We spend a lot of time as a group bemoaning the qualifications of engineers, layout techs, installers AHJs, etc. and pining for the good old days when quality craftsmanship was an expected outcome. What's happened? Well, first as a society we've convinced every kid that the trades and tradesmen aren't valuable and so instead of a generation of skilled workers taking pride in the work they do we have a handful of those people and the rest of these necessary workers being rounded up back behind the Home Depot. Engineers have been "elevated" to mathematicians and a prima donna status that I find unbecoming if not outright distasteful. No longer do engineering texts talk about building things and ethical practices and the like but are instead just lists of equations. Get ahold of a modern text and then one from say 1930 or 1940 or 1950 and see what engineers learned while still young and impressionable. Engineers used to think about building things and then built them. If you know what engineer boots are they are not made for locomotive engineers but for someone that needs easy on, easy off boots because he's in the office one minute and sloshing through the mud the next. Note that they come in knee high versions for the really muddy sites and if you've ever seen pictures of the EOR on the Hoover Dam project he always has a tie and those knee-high lace-up boots that loggers wear. He wasn't taking them off. And what can you say about AHJs? Even the best are underpaid and overworked and most are undertrained. Layout techs either lack breadth or are tasked with engineering or both. Of course there are exceptions but as an educator I hope I see the trends in how we raise our next generation and apart from the tattoos and piercings and hip hop and the other trappings of youth culture most are or will become contributing members of society. The problem is it's society that determines what's important and we seem to only care about making money at the expense of morales, ethics and pride. What surprises me is we find good people to keep the infra-structure moving who are content go to work everyday and make sure my poop goes away and gets processed in a manner that doesn't poison the town. Well, I'm on a well and a septic so for me it's all my responsibility but you get the point. So off the box. All this stuff is good when used properly and I for one am going to trust the contractor and installer to execute my design in a professional and workmanlike manner. My experience suggests otherwise but I will remain optimistic.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Mike Dooley <[email protected]> wrote: > All FlexHead commercial (20 series) sprinkler hose fitting are dual > listed with both FM and UL. We are the only manufacturer who can make > this claim. > > Per the UL listing the hose can be bent to a 3" minimum bend radius. > FlexHead provides a 3" bend radius tool with every carton of 25 > FlexHeads we also will provide 6" bend radius tools upon request. > > Per UL listing, the 2' and 3' FlexHead hoses can have a maximum of 3 > bends at the minimum bend radius while the 4', 5' and 6' hoses can have > a maximum of 4 bends at the minimum bend radius. The corresponding UL > "equivalent lengths" take into account the maximum number of bends in > the hose. All of this information is published along with the UL > Listing of the UL website. > > The FlexHead FM minimum bend radius is 7", a looser bend compared to the > UL 3" minimum bend radius. Per FM there is no restrictions on the number > of bends in the FlexHead hose at the 7" bend radius. More information > including pictures of how to determine minimum bend information can be > found here (page 5). > > Different equivalent length values were obtained by FM and UL due to > differences in bend radius, testing protocol and calculation methods. > > Both FM and UL are NRTL (Nationally Recognized Testing Labs) it is up to > the local jurisdiction to decide whether they will accept FM or UL > listed approved products. > > > Why is the published friction loss different for FM and UL? > > When testing to determine the friction loss values of Flexible Hose > Fittings (FHF), FM uses a C factor of 100 and UL uses C factor of 120. > We have been told that FM has been using that factor for years for > determining pumps, valves, etc. It is worth noting that after much > prompting by FlexHead FM is in the process of updating the testing > standard using a C factor of 120. > > > > Mike Dooley > FlexHead Industries > National Sales Manager > 56 Lowland Street > Holliston, MA 01746 > > > Telephone (800)829-6975 x25 > Fax (508)893-6020 > Email [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George > Church > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Flex Head Friction loss > > 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...@d > eser > > 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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ 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)
