Just thinking out loud here...We seem to be concentrating on, say, one or two drops bring removed and being placed back in tee/elbow, whatever. Not to beat a dead horse - in cases of multiple removals, do we (also) need to be concerned about placing the same 'K', SR/QR and 1/2",3/4" threads back in the same fittings (different areas/rooms on a larger system)??? Or, LH "listed" ends up over in an OH-designated area?? Tricky business here.
Regards to all. Jerry [email protected] Santa Fe, New Mexico USA -----Original Message----- From: Brad Casterline <[email protected]> To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 1:28 pm Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop I still have fresh enough scars to throw SAME PATTERN in there too :) -----Original Message----- From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop I dunno Pete - didn't we hear a proposal in that regard last week? Who submitted that? The FIRE CODE tells us that, absent a change of use and/or occupancy, a FLS system is required to be maintained in accordance with the code(s) and standard(s) that governed at the time the system and building were originally permitted for occupancy. So you would use your professional judgment to select a new sprinkler that most closely approximates the discharge characteristics and RTI of the displaced sprinkler and move on. This isn't rocket science. Is there anyone who thinks that replacing a sprinkler with one of the same K-factor and RTI will compromise the capability of a control-mode system to function properly in that mode? Regardless of whether that sprinkler is listed for .03 or .05 or is calculated at .10? SML -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop Steve So what do you do if the sprinkler is no longer available? (Residential sprinklers prior to the minimum .05 density and the NFPA 13 2002 requirement for a minimum 0.10 density) Pete Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing & Engineering Technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com Celebrating over 34 years of life safety -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 1:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop I didn't mean it as a poke at you - this is the same underlying problem as with ITM. So long as there are one or two service providers that will do an "inspection" for $250, then it's always going to be that much more challenging to sell a complete and comprehensive professional service package into that market. More universally, the standard practice needs to be that sprinklers be replaced when they are removed from fittings, period. And this will entail hammering on enforcers to hold up their end of the equation as well, which is really the only way that unscrupulous corner-cutters can be held accountable. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop "adjust prices" With all due respect Steve - I said the WE would comply with code......we are still in the fight every day with those that don't. So issues like this are business killers for those of us that work with the unscrupulous and uneducated....Not that we ourselves are unfallible - but we do at least try. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]>wrote: > I was asked about 4 years ago to assist with a lawsuit as either a > technical consultant or designated expert that was focused on this > exact issue. The case was over a sprinkler that discharged in a retail suite > that was being remodeled. A sprinkler contractor had relocated a > sprinkler by wrenching out the drop with sprinkler intact, and > reinstalling it a couple feet away. After they did the work, there > were painters and finishers working in the suite over a weekend. > Sunday night, the sprinkler released and flooded the suite, wrecked > the new paint and drywall, etc., etc. > > Neither side could prove their points. The sprinkie alleged that > other trades must have hit the pipe and the finishers and painters > were using pads and rollers on extensions, so that was a distinct possibility. > And there were teeth marks on the drop, but it wasn't possible to say > forensically and with certainty if they were made during the T.I. or > rough-in. But, there was no way corroborate the fitter's affidavit that > he hadn't dropped, wrenched or mishandled the sprinkler. No forensic > conclusions could be reached regarding the sprinkler, as certain parts > were missing and someone (a responding firefighter, allegedly) had > badly damaged the sprinkler. The bottom line is that if the sprinkler > had been new, there would have been no allegation of negligence > against the sprinkie. > > Whatever sprinklers cost, this is the new price of tea in China folks. > Adjust prices and let's move on. > > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Greg McGahan > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop > > H > ave we sufficient evidence that it is the reinstalled heads are the > ones accidently discharging? > > It just seems like a waste to throw a 20 dollar head away because you > have to remove and reinstall.....or even a 3 dollar head. > > We WILL comply with code, but I strongly disagree. > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Todd - Work <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would think that the vast majority of problems in mis-handling > > sprinklers in this manner come from premature actuation (especially > > with glass bulb) and not failure to actuate in a fire. I would also > > think that only in very rare circumstances would you lose a building > > due to an accidental discharge of a sprinkler. > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > www.fpdc.com > > > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Cahill, Christopher" > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > "then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or sprigs" > > Where does this appearance come from? I don't see it in the Code, > > Annex or Handbook. Quite frankly, that is the only place that > > counts in descending order of priority. > > > > > > I agree with Todd there is some judgment and risk tolerance. I'm > > > sure > > not 'buying' a building loss over what a <$10 device I my current > role. > > When I was a contractor maybe we weren't perfect in this regard. > > When I was an AHJ if asked - new, and lot of don't ask don't tell. > > > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > > > Burns & McDonnell > > > 8201 Norman Center Drive > > > Bloomington, MN 55437 > > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > > [email protected] > > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > > Sornsin, P.E. > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:27 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > > > I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is > > specified up-front. If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, > > then don't argue, because if you win, it is your butt on the line > > should the head fail. > > > > > > If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, > > > with > > no c > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > > > -- > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
