Yep, you are absolutely correct George. I don't speak for anything other
than my own little government world in Texas. My beef with the flexible
sprinkler systems is not the technology, its in the installation and its
sustainability over the term of our buildings. None of this holds water in
the private sector unless there are some stringent conditions set out for a
few specific buildings. As Ken pointed out, there will be cases whereby
the "old fashioned" piping system simply will not work and reconsiderations
will have to be made. I recognize that and will hopefully be ready when it
happens. Thankfully, I have a lot of folks on this forum that provide me
with plenty of ideas and experience that will be more than helpful when the
fateful day arrives.
Thank You
Rahe Loftin, P.E.
Region 7 - GSA
Office - 817-978-7299
Fax - 817-978-8644
Cell - 817-371-3102
"George Church"
<[email protected]> To
Sent by: <[email protected]>
sprinklerforum-bo cc
un...@firesprinkl
er.org Subject
RE: Flex Head Friction loss
11/12/2009 12:33
PM
Please respond to
sprinklerfo...@fi
resprinkler.org
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)
_______________________________________________
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)
