rotected as a “localized exposed combustible” per
>> NFPA 13 2016 8.15.1.5?
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Sprinklerforum > <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of JD
>> Gamble
>>
otected as a “localized exposed combustible” per
> NFPA 13 2016 8.15.1.5?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>> On Behalf Of JD
> Gamble
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 8:25 AM
> To: spr
Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum *On
> Behalf Of *JD Gamble
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 04, 2019 8:25 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Vertical Opening
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> I am interested in the thoughts on this a
Any chance this could be protected as a "localized exposed combustible" per
NFPA 13 2016 8.15.1.5?
Matt
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of JD Gamble
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 8:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening
John,
I am interes
Protection
"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of JD Gamble
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 9:25 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening
John,
I am
JD
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:13 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Vertical Opening
Client spring these openings on us just before final. Client says the building
department OK&#x
Client spring these openings on us just before final. Client says the building
department OK'd the new plan so we should be good to go. I know I need upright
protection up there, but can't find the exact references to make my case.
Anyone?
[A picture containing indoor, floor, building, ground
cobs.com> |
www.jacobs.com<http://www.jacobs.com/>
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of Easter, Tim (Contractor)
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 9:53 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] vertical opening
We have cylindrical duct passing thru an opening through three flo
It seems sealing it would be a .lot cheaper than a 3500 gpm pump
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc)
860-553-3553 (fax)
860-608-4559 (cell)
>
> On Mar 22, 2019 at 9:53 AM, (mailto:tim.eas...@holston-aap.c
We have cylindrical duct passing thru an opening through three floors, that is
not sealed or enclosed.
This duct is used for industrial process.
Each floor is protected by a deluge system.
Is there a requirement in NFPA 13 or 15 that requires the hydraulically design
area to include all 3 floors?
Quoting JD Gamble :
"... a draft stop is not a viable solution due to head room "... my
fear is these things being left open in a fire situation".
When I got into fire modeling 12 years ago I did an activation
comparison with and without a draft stop. I was curious to see how
much longer
it meant until
reading it as referring to whenever sprinkler protection in general provides
the alternative to the vertical opening shaft enclosure. The 8.15.4.1 statement
does not qualify the “sprinkler protection” nor the alternative means.
In other words the bolded and underlined part of
8.15.4.1 General. Unless the requirements of 8.15.4.4 are met, where moving
stairways, stairways, staircases, or similar floor openings are unenclosed and
where sprinkler protection is serving as the alternative to enclosure of the
vertical opening, the floor openings involved shall be
ly for this opening?
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
From: Sprinklerforum
on behalf of
bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:13:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]
You
rinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On
Behalf Of JD Gamble
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:10 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL]
Sorry. This is F-2 <12%
rinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]
You should probably confirm it with every one J.D. but it seems to me
if separation (protection, enclosure) is not required there would be
no reason to use sprinklers as an alernative for providing that
separation. It's been ten years since I last
behalf of Prahl,
Craig/GVL
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:52:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]
Is this like an atrium?
What's the occupancy?
Any fire rating of floor/ceiling between levels?
Craig Prahl | JACOBS | Fire Pr
Sorry. This is F-2 <12% alcohol. So no separation issue. But still a vertical
opening issue.
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
From: Sprinklerforum on behalf
of Prahl, Craig/GVL
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:56:54 PM
To: sprin
8 3:14 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL]
Do the whole building is F-1 with an open restaurant inside?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:05 PM JD Gamble
mailto:jgam...@lssofsheridan.com>> wrote:
Yes. F-1 in the basement wi
PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL]
Is the 900 sq. ft. opening to accommodate the height of the tanks.
The tanks and their associated piping and controls are visible on the same
level as the seating around the tanks? Is 1st f
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> --
> *From:* Sprinklerforum
> on behalf of Prahl, Craig/GVL
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:25:52 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EX
nt: Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:06 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL]
Yes. F-1 in the basement with a through floor opening for the tanks. Seating on
the 1st around the tanks. Main level is restaurant with restaurant seating.
Get
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:25:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL]
So, is the A occupancy on the first floor and F-1 is the second floor?
Is there seating on the first level and the opening is so you can see the
equipment on the
erforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On
Behalf Of JD Gamble
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:55 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL] [EXTERNAL]
Restaurant/ Brewery
No ratings, Something about F1 to A n
018 11:52:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Vertical Opening [EXTERNAL]
Is this like an atrium?
What's the occupancy?
Any fire rating of floor/ceiling between levels?
Craig Prahl | JACOBS | Fire Protection | Greenville SC | 864.676.5252 |
craig.pr.
Is this like an atrium?
What's the occupancy?
Any fire rating of floor/ceiling between levels?
Craig Prahl | JACOBS | Fire Protection | Greenville SC | 864.676.5252 |
craig.pr...@ch2m.com | www.jacobs.com
Quoting JD Gamble :
> I have a situation where we have 900sq.ft. vertical
Is the opening required to be 'protected' from a building code
standpoint? If it is, Then you look at the sprinkler rules, such as
less than 1000 s.f.
I hope this makes sense.
Brad.
Quoting JD Gamble :
I have a situation where we have 900sq.ft. vertical opening
communicating b
I have a situation where we have 900sq.ft. vertical opening communicating
between two floors where a draft stop is not a viable solution due to head room
clearance. The design team isn't sure if or how to protect it? Thoughts?
Options?
It's a Light Hazard - Ord Hazard occ. The ide
PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Closely spaced heads at vertical opening
Don't water curtains require a deluge approach. I'm not sure what that
configuration shown in 13 is supposed to do but certainly not a full curtain
around the opening.
On Monday, June 13,
ler.org
> ]
> *On Behalf Of *Matt Grise
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2016 12:53 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: Closely spaced heads at vertical opening
>
>
>
> These would be mounted in the draftstop (a boxed out steel I-beam) pointed
&g
PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Closely spaced heads at vertical opening
These would be mounted in the draftstop (a boxed out steel I-beam) pointed away
from the opening.
I am not clear on the intent of the design. The closely spaced sidewall
sprinklers would cover more
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Hill
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:37 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Closely spaced heads at vertical opening
Sidewalks pointed at the draft stop?
I thought part of the reasoning was to have water hit the draft
Sidewalks pointed at the draft stop?
I thought part of the reasoning was to have water hit the draft stop and create
a wall of water.
Mike Hill
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Matt Grise wrote:
>
> I have an application where an open stairway will require closely spaced
>
I have an application where an open stairway will require closely spaced heads
and draft stopping. The construction of the opening lends itself to the use of
sidewall sprinklers set in the draftstop to serve as the closely spaced heads.
Is there anything that prohibits this? In reviewing the han
This is more a vertical opening into an otherwise concealed space.
It's worth noting that the TC as accepted effectively 2 rows of
sprinklers at such locations instead of the entire space. This will
most likely be refined slight at the ROC since it currently is based
on a percenta
35 matches
Mail list logo
