"More and more I find the committee's saying, well the AHJ can change it"
Then why do we need the committee or for that matter the codes and standards
they oversee if its going to be left to the ahj anyway ?
As for cost impact very much a consideration in the adoption of codes and
standards in Ne
It'll work with roughly 98psi to spare on the first floor.
LMAO ...
Steve L.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Todd - Work
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:53 PM
To: sprinkler
This is a pump that is not needed at all and should have never been installed.
The building is a 3 story retirement home with a system designed per NFPA 13,
which includes attic protection. There is 90 psi at the base of the riser and
the curve appears to be flat enough to design a system for th
I've had failures under lees than load, particularly where the electrical
guy found he could eliminate his problem by disconnecting the lead to the
FP starter, but that failure was immediate. I can't imagine how a pump
running at full load wouldn't fail before a couple of minutes at most, then
woul
There has indeed been clarification but you have to be part of that tiny sector
of the industry that read the ROPs and ROCs to have been aware of it. Several
cycles ago we attempted to have the 250 lb requirement removed based on the
requirements by the kind and gentle OSHA group that one must
I cannot recall one occasion when the structural engineer has made provision
for sprinkler pipe plus 250 lbs when designing the structural steel. 99.9% of
pre-engineered buildings can barely support sprinkler pipe over 2"-3" let alone
anything bigger and let alone an additional 250 lb.
Then wh
It appears that you are quoting a section about apples but are talking about
oranges. There is NO change regarding the load carried by the structural
member. It is still the weight of the pipe (not 5X) plus 250lbs. The 5X rule
applies to the hanger assembly which was better defined in 2013 to
So the pump becomes a load bank.
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John
Denhardt
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:43 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Tra
One other thing. I wonder why the current rating characteristics are less
for emergency power than normal power?
TD
I would love to read the committee's logic for this. How much water would
be wasted in the process?
More and more I find the committee's saying, well the AHJ can change it, but
i
The Committee's statement as stated in the ROP is as follows:
Committee Statement: Clarifies that a standby generator requires a 30 minute
test while carrying peak electric motor fire pump horsepower load.
Number Eligible to Vote: 33
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33
The committee agreed with the
I would love to read the committee's logic for this. How much water would be
wasted in the process?
More and more I find the committee's saying, well the AHJ can change it, but if
it is not practical to perform in the first place (where does one put all the
water?) why put the burden on the AH
It's probably that we don't normally test beyond 150%. There is no need to go
beyond 150%. We did an extended test of a 1500 gpm diesel with PLD just to see
what it was capable of. It was still providing boost at 4000 gpm, very
impressive.
Ron F
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-bo
I like that idea.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Fairchild, Jack <
jfairch...@ballinger-ae.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's time to include a "cost impact" line in the public input form
> and public comment form. I'll admit this may not be very productive
> considering the vast majority of the ICC ch
Maybe it's time to include a "cost impact" line in the public input form and
public comment form. I'll admit this may not be very productive considering
the vast majority of the ICC changes "will not affect the cost of
construction", even though they clearly do. Does anyone know if the ICC kee
Improperly sized pump perhaps?
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Group Lead
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension 74102
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
> I did a test on a 150 gpm at 70 psi vertical in
Be careful - make sure the current draw of the electric motor is not too much.
You do not want to burn a motor up.
John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE
Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated
5113 Berwyn Road
College Park, Maryland 20740
Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136
Mobile Telephone Numbe
In the mechanical world, it's not unheard-of to use pumps at 200% of rating.
On Oct 30, 2013 10:29 AM, "Todd - Work" wrote:
> I did a test on a 150 gpm at 70 psi vertical inline pump (Aurora) this
> morning. When I opened the 2-1/2" hose valve completely, it was flowing at
> 355 gpm (net 26 psi).
I did a test on a 150 gpm at 70 psi vertical inline pump (Aurora) this morning.
When I opened the 2-1/2" hose valve completely, it was flowing at 355 gpm (net
26 psi). I was surprised that I could flow that much water. Is this common for
smaller pumps? I've never tested a pump this small before.
Not covered on the AFSA webinar either.
One of my recurring concerns for the NFPA system is the ratio of People Who
Get Paid for Stuff / People Who Actually Pay for Stuff. NFPA 25 is about 10
to 1 but can you consider large organization reps in the category of payers?
That would be GSA rep, VA re
19 matches
Mail list logo
