No witness is alright too, I'd still rather NOT be camping. I did get a piece of feedback from that tutorial I posted last Friday: "When your pic pops up it's like a horror movie Brad". I love it.
> On Aug 29, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > > It does not take much for the C of 4" to go down in a hurry. Rearrange H-W to > solve for C, drop the residual in increments and you will C what mean. > Again, in editions of 13 sometime prior to 07, modifications to C for U.G. > based on age was indeed a requirement. > > "Can I get a witness?" > ~Elvin Bishop~ > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Travis Mack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The EOR came back and told my customer that they didn't think the supply >> line would be bad like it is. My bet is that there is a partially dropped >> gate or something along those lines. I have seen that more times than I can >> count. But, according to the EOR, any changes they have to make due to this >> will all be a change order, including the investigation time. So, in the >> end, I guess it will all work out. >> >> I would just like to be sure that there are not requirements calling for >> this. I have never done an adjustment like that, and it can have a big >> impact on the system. >> >> Travis Mack, SET >> MFP Design, LLC >> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive >> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >> 480-505-9271 >> fax: 866-430-6107 >> email:[email protected] >> >>> On 8/29/2014 2:46 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: >>> If it is in fact ductile iron, it is probably lined - at least I think so. >>> If it is lines then the C-factor is probably supposed to be 140. Not very >>> definitive, I know... >>> >>> But who's to say there isn't something else wrong with the lead-in? Any >>> chance of a partially shut valve somewhere? >>> >>> If I don't see anything posted, I may dig into this this weekend... >>> >>> Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection >>> Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | >>> http://www.kfiengineers.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Travis >>> Mack >>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:31 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe >>> >>> This was not brought up in project specs or plans. Nor was it brought up >>> in plan review. This was a project that had an existing 4" ductile supply >>> line. It is supplying some paint booths and some exhaust ducts in an >>> otherwise unsprinklered building. When the guys did the forward flow test >>> of the new backflow preventer, there was an issue that they weren't getting >>> as much water as they thought it should have. So, the EOR for the project >>> comes back and says something about the calcs. >>> According to my customer, the EOR says per a "chart" the C-Factor should >>> have been 60 instead of 140. For 3 of the 4 paint booths, it is not a >>> problem. They are small and plenty of margin. For the 4th, we end up with >>> a problem. But, if there is nothing in the specs or criteria to cause the >>> modification of that pipe, I am not sure where it will go. >>> The good thing is that we still have a margin on the system, but it is less >>> than the 10% required. >>> >>> I have just never heard of having to do this modification. I wanted to >>> make sure it was something I have not been missing. >>> >>> Travis Mack, SET >>> MFP Design, LLC >>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive >>> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >>> 480-505-9271 >>> fax: 866-430-6107 >>> email:[email protected] >>> >>>> On 8/29/2014 2:20 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: >>>> Travis, >>>> >>>> Off-hand I can offer no help. >>>> >>>> But I am curious to see the responses. Had the engineer denoted the >>>> requirement in the project drawings or specs, I'd definitely side with >>>> them. If not, then I want to know if he has a leg to stand on (i.e. code >>>> reference). >>>> >>>> This CAN be a significant issue and is another example of a potentially >>>> serious 'miss' by engineers who don't do their jobs with regards to >>>> sprinkler system drawings/specs. E.g., take a 200 ft. run of existing 6 >>>> in. pipe - 50 years old. They tell you to use it to modify the existing >>>> pipe schedule sprinkler system to meet the new occupancy. Most often, a >>>> contractor can get away with simply assuming it is 6" ductile with a >>>> c-factor of 140. But what if in reality it is unlined cast iron? What >>>> C-factor are you to use? >>>> >>>> FM taught me that it depended on the water corrosiveness. Who determines >>>> that? I don't know if the FM data is acquired from anything that could be >>>> cited by code. Their tables say 50 yr old cast iron in mildly corrosive >>>> ware should have a C-factor of 75; if corrosiveness is severe, it should >>>> be 40. At an extra Hazard, Group I demand of 750 gpm, the friction though >>>> 100 feet of pipe can vary from 1.5 psi at C=140; to 4.6 psi at C=75; to >>>> 14.9 psi at C=40. Pretty significant variance and not something that >>>> should be blown off by the engineer or designer. >>>> >>>> Ideally you'd do a water test THOUGH that pipe to verify actual friction >>>> losses - but that is almost never a viable option. Then again, if you were >>>> able to do so, you may be able to get a change order when you prove that >>>> the engineer overlooked a serious issue. >>>> >>>> Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection >>>> Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | >>>> http://www.kfiengineers.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sprinklerforum >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> Travis Mack >>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:52 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Modifications to C-Factor due to age of pipe >>>> >>>> Does anyone know if there is any requirement in NFPA or Uniform Facilities >>>> Criteria to modify the C-Factor of existing underground piping based on >>>> the age of the pipe? If so, do you have a section reference so I can look >>>> it up. An engineer is requiring us to do it, but won't provide the >>>> reference. Yeah..It is one of those days. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Travis Mack, SET >>>> MFP Design, LLC >>>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive >>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >>>> 480-505-9271 >>>> fax: 866-430-6107 >>>> email:[email protected] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >>>> er.org >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
