Using the same logic, would that put a crimp on using CPVC, special application heads, EC heads, interstitial heads, ESFR (obstructions can be missed or added later), Attic heads, and anything else that's not idiot-proof basic stuff from the "good old days"?
Sounds like threaded pipe and standard spray heads are all that would be allowed due to the ability to screw up all the other stuff that in many cases is either required (unless you design your building away from needing them) or has demonstrably proven better fire protection (Attics, CMSA, ESFR). Whether a contractor, AHJ, insurance guy- we ALL have to keep up with what is available to us- and the restrictions on them- in order to provide the best protection levels and most economical installations for our customers. Dumbing down because of the reality we face is defensible- I understand you build for a multi-generation building that will have dozens of sprinkler guys <and plumbers, maintenance men> working on the systems over the decades- but isn't necessarily the answer outside your market niche in the other 90% of the industry. The vast majority of our customers are very price sensitive and in most cases, the bang for the buck is what gets called as the play to run. glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Flex Head Friction loss Chris, I need to clear up one little item. I don't speak for GSA as I have been told by my Central Office a couple of times. I personally do not like using flexible sprinkler fittings for many reasons and I do understand all of the reasons that contractor's prefer them. We are not on opposite sides in that respect. The design can be great but the installation may not be as good and presents issues that were not flushed out in the design. Call me old fashioned, but it is easier for me to specify a system as hard pipe than to have to fight against the poor installation and even the design that does not meet the UL and/or FM requirements. Chris, you are correct in that as a private sector AHJ I might not have a leg to stand on but it would usually be because of the local political machine not the codes and their AHJ interpretation. NFPA 13 simply defers to the manufacturer's requirements and listings which, by the way, are different from each other. Some manufacturers of flexible sprinkler fittings have greater equivalent lengths than others due to other reasons than just the radius of the bends. By the way, the UL listings have a limit on the number of these bends per flexible line as well as their radius. Note, also, that all of the listed flexible sprinkler fittings are limited to 6 feet due to the issue of the hangers required thereto. With notable exceptions, a whole lot of AHJ's will have difficulty recognizing all of the limitations when inspecting an installation. Therefore, many installations may not really meet the criteria and, hydraulically, will not work as designed. This is not to say that a fire would not be controlled, but all things should be equated under the code. I love your last paragraph. I have the same opinion and that is one of the reasons that these installations are undesirable to me and others. Thank You Rahe Loftin, P.E. Region 7 - GSA Office - 817-978-7299 Fax - 817-978-8644 Cell - 817-371-3102 "Chris Cahill" <chr...@sentryfir To emn.com> <[email protected]> Sent by: cc sprinklerforum-bo un...@firesprinkl Subject er.org RE: Flex Head Friction loss 11/12/2009 09:12 AM Please respond to sprinklerfo...@fi resprinkler.org Rahe is right as an AHJ and owners rep. The key wording in the listed definition is acceptable to the AHJ. FM is apparently not acceptable to Region 7 of GSA. Maybe all GSA. And they enforce this through the specs. So it would be extremely hard if not impossible to fight. Doesn't matter what the law is you would have a contractual violation. But he's also wrong if he was a city AHJ. In the private sector, where most of us do most of our work, he'd lose all day. But you'd have to follow the legal system through to the end to win if a local AHJ said no FM listings. Do you think there is a judge out there (that's not related to the AHJ) that would find FM lacking. The burden of proof would be on the AHJ to show why it's not an acceptable listing org. I'd bet it would be hard to even get to a court because the DA (city attorney) would argue the case and would drop it before it ever got anyplace. Same would apply to a British listing or Australia, Japanese etc. You can use them based on the definition of Listed in NFPA 13. Now with foreign you'd probably need to supply why they are roughly equivalent to what we are used to in the US companies. A listing is different than an example of a design criteria that is less than the NFPA 13 minimum. NFPA 13 is adopted as the legal minimum in most places. This will be an interesting issue as FM rewrites the standards for special application listings. Some of them are less than the 1.2 along the BL and less than the number of heads on the RA that would come from NFPA 13. Even if it's an FM job the law always supersedes an insurance company requirement. Is less heads than NFPA 13 a listing issues or a design issue? I'm not arguing if FM will put out the fire. I'm sure it will. And IMHO using FM data in this case is crap because if I go to service the building later how would I ever know I had to maintain a 7" radius vs. a 3" radius. And how's this twist. In the back half of the building I use 7" and in the front half I use 3" because I'm closer to the riser. Technically legal, practically crap. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Wilder Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Flex Head Friction loss I respectfully disagree with this. The FM standards dictate that number or turns and minimum radii (based on length) be maintained in order to have their tested friction loss be accurate, same for UL. Whether or not the turns are maintained after turnover on future work is another matter and where a better argument would be had for using the larger friction loss. Viking sprinklers (Vertical Sidewalls), Reliable K-22 Magnum, Tyco ESFR-17 all carry FM approval only, and I would think these would be utilized on more than just FM projects. >From recent experience, a metal Foldgers Coffee can on a stick gets your 3" minimum radius checked pretty quickly, and the AHJ seems to find a little humor with the field guys on this during visual inspections. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Flex Head Friction loss Dennis, If this is not an FM job, then they have no dog in the fight and you cannot use them to reduce your equivalent lengths. Since there is no FM inspection and no FM insurance, you will have to use the UL equivalent lengths and submit the shop drawings and calculations to the local AHJ with the correct equivalent lengths in your calcs. Thank You Rahe Loftin, P.E. Region 7 - GSA Office - 817-978-7299 Fax - 817-978-8644 Cell - 817-371-3102 "Dennis Browning" <firesprinkl...@c To harter.net> <[email protected]> Sent by: cc sprinklerforum-bo un...@firesprinkl Subject er.org Flex Head Friction loss 11/11/2009 12:34 PM Please respond to sprinklerfo...@fi resprinkler.org We are doing a job using flex heads. They show different equivalency loss for FM and UL listings. 9.6 ft versus 27 ft. respectfullt. What should I use? This is not a mandated FM project and I am designing to 2002 13 light/ordinary hazzard. I would rather use the 9.6 factor. At what point would I need to use the higher number? I am not getting this. Dennis Browning Browning Fire _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- ExchangeDefender Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=nAC0m3if001467&from=d...@deser tfire.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
