
>> California Fire Code, which has as of January 1 been replaced with the 2016 
>> edition of the CFC.  
>>  
>> Chapter 80 of that document contains a list of the applicable editions 
>> of various standards and codes, including the NFPA documents.  Further, that 
>> chapter of the CFC contains language on changes to the NFPA documents.  As 
>> an example - in California, the reduction of the remote area size for use of 
>> quick response sprinklers in an area with a ceiling height of 20' or less is 
>> not allowed in ordinary hazard occupancies, even though NFPA 13 does allow 
>> that reduction.  
>> 
>>  I've had to deal with some terribly angry contractors who were unaware 
>> of those provisions.  They've said some pretty creative and hostile things 
>> when I've pointed them out, including some I'm sure aren't true, as I have a 
>> photo of my parents' wedding, and it was 14 years before I was born!
>> 
>> sincerely,
>> Ken Wagoner, SET
>> Parsley Consulting
>> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
>> Escondido, California 92025
>> Phone 760-745-6181
>> Visit our website
>> 
>> On 01/23/2017 9:25 AM, Owen Evans wrote:
>> As most of you know, I work exclusively with 13D systems. I do on occasion 
>> get questions on the big boy systems, 13 and 13R.  The property in question 
>> is a boutique hotel, two buildings.   One building 
>> is a two story, fifty room hotel and the other building is two story, 
>> restaurant on the first floor and banquet facility on second floor with a 
>> roof deck. Each building has a FDC and a PIV. I am in California which is 
>> under the 2013 IFC.
>> 
>> I recently had the question asked "does the PIV require electrical 
>> supervision?"  NFPA states a lock is adequate, the 2013 IFC states 
>> electrical supervision is required, with exceptions. I get different answers 
>> form different people. I'm thinking it's the more restrictive  2013 IFC. 
>> Which is it?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Owen Evans
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesp

Re: 13D Porches

[firstin]

Great answer Roland. 

Owen Evans. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 7, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Roland Huggins  wrote:
> 
> I would say OPEN is to the temperature, not the bugs.  Also look at it from 
> the potential to flash-over.  The screen will not hold in the heat.  Now have 
> that discussion with the AHJ.
> 
> The TC member caveat - Not to be considered a formal interpretation of NFPA
> 
> Roland
> 
> 
> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
> Dallas, TX
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Todd Williams  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> NFPA 13D allows for exclusion of sprinklers in open attached porches. Does 
>> screening count as an enclosure?
>> 
>> Todd G Williams, PE
>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> Stonington, CT
>> 860-535-2080 (ofc)
>> 860-608-4559 (cell)
>> 
>> via Newton Mail
>> 
>> ___
>> 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: Installing non-required systems

[firstin]

In the California Fire Code, page 2, it states the fire code is the minimum. I 
think this is your default position. 

Owen Evans
Res Fire Design

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:58 PM,   
> wrote:
> 
> Somewhere within NFPA 13 I recall seeing a statement which says basically 
> that if you install a system voluntarily (not required by Code) it must still 
> be installed per the NFPA Standard.
>  
> Anyone know where that is, I’ve hunted all over and can’t find it within 
> either the 2010 or 2013 NFPA 13 editions.
>  
> 
> Craig L. Prahl 
> Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
> CH2M
> 200 Verdae Blvd. 
> Greenville, SC  29607
> Direct - 864.920.7540
> Fax - 864.920.7129
> CH2MHILL Extension  77540
> craig.pr...@ch2m.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: Test

[firstin]

Is there  problem with posting? I submitted something but I haven't seen it 
show up. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 8, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Todd Williams  wrote:
> 
> Test back
> 
> 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=pi&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2]
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:35 PM, sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Tom Reinhardt
> Fire Inspector/Plan Reviewer
> Skokie Fire Department
> 7424 Niles Center Road
> Skokie, IL 60077
> Office: 847-982-5342
> thomas.reinha...@skokie.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

Exterior over-hangs on SFR, 13D system

[firstin]

Has anyone in "California 13D land" have an AHJ require fire sprinklers in the 
exterior over-hangs? A typical condition would be the second story over-hanging 
the driveway to the garage in the rear. Non combustible construction.

Let me know, thanks.

Owen Evans

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

Re: Mixed heads

[firstin]

I'm also thinking if the ordinary goes off first the intermediate right next to 
it will never go off because the ordinary is cooling the air, residential flat 
spray pattern. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
>let's take a different approach to this.  The standard does indeed read:
> 
>   7.5.6.1 Sprinklers installed where maximum ambient ceiling
>   temperatures do not exceed 100°F (38°C) shall be ordinary
>   temperature–rated or intermediate–temperature rated sprinklers
>   throughout unless modified by the requirements of 7.5.6.3.
> 
>Note that there is no mention of mixing of temperature ratings being 
> prohibited. Indeed if the sprinkler closest to the fireplace could only be 
> installed within 42" of the front of a fireplace, that sprinkler, per table 
> 7.5.6.3, would have to be of an intermediate temperature.  Are you suggesting 
> that since that individual sprinkler is intermediate, the rest of the house 
> is required to be intermediate as well?
> 
>I believe that 7.5.6.1 doesn't make the mandate you're deriving from the 
> text.
> 
> sincerely,
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
> 
> ___
> 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: Mixed heads

[firstin]

Ken,
Yes, the words "shall", "or" and "throughout" cause me to believe it's one or 
the other throughout m. It doesn't say ordinary "and" intermediate can be used 
throughout.

Good discussion coming out, btw.   

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
>let's take a different approach to this.  The standard does indeed read:
> 
>   7.5.6.1 Sprinklers installed where maximum ambient ceiling
>   temperatures do not exceed 100°F (38°C) shall be ordinary
>   temperature–rated or intermediate–temperature rated sprinklers
>   throughout unless modified by the requirements of 7.5.6.3.
> 
>Note that there is no mention of mixing of temperature ratings being 
> prohibited. Indeed if the sprinkler closest to the fireplace could only be 
> installed within 42" of the front of a fireplace, that sprinkler, per table 
> 7.5.6.3, would have to be of an intermediate temperature.  Are you suggesting 
> that since that individual sprinkler is intermediate, the rest of the house 
> is required to be intermediate as well?
> 
>I believe that 7.5.6.1 doesn't make the mandate you're deriving from the 
> text.
> 
> sincerely,
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
> 
> ___
> 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: Mixed heads

[firstin]

I don't have 13D in front of me at the moment but I believe is said either 
ordinary OR intermediate throughout. It read like it was one OR the other 
THROUGHOUT, no mixing. (caps to add emphasis) 
Thus my question. 
Owen
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> I'm with Travis, Owen. I think 13D, section 7.5.6.1 clearly allows this, 
> without exception.
> Sure, 7.5.6.2 does not allow ordinary when the ceiling temp is going to 
> exceed 100F.
> 
> This is pretty similar to 8.3.2.1 in NFPA 13.
> 
> Did you have a code reference that described it as not being allowed?
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
>> On 12/03/2015 1:24 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> My installer placed the intermediate head. The inspector didn't say anything 
>> at final.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Roland Huggins  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is this your job or are you doing an inspection?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
>>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>>> Dallas, TX
>>> http://www.firesprinkler.org 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:17 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
 
 This particular situation is a single family residence. The family and 
 dinning area are one room. There are red bulb concealed  heads in the 
 living area and a green bulb sidewall in the dinning area. No heat source 
 causing issue.
>>> ___
>>> 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: Mixed heads

[firstin]

My installer placed the intermediate head. The inspector didn't say anything at 
final. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Roland Huggins  wrote:
> 
> Is this your job or are you doing an inspection?
> 
> 
> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.   ---  Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
> Dallas, TX
> http://www.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:17 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>> This particular situation is a single family residence. The family and 
>> dinning area are one room. There are red bulb concealed  heads in the living 
>> area and a green bulb sidewall in the dinning area. No heat source causing 
>> issue.
> 
> ___
> 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: Mixed heads

[firstin]

This particular situation is a single family residence. The family and dinning 
area are one room. There are red bulb concealed  heads in the living area and a 
green bulb sidewall in the dinning area. No heat source causing issue. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Brad Casterline  wrote:
> 
> *most supply houses stock 200F, not 175F for when Intermeadiate Temp is
> ordered.
>> On Dec 3, 2015 3:02 PM, "Brad Casterline"  wrote:
>> 
>> We used to have to use Ordinary Temperature in Light Hazard (unless close
>> to a heat source) and could only use Intermeadiate or High In OH or better.
>> That changed in 2007 or 2010, which simplified things. The thinking now is
>> to use 200F* Quick Response in LH and OH.
>> I think since 1997 we have had to use Quick Response in LH, regardless of
>> temp rating, and I think you are 'mixing' temp with RTI  (Response Time
>> Index) but they are separate issues you have to pay attention to.
>> As far as pointing you to the Code/Standard section that addresses this, I
>> suggest NFPA #13, latest edition of acceptable to your AHJ.
>>> On Dec 3, 2015 2:33 PM,  wrote:
>>> 
>>> You can not mix ordinary and intermediate heads in the same compartment,
>>> correct? Can someone direct me the the code/standard section that addresses
>>> this?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Owen Evans
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> ___
>>> 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

Mixed heads

[firstin]

You can not mix ordinary and intermediate heads in the same compartment, 
correct? Can someone direct me the the code/standard section that addresses 
this?
Thanks,
Owen Evans

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

Test to see if attachment works

[firstin]

-- next part --


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

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>What money are you suggesting we save?  I'm completely lost here.  An NFPA 
> 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not from 13D or the 
> CFC, right?  I don't quite understand why you believe this is so in error.
> 
>While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why a 
> system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter.  Based on 
> some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were truly 
> individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added thousands of 
> dollars to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands.
> 
>Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow preventer 
> in the first place?  No possibility of cross connection from a stand alone 
> 13D system, right?  Or was it one of those things the water purveyor mandated?
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
>> On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. 
>> That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit 
>> building with no tampers on double OS&Y. They are claiming 13D exception to 
>> tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next 
>> installations by calling it a 13D and use that exception.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
>>> 
>>> SL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
>>> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly 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 a

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

Yes, thank you Steve. I was just trying to get a consensus from the forum on 
does the CBC exception to tamper monitoring apply to a 13D, option one, stand 
alone system? Building details being a 5 unit building served by a 2" service 
with double OS&Y. No domestic water service off this line. 
Thanks for your input. 
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> 
> I don't think that I, or anyone else on this forum is going to affirm or
> reject the adequacy of a particular condition based on theoreticals,
> especially when it's being done in the context of an
> after-the-fact-over-the-shoulder inspection, i.e. second guessing.
> Again and finally, my best advice is that if you have a question about
> something like this, ask the AHJ.  You were once one yourself - wouldn't
> you appreciate the opportunity to learn from a past mistake or affirm a
> decision made previously?
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Good points, which also beg the question:  Does the 2" meter also feed
>> the domestic water?   If so, you can take the handles off the
>> double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... 
>> 
>> Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to 
>> play the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ.
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Larry Keeping
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the
> 
>> BFP which serves 5 units.
>> 
>> Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit
> 
>> are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own 
>> individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up 
>> described as a 13D system.
>> 
>> It looks like a 13R application to me.
>> 
>> Larry Keeping
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on 
>> this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly 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 s

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> Good points, which also beg the question:  Does the 2" meter also feed
> the domestic water?   If so, you can take the handles off the
> double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... 
> 
> Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to play
> the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ.
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Larry Keeping
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the
> BFP which serves 5 units. 
> 
> Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit
> are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own
> individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up
> described as a 13D system.
> 
> It looks like a 13R application to me.
> 
> Larry Keeping
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly 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-firesprink
>>> ler
>>> .org
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>> ler.org
>> ___

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. 
That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit building 
with no tampers on double OS&Y. They are claiming 13D exception to tampers in 
CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next installations by 
calling it a 13D and use that exception. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly 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-firesprink
>>> ler
>>> .org
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>> ler.org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er.org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
> .org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

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

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

This is a stand alone, it does not serve domestic. It is a double check with 
OS&Y. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>You haven't given us enough information.  Does this underground supply 
> also provide domestic water?  Even if the systems were regarded as conforming 
> to 13R, the valve monitoring wouldn't be required by the CFC if the domestic 
> were served from the same piping.
> 
>I might ask several other questions as well.  Are the gate valves on the 
> backflow preventer OS&Y's or ball type?  I've seen a retrofit tamper switch 
> for a ball valve, however, now you're talking about making a change to an 
> existing (presumably) approved installation of a backflow valve.  Water 
> districts, not to mention valve manufacturers get sort of territorial over 
> their equipment.
> 
>As for the 13D argument, I'd have to suggest you're now swerving into a 
> legal argument.  13D doesn't mandate anything other than conformance to the 
> plumbing code, which presumably required the backflow valve.  The building 
> and fire codes, at least in California, don't make any mention of what you're 
> describing.  Perhaps it's one of those things they didn't see as an issue.
> 
>Just a few thoughts.
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
>> On 10/05/2015 9:37 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> 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

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

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

Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

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

13D with FDC

[firstin]

I saw a 13D system with an FDC. I don't recall 13D addressing FDC. The only 
time I can think an FDC would be useful on a 13D would be if the system was 
served by a tank of water, a limited supply. This would allow FD to supplement 
the supply. Other than that...?

Can anyone give me reason why an FDC would be installed on 13D?

Owen Evans



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

Re: AHJ Powers

[firstin]

Yes

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 6:14 PM, John Drucker  wrote:
> 
> Are the valves required to be electrically supervised by applicable code ?
> 
> John Drucker - Mobile Email
> Asst Construction Official
> Fire Protection Subcode Official
> jdruc...@redbanknj.org
> Cell/Text 732-904-6823
> 
> 
> firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> What say you?
> An inspector failed to require tamper switches on control valves. The job is 
> complete and there are thousands of pounds of concrete between the control 
> valves and the electrical panel. They placed a chain and lock and the chief 
> declared the chain and lock meet intent...final approved. What say you?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-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

AHJ Powers

[firstin]

What say you?
An inspector failed to require tamper switches on control valves. The job is 
complete and there are thousands of pounds of concrete between the control 
valves and the electrical panel. They placed a chain and lock and the chief 
declared the chain and lock meet intent...final approved. What say you?

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

Re: Old dog, new tricks?

[firstin]

Yes, always. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 3, 2015, at 8:34 AM, "Travis Mack, SET"  wrote:
> 
> Only in certain jurisdictions where they require we add 5gpm, or where we 
> have a duplex.
> 
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271
> fax: 866-430-6107
> email:tm...@mfpdesign.com
> 
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
>> On 8/3/2015 8:32 AM, Vince Sabolik wrote:
>> Does anyone account for domestic water use
>> in calculations for a typical 13D one family system?
>> 
>> Curious + woof!
>> 
>> 
>> thanks, Vince
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> West Tech Fire Protection, Inc.
>> 11351 Pearl Road   / Strongsville, Ohio   44136
>> Phone 440 238-4800Fax 440 238-4876   Cell  440 724-7601
>> ___
>> 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: 13R Valve Monitoring

[firstin]

Steve, 
I have no interest in this building. I was driving by and saw the DCVA and what 
looked like 13D risers serving each unit. Curious, I stopped for a closer look. 
Each unit has it's own domestic water meter. The fire sprinklers are separately 
served by a 2" meter with DCVA that has a 1 1/2" FDC. Then the 2" underground 
services each 13D configured riser. I hope that gives you a good picture? I was 
curious if the DCVA would require electronic monitoring? 
A learning moment for me.
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen, you have a unique and convoluted situation that your original question 
> over-simplified.  Is this four plex supplied by a common water supply that 
> serves both domestic and fire?  The original query was with regard to a 
> simple scenario, i.e. does a 13R control valve require more supervision than 
> just a lock?  But you are apparently lumping 4 bastard 13D systems together 
> as a 13R (or somebody has) and since I wouldn't allow this arrangement in the 
> first place as an AHJ, I think I'll withhold any comment about "this 
> building".   
> 
> Now, if the question was whether or not a compliant 13R system control valve 
> supplied by a dedicated fire service requires electronic supervision per CBC, 
> the answer is affirmative per §9.3.4 (Exception 3 does not apply if the line 
> is a dedicated fire service).
> 
> What is your role in this project?
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: 13R Valve Monitoring
> 
> Steve,
> So after reading the description if this building are you saying the OS&Y 
> valve would be required to have electronic monitoring per CBC?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:38 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 13R doesn't require it and 101 is not an adopted code in many states.
>> The California Building Code requires electronic supervision EXCEPT 
>> when a 13R system is supplied by a combined domestic/fire service that 
>> is configured with a master shut-off only and no dedicated sprinkler
>> control valve.   
>> 
>> SML
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Pete Schwab
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:36 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring
>> 
>> Same here in Florida.
>> 
>> Peter Schwab
>> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies
>> 
>> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
>> 222 Capitol Court
>> Ocoee, Fl 34761
>> 
>> Mobile: (407) 468-8248
>> Direct: (407) 877-5570
>> Fax: (407) 656-8026
>> 
>> www.waynefire.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Matthew J Willis
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:16 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring
>> 
>> If the system is "Required" per building code, then Electrical 
>> Monitoring is required.
>> I believe 101 states this as well.
>> 
>> R/
>> Matt
>> 
>> Matthew J. Willis
>> Project Manager
>> Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
>> 1805 Samco Road
>> Rapid City, SD 57702
>> Office-605.348.2342
>> Cell-605.391.2733
>> Fax:-605.348.0108
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Owen Evans
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:05 PM
>> To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: 13R Valve Monitoring
>> 
>> Do the OS&Y valves on a double check that serves a 13R system required 
>> to have tamper switches or is a lock and chain alone permitted?
>> 
>> 
>> Owen Evans
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er
>> .org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er
>> .org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er
>> .org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
> 

Re: 13R Valve Monitoring

[firstin]

Steve, 
I have no interest in this building. I was driving by and saw the DCVA and what 
looked like 13D risers serving each unit. Curious, I stopped for a closer look. 
Each unit has it's own domestic water meter. The fire sprinklers are separately 
served by a 2" meter with DCVA that has a 1 1/2" FDC. Then the 2" underground 
services each 13D configured riser. I hope that gives you a good picture? I was 
curious if the DCVA would require electronic monitoring? 
A learning moment for me. 
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 11, 2015, at 2:33 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen, you have a unique and convoluted situation that your original question 
> over-simplified.  Is this four plex supplied by a common water supply that 
> serves both domestic and fire?  The original query was with regard to a 
> simple scenario, i.e. does a 13R control valve require more supervision than 
> just a lock?  But you are apparently lumping 4 bastard 13D systems together 
> as a 13R (or somebody has) and since I wouldn't allow this arrangement in the 
> first place as an AHJ, I think I'll withhold any comment about "this 
> building".   
> 
> Now, if the question was whether or not a compliant 13R system control valve 
> supplied by a dedicated fire service requires electronic supervision per CBC, 
> the answer is affirmative per §9.3.4 (Exception 3 does not apply if the line 
> is a dedicated fire service).
> 
> What is your role in this project?
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: 13R Valve Monitoring
> 
> Steve,
> So after reading the description if this building are you saying the OS&Y 
> valve would be required to have electronic monitoring per CBC?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:38 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 13R doesn't require it and 101 is not an adopted code in many states.
>> The California Building Code requires electronic supervision EXCEPT 
>> when a 13R system is supplied by a combined domestic/fire service that 
>> is configured with a master shut-off only and no dedicated sprinkler
>> control valve.   
>> 
>> SML
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Pete Schwab
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:36 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring
>> 
>> Same here in Florida.
>> 
>> Peter Schwab
>> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies
>> 
>> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
>> 222 Capitol Court
>> Ocoee, Fl 34761
>> 
>> Mobile: (407) 468-8248
>> Direct: (407) 877-5570
>> Fax: (407) 656-8026
>> 
>> www.waynefire.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Matthew J Willis
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:16 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring
>> 
>> If the system is "Required" per building code, then Electrical 
>> Monitoring is required.
>> I believe 101 states this as well.
>> 
>> R/
>> Matt
>> 
>> Matthew J. Willis
>> Project Manager
>> Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
>> 1805 Samco Road
>> Rapid City, SD 57702
>> Office-605.348.2342
>> Cell-605.391.2733
>> Fax:-605.348.0108
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Owen Evans
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:05 PM
>> To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: 13R Valve Monitoring
>> 
>> Do the OS&Y valves on a double check that serves a 13R system required 
>> to have tamper switches or is a lock and chain alone permitted?
>> 
>> 
>> Owen Evans
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er
>> .org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er
>> .org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er
>> .org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
>> er.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
> ___

Re: 13R Valve Monitoring

[firstin]

Steve,
So after reading the description if this building are you saying the OS&Y valve 
would be required to have electronic monitoring per CBC?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:38 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
> wrote:
> 
> 13R doesn't require it and 101 is not an adopted code in many states.
> The California Building Code requires electronic supervision EXCEPT when
> a 13R system is supplied by a combined domestic/fire service that is
> configured with a master shut-off only and no dedicated sprinkler
> control valve.   
> 
> SML
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Pete Schwab
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:36 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring
> 
> Same here in Florida.
> 
> Peter Schwab
> VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies
> 
> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
> 222 Capitol Court
> Ocoee, Fl 34761
> 
> Mobile: (407) 468-8248
> Direct: (407) 877-5570
> Fax: (407) 656-8026
> 
> www.waynefire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Matthew J Willis
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:16 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: 13R Valve Monitoring
> 
> If the system is "Required" per building code, then Electrical
> Monitoring is required.
> I believe 101 states this as well.
> 
> R/
> Matt
> 
> Matthew J. Willis
> Project Manager
> Rapid Fire Protection Inc.
> 1805 Samco Road
> Rapid City, SD 57702
> Office-605.348.2342
> Cell-605.391.2733
> Fax:-605.348.0108
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Owen Evans
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:05 PM
> To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: 13R Valve Monitoring
> 
> Do the OS&Y valves on a double check that serves a 13R system required
> to have tamper switches or is a lock and chain alone permitted?
> 
> 
> Owen Evans
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
> .org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
> .org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
> .org
> ___
> 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: 13D exterior overhangs.

[firstin]

John,
Thank you for responding. It goes back to the intent of 13D, to provide people 
10 minutes to escape and for the system to be affordable to install. If the 
place burns to the ground but everyone escaped, the system worked 100% as 
intended. It drives me crazy as inspectors come and go they add their personal 
wants and desires for these systems without following proper procedure. 13D 
does not require heads in exterior over-hangs. 
Owen Evans
Former AHJ now 13D designer and consultant.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 5:46 PM, "John Drucker - Home"  
> wrote:
> 
> Firstin,
> 
> The question is too vague to be answered. As an active AHJ there are many
> variables, adopted codes and standards, local amendments, special
> circumstances not addressed by the code, variations, site approval trade
> offs and on and on. In order to answer the question each one of those has to
> be addressed. Believe it or not most AHJ's have an underlying need, real or
> imagined, that  they are trying to address. Keep in mind cost is not one of
> them since the AHJ doesn't (and shouldn't) profit from requiring protection.
> I'm not defending this AHJ but you have to dig deeper.
> 
> Lastly I've said this time and time again, why are designers and contractors
> engaged in these arguments with AHJ's ?.   Convey your situation to the
> beneficiary, that being the owner of the property. If he/she disagrees let
> them take up the fight through appeal.
> 
> John Drucker
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 6:29 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: 13D exterior overhangs.
> 
> 13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs, such as a second story
> over-hanging a driveway. Can an AHJ apply 13 rules to 13D systems without an
> amendment and require heads in over-hangs 4' & greater?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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: 13D exterior overhangs.

[firstin]

I agree, it's much easier to just conform but that's just not right. This 
particular inspector is just out of control. What makes it worse is he, his 
boss (FM), and his bosses boss (FC) don't know jack about fire sprinklers. They 
fit the Dunning - Kruger effect to a tee when it comes to fire sprinklers. This 
same inspector gave final on a commercial system hanging from a concrete deck 
with zero seismic bracing. The only bracing is at TOR. You bring it to their 
attention and they blow you off because fixing it would admit they were wrong. 
I am so tired of this guy getting away with whatever he wants. Now it's heads 
in 13D over-hangs. 
Frustrate me. 
Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 4:17 PM, "Steve Leyton"  
> wrote:
> 
> This is an NFPA standards-driven list serve and you're asking a legal
> question that's really more in line with what code is adopted, how it's
> adopted and what laws in your city/county/state may either empower or
> prohibit so called "rump rules".In some states a local AHJ is
> supposed to submit a white paper to either their SFM or Building
> Standards Commission, in other states it may be handled differently.  In
> a many more states than most of us realize, they don't have an adopted
> Fire Code, so the Chief gets to be Yosemite Sam.   And that's not
> necessarily a bad thing if your state legislature is so backward that
> they think it's okay not to have a Fire Code.   
> 
> You're fishing for someone to tell you that you don't have to put the
> sprinklers in and the most prudent among us won't do that.   Ask me a
> more subjective question:  Do I think there's value in putting
> sprinklers under a cantilevered overhang over a driveway in a SFD
> sprinkler system?   Do I think that's consistent with the intent of 13D
> or Section P2904 of the IRC?   No and no.   But I'm not going to tell
> you whether or not your local AHJ is empowered to do that or how do deal
> with them other than to appeal to whoever's next up the ladder.   
> 
> As Ken said, even though we might organically and strenuously disagree
> with a ruling like this, most often it's easier to conform and move on.
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:09 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: 13D exterior overhangs.
> 
> So the AHJ can simply write a policy and "BAM" it's legal to be more
> restrictive and costly? I always thought they had to submit to the
> building standards commission, no?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Parsley Consulting
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Adding to what Steve mentioned, it's also worth being very careful on
> which
>> issues you care to fight over.   We've both run across AHJ's who
> didn't "follow
>> the rules" on mandating local requirements, and the fight was more 
>> demanding than simply doing what was asked.
>> 
>> I emphasize that for me - not any reference to Steve - it cost me a 
>> client, and any chance of ever getting a submittal through that AHJ in
> 
>> the future.  People are human.
>> 
>> *Ken Wagoner, SET
>> *Parsley Consulting***
>> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
>> *Escondido, California 92025
>> *Phone 760-745-6181*
>> Visit our website 
>> 
>> 
>> ***
>>> On 1/29/2015 3:37 PM, Steve Leyton wrote:
>>> Depends on whether it's ordained, or a local code amendment or policy
>>> bulletin or just an off-handed comment.   Local fire and building
>>> officials have several different statutory methods that they can use 
>>> to make requirements that are more restrictive (or less) or beyond 
>>> the minimum prescriptives of a code or standard.  But in theory, it's
> 
>>> supposed to be substantiated, documented and published in the public
>>> domain.   So as far as whether the AHJ you're referring to can make
> such
>>> a requirement "...without an amendment ..." as you say, all depends 
>>> on what the local municipal code and/or city manager and/or city 
>>> attorney would say if you threw off the gloves.
>>> 
>>> My opinion only,
>>> Steve Leyton
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:29 PM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: 13D exterior overhangs.
>>> 
>>> 13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs, such as a second 
>>> story over-hanging a driveway. Can an AHJ apply 13 rules to 13D 
>>> systems without an amendment and require heads in over-hangs 4' &
> greater?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>> ler
>>> .org
>>> ___

Re: 13D exterior overhangs.

[firstin]

So the AHJ can simply write a policy and "BAM" it's legal to be more 
restrictive and costly? I always thought they had to submit to the building 
standards commission, no?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Adding to what Steve mentioned, it's also worth being very careful on which
> issues you care to fight over.   We've both run across AHJ's who  didn't 
> "follow
> the rules" on mandating local requirements, and the fight was more demanding
> than simply doing what was asked.
> 
> I emphasize that for me - not any reference to Steve - it cost me a client, 
> and any
> chance of ever getting a submittal through that AHJ in the future.  People are
> human.
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website 
> 
> 
> ***
>> On 1/29/2015 3:37 PM, Steve Leyton wrote:
>> Depends on whether it's ordained, or a local code amendment or policy
>> bulletin or just an off-handed comment.   Local fire and building
>> officials have several different statutory methods that they can use to
>> make requirements that are more restrictive (or less) or beyond the
>> minimum prescriptives of a code or standard.  But in theory, it's
>> supposed to be substantiated, documented and published in the public
>> domain.   So as far as whether the AHJ you're referring to can make such
>> a requirement "...without an amendment ..." as you say, all depends on
>> what the local municipal code and/or city manager and/or city attorney
>> would say if you threw off the gloves.
>> 
>> My opinion only,
>> Steve Leyton
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:29 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: 13D exterior overhangs.
>> 
>> 13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs, such as a second
>> story over-hanging a driveway. Can an AHJ apply 13 rules to 13D systems
>> without an amendment and require heads in over-hangs 4' & greater?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> 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

13D exterior overhangs.

[firstin]

13D does not require heads in exterior over-hangs, such as a second story 
over-hanging a driveway. Can an AHJ apply 13 rules to 13D systems without an 
amendment and require heads in over-hangs 4' & greater?

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

Bracing

[firstin]

I'm a 13D guy but I have a 13 question. What bracing is required if the hangers 
are 6" or less in lenght? An AHJ said bracing would only be required at the 
riser. No lateral or longitude required. Is that true? I'm looking in chapter 9 
but don't see it. 

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

Re: Flow test and 13D

[firstin]

I tried that and was met with dear in the headlights look. What do you think of 
the Code amendment angle. Because it is beyond 13D requirements, and an 
additional cost, shouldn't they have to justify the cost with the building 
standards commission and the state fire marshal, therefor requiring a code 
amendment?

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 9, 2014, at 1:06 PM, "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E."  
> wrote:
> 
> Maybe approach the AHJs with plots of the flow tests and typical 13D design 
> points.  It may be more apparent graphically that what is really needed for 
> 13D design is just the normal low static pressure.
> 
> Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer 
> | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | 
> http://www.kfiengineers.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] 
> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: Flow test and 13D
> 
> In a few cities they require a full blown flow test for a proposed 13D 
> system. This can be expensive and time consuming. My question is, would the 
> AHJ have to have a code amendment in order to require a flow test because it 
> goes beyond 13D and is an additional cost?
> 
> Any suggestions on how to argue the uselessness and waste of time and money 
> this requirement is?
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
> __
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Flow test and 13D

[firstin]

In a few cities they require a full blown flow test for a proposed 13D system. 
This can be expensive and time consuming. My question is, would the AHJ have to 
have a code amendment in order to require a flow test because it goes beyond 
13D and is an additional cost?

Any suggestions on how to argue the uselessness and waste of time and money 
this requirement is?

Owen Evans

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

Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons

[firstin]

Yes, I did request and receive a letter from reliable stating the F1 series 
escutcheon was part of the listed assembly.  Now apparently they are telling 
council the heads are not the F1 series. Now I've got them on the NFPA section 
on recesses heads. I've been forced to play this game and allow them to dig the 
hole deeper. It is amazing how their ego and self preservation will overshadow 
their duty to public safety. Just a shame. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Forest Wilson  wrote:
> 
> If I were you, I would email Reliable Technical Services and ask them: Can 
> the Model F1 be installed recessed without the escutcheon and still maintain 
> the UL listing?
> Then take their response and forward it to the fire chief and the council 
> member.
> I encounter this incompetence sometimes and i understand your frustration.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 4/2/2014 1:53 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> They are recessed.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:26 AM, John Denhardt  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Are they installed in a recessed manner or are the threads even or below 
>>> the ceiling?
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen 
>>> Evans
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:45 PM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons
>>> 
>>> Yes, they are the Reliable F1 series recessed heads.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Greg McGahan 
>>> To: sprinklerforum 
>>> Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 9:39 am
>>> Subject: Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Owen,
>>> 
>>> They are correct in this case UNLESS the heads were installed in a
>>> semi-recessed manner. The gap is debateable... but no plate is required.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Greg McGahan
>>> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 
>>> 1160 McKenzie Road
>>> Cantonment, FL 32533
>>> 850-937-1850
>>> fax 850-937-1852
>>> 
>>> 
 On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Owen Evans  wrote:
 
 In Redondo Beach, 5 Reliable F1 recessed heads were installed in an
 overhang (the heads weren't required in the first place). Two were simply
 pocked through the stucco with about a 3/4" gap around the head into the
 combustible space above. As a citizen knowledgeable in fire protection
 systems I advised the Fire Chief and my council representative that the
 fire inspector recently signed off the building with this deficiency.  The
 Fire Chief didn't like me calling out his inspector. He went on to say in
 his email response to defend his inspector;  "It is erroneous of Mr. Evans
 to claim the escutcheons are required. Escutcheons are decorative only and
 not even required per code". The Fire Marshal and Deputy Fire Marshal
 agreed with the Fire Chief. I was shocked. It became clear to me that the
 problem with incompetence goes beyond the Fire Inspector. Of course the
 city manager and city council believe the Fire Chief because he and his
 team of "experts" stand behind a badge. Frust
 rating.
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. 
 To: sprinklerforum 
 Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:50 am
 Subject: RE: Recessed heads and escutcheons
 
 
 Please clarify your intent.  Do you want to install a recessed head
 without any
 escutcheon, or do you want to use a different brand/model escutcheon from
 that
 which is listed with the head?
 
 Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection
 Engineer |
 Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 |
 http://www.kfiengineers.com
 
 -Original Message-
 From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:
 sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
 On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:55 AM
 To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 Subject: Recessed heads and escutcheons
 
 Are all recessed heads listed to be installed with their escutcheons?
 
 Sent from my iPad
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
 
 __
 This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
 For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
 __
 ___
 Sprinklerforum mailing list
 Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
 http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>

Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons

[firstin]

They are recessed. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:26 AM, John Denhardt  
> wrote:
> 
> Are they installed in a recessed manner or are the threads even or below the 
> ceiling?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen 
> Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:45 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons
> 
> Yes, they are the Reliable F1 series recessed heads.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg McGahan 
> To: sprinklerforum 
> Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 9:39 am
> Subject: Re: Recessed heads and escutcheons
> 
> 
> Owen,
> 
> They are correct in this case UNLESS the heads were installed in a
> semi-recessed manner. The gap is debateable... but no plate is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg McGahan
> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 
> 1160 McKenzie Road
> Cantonment, FL 32533
> 850-937-1850
> fax 850-937-1852
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Owen Evans  wrote:
>> 
>> In Redondo Beach, 5 Reliable F1 recessed heads were installed in an
>> overhang (the heads weren't required in the first place). Two were simply
>> pocked through the stucco with about a 3/4" gap around the head into the
>> combustible space above. As a citizen knowledgeable in fire protection
>> systems I advised the Fire Chief and my council representative that the
>> fire inspector recently signed off the building with this deficiency.  The
>> Fire Chief didn't like me calling out his inspector. He went on to say in
>> his email response to defend his inspector;  "It is erroneous of Mr. Evans
>> to claim the escutcheons are required. Escutcheons are decorative only and
>> not even required per code". The Fire Marshal and Deputy Fire Marshal
>> agreed with the Fire Chief. I was shocked. It became clear to me that the
>> problem with incompetence goes beyond the Fire Inspector. Of course the
>> city manager and city council believe the Fire Chief because he and his
>> team of "experts" stand behind a badge. Frust
>> rating.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. 
>> To: sprinklerforum 
>> Sent: Wed, Apr 2, 2014 8:50 am
>> Subject: RE: Recessed heads and escutcheons
>> 
>> 
>> Please clarify your intent.  Do you want to install a recessed head
>> without any
>> escutcheon, or do you want to use a different brand/model escutcheon from
>> that
>> which is listed with the head?
>> 
>> Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection
>> Engineer |
>> Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 |
>> http://www.kfiengineers.com
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto:
>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
>> On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:55 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Recessed heads and escutcheons
>> 
>> Are all recessed heads listed to be installed with their escutcheons?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> __
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> __
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Recessed heads and escutcheons

[firstin]

Are all recessed heads listed to be installed with their escutcheons?

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

Re: Flow Switch/Alarm for 13D

[firstin]

Most jurisdictions require a flow alarm anyway. Some even require the flow 
alarm be interconnected with the smoke detectors, like in Redondo Beach, Ca. So 
you better check with the AHJ. These additional requirements to 13D drive me 
crazy. They usually come from some new inspector who thinks it would be a great 
idea. The original intent of 13D being a low cost addition to building a home 
is lost. I call these additional requirements the "Sven and Ollie Syndrome" 
Just because Sven says its a good idea, Ollie thinks so too. This is how these 
additional requirements spread from one jurisdiction to the next. The intent of 
13D is lost. 
Owen Evans
Former "Gubmint" employee.   

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Cory Power  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/25/2013 11:29 AM, rongreenman . wrote:
>> That's pretty clear. Yes if you don't meet the stated criterion. No if you
>> do. The better question would be, Is there any jurisdiction requiring
>> sprinklers in 13D appropriate dwellings that does not require at least
>> smoke alarms per NFPA 72?
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Cory Power >> wrote:
>>> Does a 13D system require a flow switch and alarm?
>>> 
>>> All I can find in NFPA 13D is the following
>>> 
>>> 7.6* Alarms. Local waterflow alarms shall be provided on all
>>> sprinkler systems in homes not equipped with smoke alarms
>>> or smoke detectors in accordance with NFPA 72, National Fire
>>> Alarm and Signaling Code.
>>> __**_
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.**firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.**org/listinfo.cgi/**
>>> sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.**org
> 
> That's the answer I was expecting. Thank you
> ___
> 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: Remedy for problem AHJ

[firstin]

Beyond help. He and his superior are in charge because they stand behind a 
badge, not because they have command of the codes, ordinances and standards 
that stand behind them. That's the problem. To question them when they can't 
intelligently answer is a threat to exposing them. Therefor you are met with 
anger and push back. Very frustrating. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Ron Greenman  wrote:

> Try to become his ally. Can you offer to help this guy in a manner that
> doesn't insult him? Has that bridge been burnt?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:04 AM,  wrote:
> 
>> California
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Forest Wilson  wrote:
>> 
>>> You need to provide more details.
>>> What is the specific issue?
>>> A submitted drawing?
>>> A final inspection?
>>> What state?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:52 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>>> 
 Can anyone provide direction for dealing with a problem AHJ? It appears
>> one particular inspector is in over his head and when speaking with
>> superiors they protect him. Superiors know even less about his job. Rather
>> than deal with the problem (because they can't speak to it intelligently)
>> they push back hoping you'll go away. Very frustrating. Is there someone at
>> the state fire marshal level?
 My interest is public safety.
 Thanks for any input.
 Owen Evans
 Res Sprinkler Consulting
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 ___
 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Remedy for problem AHJ

[firstin]

Unable to read calculations. Problems at rough and final not being noted. As 
far as I know he's never issued a plan check correction letter or field 
correction notice. Consequently low bids are getting a free ride and taking 
over at the risk of public and firefighter safety. What contractor is going to 
complain their plans are being approved first time, every time?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Forest Wilson  wrote:

> You need to provide more details. 
> What is the specific issue?
> A submitted drawing?
> A final inspection?
> What state?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:52 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Can anyone provide direction for dealing with a problem AHJ? It appears one 
>> particular inspector is in over his head and when speaking with superiors 
>> they protect him. Superiors know even less about his job. Rather than deal 
>> with the problem (because they can't speak to it intelligently) they push 
>> back hoping you'll go away. Very frustrating. Is there someone at the state 
>> fire marshal level?
>> My interest is public safety. 
>> Thanks for any input. 
>> Owen Evans
>> Res Sprinkler Consulting 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> 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: Remedy for problem AHJ

[firstin]

California 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Forest Wilson  wrote:

> You need to provide more details. 
> What is the specific issue?
> A submitted drawing?
> A final inspection?
> What state?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:52 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Can anyone provide direction for dealing with a problem AHJ? It appears one 
>> particular inspector is in over his head and when speaking with superiors 
>> they protect him. Superiors know even less about his job. Rather than deal 
>> with the problem (because they can't speak to it intelligently) they push 
>> back hoping you'll go away. Very frustrating. Is there someone at the state 
>> fire marshal level?
>> My interest is public safety. 
>> Thanks for any input. 
>> Owen Evans
>> Res Sprinkler Consulting 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> 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

Remedy for problem AHJ

[firstin]

Can anyone provide direction for dealing with a problem AHJ? It appears one 
particular inspector is in over his head and when speaking with superiors they 
protect him. Superiors know even less about his job. Rather than deal with the 
problem (because they can't speak to it intelligently) they push back hoping 
you'll go away. Very frustrating. Is there someone at the state fire marshal 
level?
My interest is public safety. 
Thanks for any input. 
Owen Evans
Res Sprinkler Consulting 

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

Re: Assembly & Fire Sprinklers

[firstin]

Thank you Ron. I'm looking for California code requirement. In particular a 
restaurant with bar, no entertainment, just serves food. What would the 
occupant load have to be to require fire sprinklers?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Ron Greenman  wrote:

> I believe A2 (when a nightclub) in Rhode Island or Massachusetts. 50 people
> or 3000 sqft. I believe Washington is 100 people or 5000 square feet unless
> below grade, where it is 1 person and 1 square foot. This is all from
> memory so the numbers might be off a bit. Drucker would have this kind of
> stuff at his fingertip[s, I, like you, would need to look it up to feel
> completely confident.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM,  wrote:
> 
>> Ok, what assembly occupancy has the lowest occupant number load that
>> causes fire sprinklers to kick in?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ron Greenman  wrote:
>> 
>>> Depends on type of assembly. Nightclubs are much lower than say
>>> auditoriums. Also there is square footage, elevation in the building
>> (below
>>> grade, at grade, above grade), and local ordinances.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM,  wrote:
>>> 
 Can someone tell me what the assembly occupant load number is that
>> causes
 the fire sprinkler requirement to kick in. (California) I don't have
>> access
 to code books at the moment. Thank you.
 Owe Evans
 Res. Design
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 ___
 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Assembly & Fire Sprinklers

[firstin]

Ok, what assembly occupancy has the lowest occupant number load that causes 
fire sprinklers to kick in?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ron Greenman  wrote:

> Depends on type of assembly. Nightclubs are much lower than say
> auditoriums. Also there is square footage, elevation in the building (below
> grade, at grade, above grade), and local ordinances.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM,  wrote:
> 
>> Can someone tell me what the assembly occupant load number is that causes
>> the fire sprinkler requirement to kick in. (California) I don't have access
>> to code books at the moment. Thank you.
>> Owe Evans
>> Res. Design
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> 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

Assembly & Fire Sprinklers

[firstin]

Can someone tell me what the assembly occupant load number is that causes the 
fire sprinkler requirement to kick in. (California) I don't have access to code 
books at the moment. Thank you. 
Owe Evans
Res. Design

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

Re: Horizontal dry standpipe

[firstin]

Here is the hook up. Gives a nice look to the front yard. 
A double 21/2" that serves a single 21/2 halfway down the driveway. Three small 
houses on the lot with fire sprinklers. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Ron Greenman  wrote:

> Good grief, Charlie Brown on the pool shed nonsense. On the rusting out
> issue the pipe, galvanized or not, if the mild steel in the stuff we
> usually use is buried it won't last long, particularly at threads or
> grooves, and galvanized (except Izod) won't be galvanized any more at those
> points. It will rust from inside and out. It will last longer if charged
> under pressure as the air will dissolve and the interior corrosion will
> slow down substantially. Potting the joints (exterior) can help if done
> properly. Using coated gas piping (same steel with the plastic raincoat)
> and potting the joints helps. Copper works well but I a ten foot section of
> 4" inch L copper kicking around that I'm saving for my retirement nest-egg.
> I don't know hoe stainless steel would fair. If you're pipe can be three
> inch or under CPVC. And finally consider that we use ductile and plastic,
> with gland fittings and thrust restraint already for lead-ins, and those
> long sweep stainless transitions for coming up, so why not a a typical UG
> arrangement and an approved above ground arrangement  where it is above
> ground? Changing a single rusted out riser piece will be way cheaper than
> the whole thing.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:46 AM,  wrote:
> 
>> I'm with you Mark, a total joke and waist of money.  And to top it off,
>> all residential properties are sprinkled.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:24 AM,  wrote:
>> 
>>> Maybe the homeowner could just build a fire station behind the pool
>> changing room and a 100,000 gallon reservoir with a 4" Storz connection.
>> After all, what's a couple of million dollars for a guy who has a pool! And
>> you never know, the homeowner may one day convert the pool changing room
>> into a gasoline refinery.
>>> Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
>>> Mark at Aero
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: firs...@aol.com [mailto:firs...@aol.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 01:47 PM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org <
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Horizontal dry standpipe
>>> 
>>> Redondo Beach has a fire code amendment that requires a standpipe if you
>> can't reach every part of a structure with 150' of hose stretch from a fire
>> truck parked on a public way. This includes single family residential
>> properties.  A homeowner built a pool changing room at the rear of his
>> property (200') and was forced to put on a dry horizontal standpipe. Any
>> thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Owen Evans
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>>> 
 Does anybody have stats on how long a 4' steel, underground for a
>> horizontal dry standpipe will last before it rusts from inside out?
 
 Owen Evans
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 ___
 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Horizontal dry standpipe

[firstin]

I'm with you Mark, a total joke and waist of money.  And to top it off, all 
residential properties are sprinkled. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:24 AM,  wrote:

> Maybe the homeowner could just build a fire station behind the pool changing 
> room and a 100,000 gallon reservoir with a 4" Storz connection. After all, 
> what's a couple of million dollars for a guy who has a pool! And you never 
> know, the homeowner may one day convert the pool changing room into a 
> gasoline refinery. 
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist. 
> Mark at Aero  
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: firs...@aol.com [mailto:firs...@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 01:47 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> 
> Subject: Re: Horizontal dry standpipe
> 
> Redondo Beach has a fire code amendment that requires a standpipe if you 
> can't reach every part of a structure with 150' of hose stretch from a fire 
> truck parked on a public way. This includes single family residential 
> properties.  A homeowner built a pool changing room at the rear of his 
> property (200') and was forced to put on a dry horizontal standpipe. Any 
> thoughts?
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody have stats on how long a 4' steel, underground for a horizontal 
>> dry standpipe will last before it rusts from inside out?
>> 
>> Owen Evans 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> 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: Horizontal dry standpipe

[firstin]

Typical beach property, deep and narrow lot. The changing room is 100 soft. 
Total overkill in my view. On this property and many others just like it. 
Eventually there will be an FDC every 40' down a residential street. 


Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Dwight Havens  wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> You didn't say how big the pool changing room was, but this is a good example 
> of code overkill if it was a small shed-like structure.  Most fire 
> departments have tactics for laying in a "long line" of "horizontal 
> standpipe" using 2 1/2 inch hose.  Finding the outlets for such an in-ground 
> standpipe might take more time than "laying in" by hand.  You don't mention 
> the wildland fire potential for the area, but in a cost/benefit analysis, on 
> the benefit side it should be considered as adding value; on the maintenance 
> side it adds significant cost for inspection, testing and maintenance, 
> assuming that it is required to be maintained.
> 
> Dwight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "firs...@aol.com" 
> To: "sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org" 
>  
> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Horizontal dry standpipe
> 
> 
> Redondo Beach has a fire code amendment that requires a standpipe if you 
> can't reach every part of a structure with 150' of hose stretch from a fire 
> truck parked on a public way. This includes single family residential 
> properties.  A homeowner built a pool changing room at the rear of his 
> property (200') and was forced to put on a dry horizontal standpipe. Any 
> thoughts?
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody have stats on how long a 4' steel, underground for a horizontal 
>> dry standpipe will last before it rusts from inside out?
>> 
>> Owen Evans 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> 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: Horizontal dry standpipe

[firstin]

Redondo Beach has a fire code amendment that requires a standpipe if you can't 
reach every part of a structure with 150' of hose stretch from a fire truck 
parked on a public way. This includes single family residential properties.  A 
homeowner built a pool changing room at the rear of his property (200') and was 
forced to put on a dry horizontal standpipe. Any thoughts?

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:

> Does anybody have stats on how long a 4' steel, underground for a horizontal 
> dry standpipe will last before it rusts from inside out?
> 
> Owen Evans 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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

Horizontal dry standpipe

[firstin]

Does anybody have stats on how long a 4' steel, underground for a horizontal 
dry standpipe will last before it rusts from inside out?

Owen Evans 

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