QR reduction is only allowed on wet pipe systems. On Dec 14, 2011 5:23 PM, "Tom Duross" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I got a couple of low air alarms today. I'm on call with their FA service > company as we do 34 of these facilities for this client. Time is running > out for me. Todd, I gave them your number. (joke) I did speak with the > Deputy and he was willing to work with us if we were going to shut down and > refill every day but I told him I wasn't confident in the integrity of the > system as a whole. I called an FPE friend who's been around a long time, a > few competitors, my Dad and re-read all your posts. I emailed my client > and > cc'd the Deputy, I think a temporary cpvc wet system around the perimeter > as > a life safety system is a must. Then a complete replacement of the attic > system (in galvy) will be the course of action. Maybe most of the uprights > sprigs will be ok but all that horizontal has got to go. I'm also planning > on a low diff dpv and changing the Siamese to storz (per the Deputy). I > can > then test the entire dry system, and turn it over and remove the temp. > system. I think full 13, I believe if I use QR dry pendent I can use the > area reduction and not be lessening the original level of protection but I > think SR heads will go in the attic. > > Baby brother and I have great people skills. We just spent yesterday and > today working in an extended care facility and played some trivial pursuit > with the ladies group in the dining room today after putting everything > back > in service and waiting for the FA guy. There's this one Asian woman who > comes up and hugs me at the group residence (she's the one who was dumped > there as an infant). I look forward to seeing her every year. She can't > speak and is severely retarded. Yes, it's 24/7, 3 shifts a day. It's only > 5 bedrooms but some have cots as they sometimes have a temporary client. > That's the issue I had with the Architect just looking at the floor plan > plus applying todays code to an older existing application. > > Thanks everyone. I have a plan, just need to work out the details. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > > These are good points being made. And each state, though similar, has many > small nuances in the definition of Group Home, Nursing Home, Extended Care, > etc. I'm not sure I can sort out Washington and fifteen or so years ago I > was involved with a committee that redefined some of these definitions > after > one of those multi-fatality fires in a building with non-ambulatory elderly > that wasn't even required to be sprinklered at all. If you're going to > redefine this occupancy I think you need some conferences (depending on how > power is distributed where you are) with the local FM, the State FM, the > State Health Guys, the local BO, and anyone else with a regulatory stake > in > this. Not necessarily an engineering issue so an engineer isn't necessary. > This will all be defined within the various prescriptive rules of the laws > that apply. You still might want, or even be required to have an engineer, > for a licensed person of responsibility (the buck stops at the engineer). > And why couldn't you leave an existing piping system in while installing a > replacement system unless due to physical impossibility. I'd be happier > with > a functioning, even if failing, system in place while a new replacement > system was being installed than have no system at all. If your fitters have > good customer relations skills (when I when for a living I mostly did > repair/remodel work and I kept essentially inefficient fitters that could > work in occupied spaces and not chaff the customers simply because of that > latter skill was more important in that environment than high-output > production skills) and you design in such a way that you only have that > final switch over day with the water down everyone should be happier. And > once you convince the FM this is how he'd like the job to proceed you then > have another bullet for your gun when explaining to the customer why it's > so > expensive. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No blood drawn, no money lost, no problem > > > > > > At 06:29 AM 12/14/2011, you wrote: > > >Sorry, I meant Tom > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: [email protected] [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne > > Martinez > > >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:23 AM > > >To: [email protected] > > >Subject: RE: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > > > > > >Todd, > > >Any way to run a new system next to the old before you take it out of > > service? That way there would only be minimal disruption when you > > change over. > > >Keep it dry in the attic with a exposed or soffit concealed wet pipe > > system below? > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: [email protected] [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Duross > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:31 PM > > >To: [email protected] > > >Subject: RE: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > > > > > >Attic is about a 12/12 pitch, a good 10' to the ridge. Very vented > > attic, the wind whips through. I'm thinking of filling it with glycol > > and hydro the pipe, I worry about any residual water freezing if I use > > it. The tree feed main starts 4" and scales down to 2" and it's all > screwed pipe. > > The season and current occupancy is what worries me. I showed up two > > winters ago when some water up there froze and it burst and it was 2 > > in the morning, snowing (it's right on the water, surrounded by > > lobstermen) and these poor clients were in vans in the parking lot to > keep > warm. > > > > > >They have an Architect they use and I had her forward my report and > > >email > > to him. He called and said I could sprinkler it per 13D as R4 under > > certain amendments in MA's section 310 with 5 or fewer licensed under > > a MA agency. > > >I think Chris is right about applying current codes to older > > >buildings, > > something just didn't seem right. The building is owned by the state, > > licensed and leased to them as operators. > > > > > >I do need to do an internal inspection and I'm afraid I'm going to > > >find > > rotten pipe everywhere. I worry about the clients as they're > > multi-handicapped adults, some were dropped off there as infants. I > > can't disrupt their lives. I'm thinking that maybe I might propose a > > temporary wet system to protect the living area while we probably > > replace the entire attic system. Just so I don't have to make them have > to move. > > >I have a younger brother like these people so it rings a certain > > >tender > > importance to me, not that it wouldn't either way. > > > > > >I plan to offer some plans to them, and they will have to go to the > state. > > >I've written back to the Architect and want to include him too. I > > >also > > want to sit with the chief, he was there 2 winters ago, and a nice > > guy. I have to do some Code research. I also have that tick tock of > > an air compressor running, 24 hrs. and hoping the phone doesn't ring.. > > > > > >Thanks for all the education forumites. Any and all ideas very > welcomed. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: [email protected] > > >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George > > Church > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:52 PM > > >To: [email protected] > > >Subject: RE: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > > > > > >Can you make it in a non-freeze, nonflammable medium to replace AF? > > >Find the leaks, fix em, leave it in there. > > > > > >George L. Church, Jr., CET > > >Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > > >PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > > >877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > > >[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: [email protected] > > >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > >Charles > > Thurston > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:56 PM > > >To: [email protected] > > >Subject: Re: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > > > > > >Hello > > > > > >Hmm Off to invent fluorescent, colored, peppermint scented, smoke to > > >get > > listed as a leak detection method for Dry Systems. > > > > > >Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 12:46:15 PM, you wrote: > > > > > >> I seem to recall in a previous thread not too long ago that someone > > >> suggested some sort of fluorescent dye that could be injected into > > >> the system and then be seen with a blacklight. An attic might be a > > >> good space to use this sort of approach to help trace leaks. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Best regards, > > > Charles mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > > attachments, > > is for the sole purpose of the intended recipients and may contain > > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, > > use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > Todd G. Williams, PE > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > 860.535.2080 > > www.fpdc.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment > s/20111214/e6cc0287/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20111214/e5e400f4/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
