Good Day, Is there any way you could organize the information better so that it is easier to read?
Thank you. Marcel >________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:09 AM >Subject: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 18, Issue 2 > > >Send Sprinklerforum mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Sprinklerforum digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Seismic bracing (ampeck) > 2. RE: Seismic bracing - Responsibility (NJ) (John Drucker - Home) > 3. RE: Seismic bracing ([email protected]) > 4. RE: Seismic bracing (Cahill, Christopher) > 5. RE: Seismic bracing (Jim Davidson) > 6. Re: Seismic bracing (Parsley Consulting) > 7. Re: Seismic bracing (Parsley Consulting) > 8. fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Dewayne Martinez) > 9. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Taylor, Galen) > 10. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Taylor, Galen) > 11. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Bill Brooks) > 12. Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Brad Casterline) > 13. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > ([email protected]) > 14. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Dewayne Martinez) > 15. Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (rongreenman .) > 16. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > ([email protected]) > 17. Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (rongreenman .) > 18. Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Brad Casterline) > 19. RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? (Bill Brooks) > 20. No reception at convention (Steve Muncy) > 21. Commodity classification (Jay Stough) > 22. RE: Commodity classification (Art Tiroly) > 23. RE: Commodity classification (Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.) > 24. Re: Commodity classification (Jay Stough) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 23:46:56 +0700 >From: ampeck <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > >Thanks for that link, I think many of us could use a refresher. Myself >especially, I haven?t done much and my last seismic class was back in 2009 and >the amount of seismic calculations I?ve done since then is less than I can >count on one hand. > >On Sep 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Jack Carlson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is the link to the Sept 10th webinar... >> >> http://www.firesprinkler.org/training/webinars/20140910.html >> >> >> Jack W. Carlson, SET >> Triple "A" Fire Protection >> Office - 251.649.2034 >> Fax - 251.649.2037 >> Cell - 706.247.5050 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:58 AM >> To: sprinklerforum >> Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >> >> >> >> Oh boy, here we go again. Every time the subject of seismic bracing / >> protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding >> among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, >> what is required, and how to do it correctly. >> We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough. Can anyone >> suggest any good classes available out there? >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill Menster >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: "sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good bracing". >> They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any >> seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag >> we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only >> requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do >> any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >> >> Stephen, >> I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision >> through very carefully. They seem to be equating "seismic bracing" with >> "seismic protection", which includes such other features as flexible >> couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint >> of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected >> against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. >> I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of >> the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, >> longitudinal and riser bracing. >> It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic >> bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which >> requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. >> Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could >> not do so. >> And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the >> Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. >> Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of >> a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and >> it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and >> apply correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is >> certainly not your responsibility. >> This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You did >> mention that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? >> *Ken Wagoner, SET* >> **Parsley Consulting*** >> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> *Escondido, California 92025 >> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 >> AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: >>> Sorry, should have read 2007 edition >>> >>> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >>> NICET# 77901 Level III >>> E mail: [email protected] >>> >>> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >>> Corporate Office >>> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >>> Mooresville, NC 28117 >>> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >>> >>> Web: www.performancefire.com >>> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >>> >>> "Performance on Every Level." >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >>> >>> The AHJ can't just "require it". His preference is not relevant. Also >>> seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for >>> quite a while. >>> >>> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >>> >>> Anyway back to seismic. >>> >>> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors >>> originating out of the Building Code Chapter 16. It's not just an >>> arbitrary decision. >>> >>> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >>> classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >>> >>> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a >>> requirement for bracing is established. >>> >>> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no >>> sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the >>> rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it >>> had to be done. Was it required on the original install, did someone just >>> miss it assuming the site wasn't in "the zone", who knows. >>> >>> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design professionals >>> regard when it's required and when it's not. >>> >>> Craig L. Prahl >>> Fire Protection Group Lead >>> CH2MHILL >>> Lockwood Greene >>> 1500 International Drive >>> Spartanburg, SC 29303 >>> Direct - 864.599.4102 >>> Fax - 864.599.8439 >>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Steve Sorrell >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Seismic bracing >>> >>> I need some help with a seismic problem. >>> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using >>> the 2000 ed of NFPA 13. >>> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >>> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >>> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need to be >>> braced. >>> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a >>> preference of the local AHJ ? >>> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this >>> project. >>> >>> >>> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >>> NICET# 77901 Level III >>> E mail: >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >>> Corporate Office >>> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >>> Mooresville, NC 28117 >>> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >>> >>> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >>> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >>> >>> "Performance on Every Level." >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:01:35 -0400 >From: "John Drucker - Home" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing - Responsibility (NJ) >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >Adding to Jim's statement of responsibility (at least in New Jersey) see >last sentence below; > >N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.15 Construction permits--Application > >(f) Plans, plan review, plan release: > >1. Plans and specifications: The application for the permit shall be >accompanied by no fewer than two copies of specifications and of plans drawn >to scale, with sufficient clarity and detail dimensions to show the nature >and character of the work to be performed. Plans submitted shall be required >to show only such detail and include only such information as shall be >necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the code and >these regulations or to facilitate inspections for code conformity. When >quality of materials is essential for conformity to the regulations, >specific information shall be given to establish such quality; and this code >shall not be cited, or the term "legal" or its equivalent be used, as a >substitute for specific information. > >(1) All documents prepared by people other than the design professional >shall be reviewed by the design professional and submitted with a letter >indicating that they have been reviewed and found to be in conformance with >the regulations for the design of the building. > >vi. Building systems: Structural, electrical and mechanical designs >performed and certified by licensed architects or engineers need not be >checked in detail by the staff of the enforcing agency, but shall remain as >the responsibility of the professional certifying such design. > >Hope that helps, > >John > > >John Drucker, CET >Assistant Construction Official >Fire Protection Subcode Official >Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector >Borough of Red Bank >Red Bank, New Jersey >Email: [email protected] >Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Jim Davidson >Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Ron, > >I hope you have a hold harmless letter from the building owner and or >developer because the sprinkler contractor will be the one in the cross >hairs of the legal system when something goes wrong. The "AHJ" has no >liability unless you can prove gross negligence on the AHJ part. > >Why assume the liability. > >Have a fire safe day! > >Regards > >Jim > >DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES > >Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 > (302) 994-9500 > Fax (302) 994-3414 > >CONFIDENTIALITY >This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. >If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report >in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do >not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or >store or copy them in any medium. >Thank you for your cooperation. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >[email protected] >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:16 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good bracing". >They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any >seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag >we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only >requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do >any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? >Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Parsley >Consulting >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > >Stephen, > I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision >through very carefully. They seem to be equating "seismic bracing" with >"seismic protection", which includes such other features as flexible >couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint >of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected >against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. > I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of >the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, >longitudinal and riser bracing. > It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic >bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which >requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. >Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could >not do so. > And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the >Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. > Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of >a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and >it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and >apply correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is >certainly not your responsibility. > This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You did >mention that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? >*Ken Wagoner, SET* >**Parsley Consulting*** >*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >*Escondido, California 92025 >*****Phone 760-745-6181* >Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 >8:31 AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: >> Sorry, should have read 2007 edition >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: [email protected] >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> The AHJ can't just "require it". His preference is not relevant. >Also seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for >quite a while. >> >> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >> >> Anyway back to seismic. >> >> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors >originating out of the Building Code Chapter 16. It's not just an arbitrary >decision. >> >> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >> >> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a >requirement for bracing is established. >> >> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it >made no sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and >the rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so >it had to be done. Was it required on the original install, did someone >just miss it assuming the site wasn't in "the zone", who knows. >> >> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design >professionals regard when it's required and when it's not. >> >> Craig L. Prahl >> Fire Protection Group Lead >> CH2MHILL >> Lockwood Greene >> 1500 International Drive >> Spartanburg, SC 29303 >> Direct - 864.599.4102 >> Fax - 864.599.8439 >> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Steve Sorrell >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Seismic bracing >> >> I need some help with a seismic problem. >> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are >using the 2000 ed of NFPA 13. >> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need >to be braced. >> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a >preference of the local AHJ ? >> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this >project. >> >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ >> 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 >_______________________________________________ >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 > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:34:20 +0000 >From: <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >Message-ID: > > <a3087603e3174e439969266f4feb829d1483b...@044-ch1mpn1-031.044d.mgd.msft.net> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Since it is an existing building I doubt any of the things you have listed >will be done. I guess I look at getting it done without doing any harm so the >owner can use the building. The alternative appears to be telling the owner >it's not their responsibility and that he has to get an architect, structural >engineer, soils report and have as builts done for the whole building and so >on and so on so that the sprinkler contractor can properly design a sway brace. >Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Jim Davidson >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:28 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >The seismic design classification should be determined by the structural >engineer who determines the SDC of the site. Once the SDC is determined then >you can go into either, ASCE 7 or Chapter 16 of the IBC, to determine the >building's importance factor and other determining factors to decide when >earthquake bracing is required. For example in most cases a building has a SDC >of C then the mechanical and electrical systems with an importance factor of >less than 1.5 do not have to seismically brace the systems however systems >with an importance factor equal to or greater than 1.5 (fire alarm, sprinkler, >fire pump, stair tower pressurization, etc) are required to be seismically >braced. Then you can go to NFPA 13 or the IBC for the details on bracing and >the zone of influence calculations required. > >Because of the soil and underground geological analysis the structural >engineer will need to determine the SDC of the site. > >Regards > >Jim > >DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES > >Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 > (302) 994-9500 > Fax (302) 994-3414 > >CONFIDENTIALITY >This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. >If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in >error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not >disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store >or copy them in any medium. >Thank you for your cooperation. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:16 PM >To: sprinklerforum >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > > > >Oh boy, here we go again.? Every time the subject of seismic bracing / >protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding >among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, >what is required, and how to do it correctly. >We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough.? Can anyone >suggest any good classes available out there? > >Thanks > >Bill Menster > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: [email protected] >To: "sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good bracing". They >don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic >standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have >to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only >requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any >calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > >Stephen, >?? ? I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision >through very carefully. ?They seem to be equating "seismic bracing" with >"seismic protection", which includes such other features as flexible >couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of >branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against >seismic damage. ?Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. >?? ? I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the >features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and >riser bracing. >?? ? It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic >bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires >the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. ?Based on >what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. >?? ? And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss >value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. >?? ? Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a >building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's >occupancy or use. ?While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and apply >correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly >not your responsibility. >?? ? This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. ?You did mention >that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? >*Ken Wagoner, SET* >**Parsley Consulting*** >*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >*Escondido, California 92025 >*****Phone 760-745-6181* >Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 AM, >Steve Sorrell wrote: >> Sorry, ?should have read 2007 edition >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: [email protected] >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - ?PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 ?Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> The AHJ can't just "require it". ?His preference is not relevant. ?Also >> seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for quite >> a while. >> >> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >> >> Anyway back to seismic. >> >> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors originating >> out of the Building Code Chapter 16. ?It's not just an arbitrary decision. >> >> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >> classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >> >> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a requirement >> for bracing is established. >> >> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no >> sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the >> rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it >> had to be done. ?Was it required on the original install, did someone just >> miss it assuming the site wasn't in "the zone", who knows. >> >> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design professionals >> regard when it's required and when it's not. >> >> Craig L. Prahl >> Fire Protection Group Lead >> CH2MHILL >> Lockwood Greene >> 1500 International Drive >> Spartanburg, SC ?29303 >> Direct - 864.599.4102 >> Fax - 864.599.8439 >> CH2MHILL Extension ?74102 >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Steve Sorrell >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Seismic bracing >> >> I need some help with a seismic problem. >> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using >> the 2000 ed of NFPA ?13. >> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need to be >> braced. >> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a >> preference of the local AHJ ? >> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this >> project. >> >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - ?PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 ?Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ >> 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 >_______________________________________________ >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 > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 13:15:26 -0500 >From: "Cahill, Christopher" <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >Message-ID: > <478b6f740b82914e9c5639c97907cd39535c7d7...@bmcdmail02.burnsmcd.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Not that I disagree with the SE's needing to do the analysis but when you >don't have an SE in a pinch you can try this: > >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php > >True you may not know the soils but if you play around sometimes it doesn't >make a difference and you can move on. > >And FWIW I don't see this as complicated really. Whether or not NFPA 13 9.3 >is required is if SDC is C or higher, ain't the sprinkler's job to figure out >SDC. But once told it's C or higher follow 9.3. 9.3 is straight forward and >includes calcs. And if there is SE involved just look at plan page S001 >usually. It'll tell you SDC and Ss. You don't even need to call SE. > >With regards to existing building I'd expect the portions that are worked on >to be in compliance with 9.3 even when the building may not be when SDC is C. >Thought is what you work on needs to be compliant. Eventually when they work >on the structure it will be brought into compliance? We see this in exiting >too. Re-arrange part of a building and that part should be new. The parts >beyond sometimes don't meet new but meet existing. As long as occupancies >didn't change no problem. Change occupancies and it gets more complicated. > >Chris Cahill, PE* >Associate Fire Protection Engineer >Burns & McDonnell >Phone:??952.656.3652 >Fax:? 952.229.2923 >[email protected] >www.burnsmcd.com >*Registered in: MN > > >Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:34 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Since it is an existing building I doubt any of the things you have listed >will be done. I guess I look at getting it done without doing any harm so the >owner can use the building. The alternative appears to be telling the owner >it's not their responsibility and that he has to get an architect, structural >engineer, soils report and have as builts done for the whole building and so >on and so on so that the sprinkler contractor can properly design a sway brace. >Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Jim Davidson >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:28 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >The seismic design classification should be determined by the structural >engineer who determines the SDC of the site. Once the SDC is determined then >you can go into either, ASCE 7 or Chapter 16 of the IBC, to determine the >building's importance factor and other determining factors to decide when >earthquake bracing is required. For example in most cases a building has a SDC >of C then the mechanical and electrical systems with an importance factor of >less than 1.5 do not have to seismically brace the systems however systems >with an importance factor equal to or greater than 1.5 (fire alarm, sprinkler, >fire pump, stair tower pressurization, etc) are required to be seismically >braced. Then you can go to NFPA 13 or the IBC for the details on bracing and >the zone of influence calculations required. > >Because of the soil and underground geological analysis the structural >engineer will need to determine the SDC of the site. > >Regards > >Jim > >DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES > >Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 > (302) 994-9500 > Fax (302) 994-3414 > >CONFIDENTIALITY >This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. >If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in >error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not >disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store >or copy them in any medium. >Thank you for your cooperation. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:16 PM >To: sprinklerforum >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > > > >Oh boy, here we go again.? Every time the subject of seismic bracing / >protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding >among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, >what is required, and how to do it correctly. >We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough.? Can anyone >suggest any good classes available out there? > >Thanks > >Bill Menster > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: [email protected] >To: "sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good bracing". They >don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic >standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have >to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only >requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any >calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > >Stephen, >?? ? I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision >through very carefully. ?They seem to be equating "seismic bracing" with >"seismic protection", which includes such other features as flexible >couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of >branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against >seismic damage. ?Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. >?? ? I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the >features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and >riser bracing. >?? ? It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic >bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires >the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. ?Based on >what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. >?? ? And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss >value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. >?? ? Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a >building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's >occupancy or use. ?While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and apply >correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly >not your responsibility. >?? ? This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. ?You did mention >that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? >*Ken Wagoner, SET* >**Parsley Consulting*** >*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >*Escondido, California 92025 >*****Phone 760-745-6181* >Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 AM, >Steve Sorrell wrote: >> Sorry, ?should have read 2007 edition >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: [email protected] >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - ?PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 ?Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> The AHJ can't just "require it". ?His preference is not relevant. ?Also >> seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for quite >> a while. >> >> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >> >> Anyway back to seismic. >> >> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors originating >> out of the Building Code Chapter 16. ?It's not just an arbitrary decision. >> >> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >> classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >> >> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a requirement >> for bracing is established. >> >> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no >> sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the >> rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it >> had to be done. ?Was it required on the original install, did someone just >> miss it assuming the site wasn't in "the zone", who knows. >> >> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design professionals >> regard when it's required and when it's not. >> >> Craig L. Prahl >> Fire Protection Group Lead >> CH2MHILL >> Lockwood Greene >> 1500 International Drive >> Spartanburg, SC ?29303 >> Direct - 864.599.4102 >> Fax - 864.599.8439 >> CH2MHILL Extension ?74102 >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Steve Sorrell >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Seismic bracing >> >> I need some help with a seismic problem. >> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using >> the 2000 ed of NFPA ?13. >> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need to be >> braced. >> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a >> preference of the local AHJ ? >> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this >> project. >> >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - ?PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 ?Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ >> 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 >_______________________________________________ >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 > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:27:16 -0400 >From: "Jim Davidson" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >The International Existing Building Code might be of help in trying to assist >you in your discussion with the AHJ. Depending on the level of modification, >renovation or alteration each specific chapter addresses the requirements of >reduced seismic design requirements. > >Regards > >Jim > >DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES > >Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 > (302) 994-9500 > Fax (302) 994-3414 > >CONFIDENTIALITY >This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. >If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in >error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not >disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store >or copy them in any medium. >Thank you for your cooperation. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 1:46 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Since it is an existing building I doubt any of the things you have listed >will be done. I guess I look at getting it done without doing any harm so the >owner can use the building. The alternative appears to be telling the owner >it's not their responsibility and that he has to get an architect, structural >engineer, soils report and have as builts done for the whole building and so >on and so on so that the sprinkler contractor can properly design a sway brace. >Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Jim Davidson >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:28 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >The seismic design classification should be determined by the structural >engineer who determines the SDC of the site. Once the SDC is determined then >you can go into either, ASCE 7 or Chapter 16 of the IBC, to determine the >building's importance factor and other determining factors to decide when >earthquake bracing is required. For example in most cases a building has a SDC >of C then the mechanical and electrical systems with an importance factor of >less than 1.5 do not have to seismically brace the systems however systems >with an importance factor equal to or greater than 1.5 (fire alarm, sprinkler, >fire pump, stair tower pressurization, etc) are required to be seismically >braced. Then you can go to NFPA 13 or the IBC for the details on bracing and >the zone of influence calculations required. > >Because of the soil and underground geological analysis the structural >engineer will need to determine the SDC of the site. > >Regards > >Jim > >DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES > >Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 > (302) 994-9500 > Fax (302) 994-3414 > >CONFIDENTIALITY >This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. >If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in >error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not >disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store >or copy them in any medium. >Thank you for your cooperation. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:16 PM >To: sprinklerforum >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > > > >Oh boy, here we go again.? Every time the subject of seismic bracing / >protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding >among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, >what is required, and how to do it correctly. >We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough.? Can anyone >suggest any good classes available out there? > >Thanks > >Bill Menster > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: [email protected] >To: "sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM >Subject: RE: Seismic bracing > >Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good bracing". They >don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any seismic >standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag we have >to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only >requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do any >calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing > >Stephen, >?? ? I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision >through very carefully. ?They seem to be equating "seismic bracing" with >"seismic protection", which includes such other features as flexible >couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint of >branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected against >seismic damage. ?Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. >?? ? I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of the >features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, longitudinal and >riser bracing. >?? ? It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic >bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which requires >the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. ?Based on >what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could not do so. >?? ? And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the Ss >value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. >?? ? Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection of a >building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, and it's >occupancy or use. ?While it isn't a complicated set of data to find and apply >correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly >not your responsibility. >?? ? This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. ?You did mention >that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? >*Ken Wagoner, SET* >**Parsley Consulting*** >*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >*Escondido, California 92025 >*****Phone 760-745-6181* >Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 AM, >Steve Sorrell wrote: >> Sorry, ?should have read 2007 edition >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: [email protected] >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - ?PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 ?Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> The AHJ can't just "require it". ?His preference is not relevant. ?Also >> seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for quite >> a while. >> >> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >> >> Anyway back to seismic. >> >> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors originating >> out of the Building Code Chapter 16. ?It's not just an arbitrary decision. >> >> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >> classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >> >> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a requirement >> for bracing is established. >> >> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no >> sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the >> rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it >> had to be done. ?Was it required on the original install, did someone just >> miss it assuming the site wasn't in "the zone", who knows. >> >> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design professionals >> regard when it's required and when it's not. >> >> Craig L. Prahl >> Fire Protection Group Lead >> CH2MHILL >> Lockwood Greene >> 1500 International Drive >> Spartanburg, SC ?29303 >> Direct - 864.599.4102 >> Fax - 864.599.8439 >> CH2MHILL Extension ?74102 >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Steve Sorrell >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Seismic bracing >> >> I need some help with a seismic problem. >> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using >> the 2000 ed of NFPA ?13. >> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need to be >> braced. >> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a >> preference of the local AHJ ? >> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this >> project. >> >> >> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >> NICET# 77901 Level III >> E mail: >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >> Corporate Office >> 179 Gasoline Alley - ?PO Box 4510 >> Mooresville, NC 28117 >> Phone: 704-663-1664 ?Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >> >> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >> >> "Performance on Every Level." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ >> 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 >_______________________________________________ >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 > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:29:23 -0500 >From: Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >Based on the research from the information Steve provided, his Seismic >Design Category is B. It seems that the North Carolina Building Code >mandates that any fire sprinkler system to conform to ASCE7 section >13.6.8, which makes no distinction for seismic design categories. > >One good thing, though, is that according to the USGS the Ss value for >the site is 0.181, which would make his Cp value 0.35, which is about as >low as it gets. > >Still looking into this, but at this moment it looks like the >requirements in chapter 9.3 of NFPA 13 would be applicable. > >Just shaking my head. >*Ken Wagoner, SET >*Parsley Consulting*** >*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >*Escondido, California 92025 >*****Phone 760-745-6181* >Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** >On 9/5/2014 1:15 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: >> Not that I disagree with the SE's needing to do the analysis but when you >> don't have an SE in a pinch you can try this: >> >> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php >> >> True you may not know the soils but if you play around sometimes it doesn't >> make a difference and you can move on. >> >> And FWIW I don't see this as complicated really. Whether or not NFPA 13 9.3 >> is required is if SDC is C or higher, ain't the sprinkler's job to figure >> out SDC. But once told it's C or higher follow 9.3. 9.3 is straight forward >> and includes calcs. And if there is SE involved just look at plan page S001 >> usually. It'll tell you SDC and Ss. You don't even need to call SE. >> >> With regards to existing building I'd expect the portions that are worked on >> to be in compliance with 9.3 even when the building may not be when SDC is >> C. Thought is what you work on needs to be compliant. Eventually when they >> work on the structure it will be brought into compliance? We see this in >> exiting too. Re-arrange part of a building and that part should be new. >> The parts beyond sometimes don't meet new but meet existing. As long as >> occupancies didn't change no problem. Change occupancies and it gets more >> complicated. >> >> Chris Cahill, PE* >> Associate Fire Protection Engineer >> Burns & McDonnell >> Phone: 952.656.3652 >> Fax: 952.229.2923 >> [email protected] >> www.burnsmcd.com >> *Registered in: MN >> >> >> Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:34 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> Since it is an existing building I doubt any of the things you have listed >> will be done. I guess I look at getting it done without doing any harm so >> the owner can use the building. The alternative appears to be telling the >> owner it's not their responsibility and that he has to get an architect, >> structural engineer, soils report and have as builts done for the whole >> building and so on and so on so that the sprinkler contractor can properly >> design a sway brace. >> Ron F >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Jim Davidson >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:28 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> The seismic design classification should be determined by the structural >> engineer who determines the SDC of the site. Once the SDC is determined then >> you can go into either, ASCE 7 or Chapter 16 of the IBC, to determine the >> building's importance factor and other determining factors to decide when >> earthquake bracing is required. For example in most cases a building has a >> SDC of C then the mechanical and electrical systems with an importance >> factor of less than 1.5 do not have to seismically brace the systems however >> systems with an importance factor equal to or greater than 1.5 (fire alarm, >> sprinkler, fire pump, stair tower pressurization, etc) are required to be >> seismically braced. Then you can go to NFPA 13 or the IBC for the details on >> bracing and the zone of influence calculations required. >> >> Because of the soil and underground geological analysis the structural >> engineer will need to determine the SDC of the site. >> >> Regards >> >> Jim >> >> DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES >> >> Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >> Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 >> (302) 994-9500 >> Fax (302) 994-3414 >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY >> This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. >> If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report >> in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do >> not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or >> store or copy them in any medium. >> Thank you for your cooperation. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:16 PM >> To: sprinklerforum >> Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >> >> >> >> Oh boy, here we go again. Every time the subject of seismic bracing / >> protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of understanding >> among contractors and designers (myself included) as to when it is required, >> what is required, and how to do it correctly. >> We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough. Can anyone >> suggest any good classes available out there? >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill Menster >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: "sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM >> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >> >> Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good bracing". >> They don't require calculations, or that the building be designed to any >> seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. If we want a green tag >> we have to put it in. I guess in this case the question would be if the only >> requirement is local dictate can you install at the max spacing and not do >> any calc's provided it is acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >> >> Stephen, >> I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this decision >> through very carefully. They seem to be equating "seismic bracing" with >> "seismic protection", which includes such other features as flexible >> couplings, clearance requirements, seismic separation assemblies, restraint >> of branch lines, and certain hanger requirements in a building protected >> against seismic damage. Section 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. >> I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require all of >> the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just lateral, >> longitudinal and riser bracing. >> It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide seismic >> bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 (2007), which >> requires the structure to be able to withstand the applied seismic loads. >> Based on what you've described I would wager a few dollars that they could >> not do so. >> And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to provide the >> Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. >> Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic protection >> of a building is based on the location of the building in a seismic zone, >> and it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a complicated set of data to find >> and apply correctly, you're not a structural or soils engineer, and that is >> certainly not your responsibility. >> This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You did >> mention that the building code requires it, can you be more specific? >> *Ken Wagoner, SET* >> **Parsley Consulting*** >> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> *Escondido, California 92025 >> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 8:31 >> AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: >>> Sorry, should have read 2007 edition >>> >>> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >>> NICET# 77901 Level III >>> E mail: [email protected] >>> >>> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >>> Corporate Office >>> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >>> Mooresville, NC 28117 >>> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >>> >>> Web: www.performancefire.com >>> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >>> >>> "Performance on Every Level." >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >>> >>> The AHJ can't just "require it". His preference is not relevant. Also >>> seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't been for >>> quite a while. >>> >>> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >>> >>> Anyway back to seismic. >>> >>> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors >>> originating out of the Building Code Chapter 16. It's not just an >>> arbitrary decision. >>> >>> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >>> classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >>> >>> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a >>> requirement for bracing is established. >>> >>> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it made no >>> sense since the building structure wasn't design for the loading and the >>> rest of the system was not protected but it was required by the code so it >>> had to be done. Was it required on the original install, did someone just >>> miss it assuming the site wasn't in "the zone", who knows. >>> >>> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design professionals >>> regard when it's required and when it's not. >>> >>> Craig L. Prahl >>> Fire Protection Group Lead >>> CH2MHILL >>> Lockwood Greene >>> 1500 International Drive >>> Spartanburg, SC 29303 >>> Direct - 864.599.4102 >>> Fax - 864.599.8439 >>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Steve Sorrell >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Seismic bracing >>> >>> I need some help with a seismic problem. >>> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are using >>> the 2000 ed of NFPA 13. >>> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >>> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >>> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will need to be >>> braced. >>> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just a >>> preference of the local AHJ ? >>> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on this >>> project. >>> >>> >>> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >>> NICET# 77901 Level III >>> E mail: >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >>> Corporate Office >>> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >>> Mooresville, NC 28117 >>> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >>> >>> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >>> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >>> >>> "Performance on Every Level." >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:31:02 -0500 >From: Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > >As usual I spoke too hastily. The building code section omitting >seismic requirements is in another chapter, 1701. Since the seismic >design category is "B", no seismic protection is required. > >The above is my opinion only, and does not reflect the position of the >NFPA 13 committee on Hanging and Bracing. >*Ken Wagoner, SET >*Parsley Consulting*** >*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >*Escondido, California 92025 >*****Phone 760-745-6181* >Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> > >*** >On 9/5/2014 11:29 AM, Parsley Consulting wrote: >> Based on the research from the information Steve provided, his Seismic >> Design Category is B. It seems that the North Carolina Building Code >> mandates that any fire sprinkler system to conform to ASCE7 section >> 13.6.8, which makes no distinction for seismic design categories. >> >> One good thing, though, is that according to the USGS the Ss value for >> the site is 0.181, which would make his Cp value 0.35, which is about >> as low as it gets. >> >> Still looking into this, but at this moment it looks like the >> requirements in chapter 9.3 of NFPA 13 would be applicable. >> >> Just shaking my head. >> *Ken Wagoner, SET >> *Parsley Consulting*** >> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >> *Escondido, California 92025 >> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** >> On 9/5/2014 1:15 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote: >>> Not that I disagree with the SE's needing to do the analysis but when >>> you don't have an SE in a pinch you can try this: >>> >>> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php >>> >>> True you may not know the soils but if you play around sometimes it >>> doesn't make a difference and you can move on. >>> >>> And FWIW I don't see this as complicated really. Whether or not NFPA >>> 13 9.3 is required is if SDC is C or higher, ain't the sprinkler's >>> job to figure out SDC. But once told it's C or higher follow 9.3. >>> 9.3 is straight forward and includes calcs. And if there is SE >>> involved just look at plan page S001 usually. It'll tell you SDC and >>> Ss. You don't even need to call SE. >>> >>> With regards to existing building I'd expect the portions that are >>> worked on to be in compliance with 9.3 even when the building may not >>> be when SDC is C. Thought is what you work on needs to be >>> compliant. Eventually when they work on the structure it will be >>> brought into compliance? We see this in exiting too. Re-arrange >>> part of a building and that part should be new. The parts beyond >>> sometimes don't meet new but meet existing. As long as occupancies >>> didn't change no problem. Change occupancies and it gets more >>> complicated. >>> >>> Chris Cahill, PE* >>> Associate Fire Protection Engineer >>> Burns & McDonnell >>> Phone: 952.656.3652 >>> Fax: 952.229.2923 >>> [email protected] >>> www.burnsmcd.com >>> *Registered in: MN >>> >>> >>> Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:34 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >>> >>> Since it is an existing building I doubt any of the things you have >>> listed will be done. I guess I look at getting it done without doing >>> any harm so the owner can use the building. The alternative appears >>> to be telling the owner it's not their responsibility and that he has >>> to get an architect, structural engineer, soils report and have as >>> builts done for the whole building and so on and so on so that the >>> sprinkler contractor can properly design a sway brace. >>> Ron F >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Jim Davidson >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:28 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >>> >>> The seismic design classification should be determined by the >>> structural engineer who determines the SDC of the site. Once the SDC >>> is determined then you can go into either, ASCE 7 or Chapter 16 of >>> the IBC, to determine the building's importance factor and other >>> determining factors to decide when earthquake bracing is required. >>> For example in most cases a building has a SDC of C then the >>> mechanical and electrical systems with an importance factor of less >>> than 1.5 do not have to seismically brace the systems however systems >>> with an importance factor equal to or greater than 1.5 (fire alarm, >>> sprinkler, fire pump, stair tower pressurization, etc) are required >>> to be seismically braced. Then you can go to NFPA 13 or the IBC for >>> the details on bracing and the zone of influence calculations required. >>> >>> Because of the soil and underground geological analysis the >>> structural engineer will need to determine the SDC of the site. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES >>> >>> Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 >>> Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 >>> (302) 994-9500 >>> Fax (302) 994-3414 >>> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY >>> This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be >>> privileged. >>> If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this >>> report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender >>> immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, >>> use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. >>> Thank you for your cooperation. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:16 PM >>> To: sprinklerforum >>> Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh boy, here we go again. Every time the subject of seismic bracing >>> / protection comes up, it shows that there is a general lack of >>> understanding among contractors and designers (myself included) as to >>> when it is required, what is required, and how to do it correctly. >>> We need more education - just reading NFPA13 is not enough. Can >>> anyone suggest any good classes available out there? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bill Menster >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: "sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 11:10:38 AM >>> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >>> >>> Some jurisdictions around here require what we call "feel good >>> bracing". They don't require calculations, or that the building be >>> designed to any seismic standard, they just want the minimum bracing. >>> If we want a green tag we have to put it in. I guess in this case the >>> question would be if the only requirement is local dictate can you >>> install at the max spacing and not do any calc's provided it is >>> acceptable to the AHJ? Ron F >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Parsley Consulting >>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:11 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Seismic bracing >>> >>> Stephen, >>> I don't believe the AHJ you're dealing with has thought this >>> decision through very carefully. They seem to be equating "seismic >>> bracing" with "seismic protection", which includes such other >>> features as flexible couplings, clearance requirements, seismic >>> separation assemblies, restraint of branch lines, and certain hanger >>> requirements in a building protected against seismic damage. Section >>> 9.3 covers more than just seismic bracing. >>> I would recommend you ask the AHJ if they're going to require >>> all of the features in NFPA 13 for seismic protection, or just >>> lateral, longitudinal and riser bracing. >>> It's also relevant to note that if you're going to provide >>> seismic bracing you have to make sure you comply with 9.3.5.1.2 >>> (2007), which requires the structure to be able to withstand the >>> applied seismic loads. Based on what you've described I would wager >>> a few dollars that they could not do so. >>> And, if you still have a mandate to brace, ask the AHJ to >>> provide the Ss value for the building, per 9.3.5.6.2. >>> Craig Prahl is correct, in that a requirement for seismic >>> protection of a building is based on the location of the building in >>> a seismic zone, and it's occupancy or use. While it isn't a >>> complicated set of data to find and apply correctly, you're not a >>> structural or soils engineer, and that is certainly not your >>> responsibility. >>> This is a bad idea without something more to back it up. You >>> did mention that the building code requires it, can you be more >>> specific? >>> *Ken Wagoner, SET* >>> **Parsley Consulting*** >>> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >>> *Escondido, California 92025 >>> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >>> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/5/2014 >>> 8:31 AM, Steve Sorrell wrote: >>>> Sorry, should have read 2007 edition >>>> >>>> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >>>> NICET# 77901 Level III >>>> E mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >>>> Corporate Office >>>> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >>>> Mooresville, NC 28117 >>>> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >>>> >>>> Web: www.performancefire.com >>>> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >>>> >>>> "Performance on Every Level." >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sprinklerforum >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> [email protected] >>>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:33 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: RE: Seismic bracing >>>> >>>> The AHJ can't just "require it". His preference is not relevant. >>>> Also seismic bracing is not based on Zones or Maps anymore, hasn't >>>> been for quite a while. >>>> >>>> I'm curious why you're using the 2000 edition of NFPA 13. >>>> >>>> Anyway back to seismic. >>>> >>>> Seismic requirements are determined based on a number of factors >>>> originating out of the Building Code Chapter 16. It's not just an >>>> arbitrary decision. >>>> >>>> There needs to be a geotech (soils) report, the building needs to be >>>> classified as to its use/function and you go from there. >>>> >>>> So there are engineering questions to be answered before there a >>>> requirement for bracing is established. >>>> >>>> I've had to provide bracing on new work in an existing building, it >>>> made no sense since the building structure wasn't design for the >>>> loading and the rest of the system was not protected but it was >>>> required by the code so it had to be done. Was it required on the >>>> original install, did someone just miss it assuming the site wasn't >>>> in "the zone", who knows. >>>> >>>> There is a lot of misinterpretation on the part of design >>>> professionals regard when it's required and when it's not. >>>> >>>> Craig L. Prahl >>>> Fire Protection Group Lead >>>> CH2MHILL >>>> Lockwood Greene >>>> 1500 International Drive >>>> Spartanburg, SC 29303 >>>> Direct - 864.599.4102 >>>> Fax - 864.599.8439 >>>> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sprinklerforum >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> Steve Sorrell >>>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:13 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Seismic bracing >>>> >>>> I need some help with a seismic problem. >>>> I am making modifications to a 1970's sprinkler system in NC, we are >>>> using the 2000 ed of NFPA 13. >>>> There is no seismic bracing on this system. >>>> I have had to add some new main in various areas. >>>> The local AHJ is requiring that only the new sprinkler main will >>>> need to be braced. >>>> Does anyone know if this is an actual standards requirement or just >>>> a preference of the local AHJ ? >>>> Obviously I am trying to avoid installing the seismic bracing on >>>> this project. >>>> >>>> >>>> Stephen J. Sorrell, CET >>>> NICET# 77901 Level III >>>> E mail: >>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Performance Fire Protection, LLC >>>> Corporate Office >>>> 179 Gasoline Alley - PO Box 4510 >>>> Mooresville, NC 28117 >>>> Phone: 704-663-1664 Fax: 704-663-1652 Cell : 704-309-1242 >>>> >>>> Web: www.performancefire.com<http://www.performancefire.com/> >>>> Licensed in NC, SC, VA, TN, GA, AL >>>> >>>> "Performance on Every Level." >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 8 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 06:43:15 -0500 >From: Dewayne Martinez <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >?probes? and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust >collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and >ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 9 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:26:45 +0000 >From: "Taylor, Galen" <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > >In California, the state mechanical code would most likely govern the >installation of such ductwork and any required fire protection. Alternatively, >contact the local fire authority having jurisdiction to seek their position on >the issue. > >Galen Taylor >County of Los Angeles Fire Department >Fire Prevention Engineering >323-890-4339 >[email protected] > >________________________________________ >From: Sprinklerforum [[email protected]] on >behalf of Dewayne Martinez [[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >?probes? and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust >collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and >ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 10 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:32:07 +0000 >From: "Taylor, Galen" <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > >Also, a fume hood connected to a dust collector seems incongruent. Two >different functions should have two separate systems. > >Galen Taylor >County of Los Angeles Fire Department >Fire Prevention Engineering >________________________________________ >From: Sprinklerforum [[email protected]] on >behalf of Taylor, Galen [[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 6:26 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >In California, the state mechanical code would most likely govern the >installation of such ductwork and any required fire protection. Alternatively, >contact the local fire authority having jurisdiction to seek their position on >the issue. > >Galen Taylor >County of Los Angeles Fire Department >Fire Prevention Engineering >323-890-4339 >[email protected] > >________________________________________ >From: Sprinklerforum [[email protected]] on >behalf of Dewayne Martinez [[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >?probes? and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust >collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and >ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne >_______________________________________________ >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 > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 11 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:56:20 -0400 >From: "Bill Brooks" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >Another case of the difference between "when required" and "how to do it". >The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous Exhaust >Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying Systems) provide >guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a sprinkler contractor to >figure out whether sprinklers should be installed but only to install per the >appropriate standard. As with most of these issues, we don't know if there is >a design professional on this job or whether your regular customer has just >installed a new process and has called you to do what's required. At a >minimum you should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this location. > >So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section 510/511 from >end to end. There is a suppression system reference in Section 510.7. Some >determination needs to be made as to whether the materials are "nonflammable >and noncombustible under all conditions and at any concentration" then make >the call on suppression. The entire exhaust system must be engineered to meet >the performance characteristics in the IMC. > >Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local AHJ, >insurance requirements etc. > >Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, with no >good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. > >Bill Brooks > >William N. Brooks, P.E. >Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. >372 Wilett Drive >Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 >410-544-3620 >410-544-3032 FAX >412-400-6528 Cell > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust collector. >How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 12 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:06:31 -0500 >From: Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Just throw some heads in there like you knew they were required. If Woodrow >Call was the AHJ he might say "better to have heads and not need them than to >need them and not have them" > >> On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:56 AM, "Bill Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Another case of the difference between "when required" and "how to do it". >> The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous Exhaust >> Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying Systems) provide >> guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a sprinkler contractor to >> figure out whether sprinklers should be installed but only to install per >> the appropriate standard. As with most of these issues, we don't know if >> there is a design professional on this job or whether your regular customer >> has just installed a new process and has called you to do what's required. >> At a minimum you should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this >> location. >> >> So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section 510/511 >> from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in Section 510.7. >> Some determination needs to be made as to whether the materials are >> "nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions and at any >> concentration" then make the call on suppression. The entire exhaust system >> must be engineered to meet the performance characteristics in the IMC. >> >> Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local AHJ, >> insurance requirements etc. >> >> Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, with no >> good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. >> >> Bill Brooks >> >> William N. Brooks, P.E. >> Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. >> 372 Wilett Drive >> Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 >> 410-544-3620 >> 410-544-3032 FAX >> 412-400-6528 Cell >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >> >> I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >> castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >> probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust >> collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and >> ductwork? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dewayne >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 13 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 16:32:03 +0000 >From: <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Quite honestly you should throw this back to the owner/GC to have a mechanical >engineer or vendor determine what is required per code. > >There are several conditions to be considered. > >Craig L. Prahl >Fire Protection Group Lead >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >Spartanburg, SC? 29303 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >[email protected] > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >?probes? and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust collector. > How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >------------------------------ > >Message: 14 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:39:21 -0500 >From: Dewayne Martinez <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >There is no ME for the project and the HVAC contractor who is providing it >brought up the question on whether sprinklers are required. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:32 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >Quite honestly you should throw this back to the owner/GC to have a >mechanical engineer or vendor determine what is required per code. > >There are several conditions to be considered. > >Craig L. Prahl >Fire Protection Group Lead >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >Spartanburg, SC 29303 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >[email protected] > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >?probes? and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust >collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and >ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne >_______________________________________________ >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 > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 15 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:42:13 -0700 >From: "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: > <cakskedbrwl-8q8n_uvvh34amreu1piqqmdk--ftby6h8+e2...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >Brad, I had an AHJ like that: sprinklers are better than no sprinklers >always make a customer sprinkler a building that contained a 1000F degree >molten salt bath process. even though the manufacturer said that water and >molten salt don't mix. The AHJ's solution was to shield the machine from >the sprinklers. That comprised a $37,000.00 hood that left about three feet >of floor on either side, and eight feet at the ends protected by the >sprinklers. The machine itself had four levels of redundancy against >thermostat failure and each thermostat was an electronic device that >reported it's condition to a central processor that was also in a fail-safe >mode. harder to get the thing to turn on than to shut down. "Stupid, stupid >rat creatures." A beer to the first one that can name the reference for the >quoted materials (without using the internet). > > >On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Just throw some heads in there like you knew they were required. If >> Woodrow Call was the AHJ he might say "better to have heads and not need >> them than to need them and not have them" >> >> > On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:56 AM, "Bill Brooks" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Another case of the difference between "when required" and "how to do >> it". The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous >> Exhaust Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying Systems) >> provide guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a sprinkler >> contractor to figure out whether sprinklers should be installed but only to >> install per the appropriate standard. As with most of these issues, we >> don't know if there is a design professional on this job or whether your >> regular customer has just installed a new process and has called you to do >> what's required. At a minimum you should have a copy of the IMC which is >> enforced for this location. >> > >> > So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section >> 510/511 from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in >> Section 510.7. Some determination needs to be made as to whether the >> materials are "nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions and at >> any concentration" then make the call on suppression. The entire exhaust >> system must be engineered to meet the performance characteristics in the >> IMC. >> > >> > Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local AHJ, >> insurance requirements etc. >> > >> > Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, with >> no good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. >> > >> > Bill Brooks >> > >> > William N. Brooks, P.E. >> > Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. >> > 372 Wilett Drive >> > Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 >> > 410-544-3620 >> > 410-544-3032 FAX >> > 412-400-6528 Cell >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne >> Martinez >> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >> > >> > I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >> castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >> probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust >> collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and >> ductwork? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Dewayne >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > >-- >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, WFSC > >They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, >essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, >inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 16 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 16:56:17 +0000 >From: <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: > > <a3087603e3174e439969266f4feb829d1484b...@044-ch1mpn1-031.044d.mgd.msft.net> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Battlefield earth? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of rongreenman . >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:42 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >Brad, I had an AHJ like that: sprinklers are better than no sprinklers always >make a customer sprinkler a building that contained a 1000F degree molten salt >bath process. even though the manufacturer said that water and molten salt >don't mix. The AHJ's solution was to shield the machine from the sprinklers. >That comprised a $37,000.00 hood that left about three feet of floor on either >side, and eight feet at the ends protected by the sprinklers. The machine >itself had four levels of redundancy against thermostat failure and each >thermostat was an electronic device that reported it's condition to a central >processor that was also in a fail-safe mode. harder to get the thing to turn >on than to shut down. "Stupid, stupid rat creatures." A beer to the first one >that can name the reference for the quoted materials (without using the >internet). > > >On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Just throw some heads in there like you knew they were required. If >> Woodrow Call was the AHJ he might say "better to have heads and not >> need them than to need them and not have them" >> >> > On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:56 AM, "Bill Brooks" >> > <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Another case of the difference between "when required" and "how to >> > do >> it". The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous >> Exhaust Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying >> Systems) provide guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a >> sprinkler contractor to figure out whether sprinklers should be >> installed but only to install per the appropriate standard. As with >> most of these issues, we don't know if there is a design professional >> on this job or whether your regular customer has just installed a new >> process and has called you to do what's required. At a minimum you >> should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this location. >> > >> > So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section >> 510/511 from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in >> Section 510.7. Some determination needs to be made as to whether the >> materials are "nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions >> and at any concentration" then make the call on suppression. The >> entire exhaust system must be engineered to meet the performance >> characteristics in the IMC. >> > >> > Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local >> > AHJ, >> insurance requirements etc. >> > >> > Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, >> > with >> no good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. >> > >> > Bill Brooks >> > >> > William N. Brooks, P.E. >> > Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. >> > 372 Wilett Drive >> > Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 >> > 410-544-3620 >> > 410-544-3032 FAX >> > 412-400-6528 Cell >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne >> Martinez >> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >> > >> > I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal >> > for >> castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the >> used probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a >> dust collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the >> hood and ductwork? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Dewayne >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.org >> > > > >-- >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, WFSC > >They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, >essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, >inventor and engineer (1876-1958) >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 17 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 10:04:16 -0700 >From: "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: > <CAKSKedZO=991zty9yhksrg7ws5u0p98ay_q5suy9h8tphm6...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >Nope. > > > >On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Battlefield earth? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of rongreenman . >> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:42 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >> >> Brad, I had an AHJ like that: sprinklers are better than no sprinklers >> always make a customer sprinkler a building that contained a 1000F degree >> molten salt bath process. even though the manufacturer said that water and >> molten salt don't mix. The AHJ's solution was to shield the machine from >> the sprinklers. That comprised a $37,000.00 hood that left about three feet >> of floor on either side, and eight feet at the ends protected by the >> sprinklers. The machine itself had four levels of redundancy against >> thermostat failure and each thermostat was an electronic device that >> reported it's condition to a central processor that was also in a fail-safe >> mode. harder to get the thing to turn on than to shut down. "Stupid, stupid >> rat creatures." A beer to the first one that can name the reference for the >> quoted materials (without using the internet). >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Just throw some heads in there like you knew they were required. If >> > Woodrow Call was the AHJ he might say "better to have heads and not >> > need them than to need them and not have them" >> > >> > > On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:56 AM, "Bill Brooks" >> > > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Another case of the difference between "when required" and "how to >> > > do >> > it". The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous >> > Exhaust Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying >> > Systems) provide guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a >> > sprinkler contractor to figure out whether sprinklers should be >> > installed but only to install per the appropriate standard. As with >> > most of these issues, we don't know if there is a design professional >> > on this job or whether your regular customer has just installed a new >> > process and has called you to do what's required. At a minimum you >> > should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this location. >> > > >> > > So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section >> > 510/511 from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in >> > Section 510.7. Some determination needs to be made as to whether the >> > materials are "nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions >> > and at any concentration" then make the call on suppression. The >> > entire exhaust system must be engineered to meet the performance >> > characteristics in the IMC. >> > > >> > > Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local >> > > AHJ, >> > insurance requirements etc. >> > > >> > > Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, >> > > with >> > no good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. >> > > >> > > Bill Brooks >> > > >> > > William N. Brooks, P.E. >> > > Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. >> > > 372 Wilett Drive >> > > Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 >> > > 410-544-3620 >> > > 410-544-3032 FAX >> > > 412-400-6528 Cell >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne >> > Martinez >> > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >> > > >> > > I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal >> > > for >> > castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the >> > used probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a >> > dust collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the >> > hood and ductwork? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Dewayne >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 _______________________________________________ >> > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > >> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> > er.org >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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, WFSC >> >> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >> >> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, >> inventor and engineer (1876-1958) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > >-- >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, WFSC > >They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, >essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, >inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 18 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:13:36 -0500 >From: Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Mine is a Pulitzer Prize winning epic adventure of the old American west Ron >F. I have no idea what Ron G's is, but I know he knows what mine is and >hopefully will let me have a sip or two > >> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:04 PM, "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nope. >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Battlefield earth? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of rongreenman . >>> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:42 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >>> >>> Brad, I had an AHJ like that: sprinklers are better than no sprinklers >>> always make a customer sprinkler a building that contained a 1000F degree >>> molten salt bath process. even though the manufacturer said that water and >>> molten salt don't mix. The AHJ's solution was to shield the machine from >>> the sprinklers. That comprised a $37,000.00 hood that left about three feet >>> of floor on either side, and eight feet at the ends protected by the >>> sprinklers. The machine itself had four levels of redundancy against >>> thermostat failure and each thermostat was an electronic device that >>> reported it's condition to a central processor that was also in a fail-safe >>> mode. harder to get the thing to turn on than to shut down. "Stupid, stupid >>> rat creatures." A beer to the first one that can name the reference for the >>> quoted materials (without using the internet). >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Just throw some heads in there like you knew they were required. If >>>> Woodrow Call was the AHJ he might say "better to have heads and not >>>> need them than to need them and not have them" >>>> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 8:56 AM, "Bill Brooks" >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Another case of the difference between "when required" and "how to >>>>> do >>>> it". The International Mechanical Code (2012) Sections 510 (Hazardous >>>> Exhaust Systems) and Section 511 (Dust, Stock and Refuse Conveying >>>> Systems) provide guidance on this. Again, it shouldn't be up to a >>>> sprinkler contractor to figure out whether sprinklers should be >>>> installed but only to install per the appropriate standard. As with >>>> most of these issues, we don't know if there is a design professional >>>> on this job or whether your regular customer has just installed a new >>>> process and has called you to do what's required. At a minimum you >>>> should have a copy of the IMC which is enforced for this location. >>>>> >>>>> So, someone (you??) must assess the installation per IMC Section >>>> 510/511 from end to end. There is a suppression system reference in >>>> Section 510.7. Some determination needs to be made as to whether the >>>> materials are "nonflammable and noncombustible under all conditions >>>> and at any concentration" then make the call on suppression. The >>>> entire exhaust system must be engineered to meet the performance >>>> characteristics in the IMC. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, local code amendments will govern as well as any local >>>>> AHJ, >>>> insurance requirements etc. >>>>> >>>>> Sprinkler contractors have a long history of being the can-do guys, >>>>> with >>>> no good way to transfer scope responsibility to the right place. >>>>> >>>>> Bill Brooks >>>>> >>>>> William N. Brooks, P.E. >>>>> Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. >>>>> 372 Wilett Drive >>>>> Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 >>>>> 410-544-3620 >>>>> 410-544-3032 FAX >>>>> 412-400-6528 Cell >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne >>>> Martinez >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >>>>> >>>>> I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal >>>>> for >>>> castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the >>>> used probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a >>>> dust collector. How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the >>>> hood and ductwork? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Dewayne >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >>>> er.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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, WFSC >>> >>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>> >>> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, >>> inventor and engineer (1876-1958) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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, WFSC >> >> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, >> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >> >> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, >> inventor and engineer (1876-1958) >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 19 >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:16:15 -0400 >From: "Bill Brooks" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >Again, without any information about which codes are in effect, you should >start with the IMC as I indicated earlier. No one on this list can actually >give you an answer, and, as Ron has shown, sprinklering everything is not >always the correct answer. Craig's response is pretty much what is necessary. > In the absence of other information, perhaps you will have to hire someone to >make the assessment. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:39 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >There is no ME for the project and the HVAC contractor who is providing it >brought up the question on whether sprinklers are required. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of [email protected] >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:32 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >Quite honestly you should throw this back to the owner/GC to have a mechanical >engineer or vendor determine what is required per code. > >There are several conditions to be considered. > >Craig L. Prahl >Fire Protection Group Lead >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >Spartanburg, SC 29303 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >[email protected] > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:43 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: fume hood / dust collector - sprinklers in? > >I have a job where they have a small furnace to create molten metal for >castings. There is a hood (2x8ft) above the area where they take the used >probes and clean them off. This duct work goes outside to a dust collector. >How do I determine if sprinklers are needed in the hood and ductwork? > >Thanks, > >Dewayne >_______________________________________________ >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 > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 20 >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:05:08 -0500 >From: Steve Muncy <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: No reception at convention >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > >Due to scheduling issues during the AFSA upcoming convention, we will not be >able to have a SprinklerForum reception this year. I?m hoping we can schedule >one next year in Phoenix. > >I?ve had a few inquiries about it, so I thought I should pass this along. > >Thanks for your interest. > > > >Steve A. Muncy, CAE - President >American Fire Sprinkler Assn. -- FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES! >Dallas, TX >http://www.firesprinkler.org/ > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 21 >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:34:18 -0400 >From: Jay Stough <[email protected]> >To: Sprinkler Forum <[email protected]> >Subject: Commodity classification >Message-ID: > <CAHKKE-cgFQr0LPkj4Rg9R6PMHzPpAGEK7bNjhVyqPKh=x_q...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >I am trying to figure out the correct classification ( NFPA 13 2010 or >2013) for a warehouse. It is food grade powders used in food and medical >use. it is stored in fiberboard containers on pallets exactly as shown in >this link ( >http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23417&catid=692). I have >gone through the examples and read the paragraphs on classification, but am >not sure which it is. I am thinking Class II and 1 upgrade for the >pallets. I don't think they are reinforced since they are always breaking >them. > >-- >*Jay Stough* >NICET IV LAYOUT >NICET III ITM > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 22 >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:52:56 -0400 >From: "Art Tiroly" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Commodity classification >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Is the powdered product combustible? Likely yes. Then It is likely class 3 >. >Powder may be explosion hazard like flour or grain dust. > >ART >ATCO Fire > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Jay Stough >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:34 PM >To: Sprinkler Forum >Subject: Commodity classification > >I am trying to figure out the correct classification ( NFPA 13 2010 or >2013) for a warehouse. It is food grade powders used in food and medical >use. it is stored in fiberboard containers on pallets exactly as shown in >this link ( >http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23417&catid=692). I have >gone through the examples and read the paragraphs on classification, but am >not sure which it is. I am thinking Class II and 1 upgrade for the pallets. >I don't think they are reinforced since they are always breaking them. > >-- >*Jay Stough* >NICET IV LAYOUT >NICET III ITM >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 23 >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:12:13 +0000 >From: "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E." <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Commodity classification >Message-ID: > <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >My instinct tells me class III for the food-grade powders, with maybe a >classification reduction if they can easily flow out of broken containers. > >But then a class upgrade for the plastic pallets...?...back up to class III or >maybe IV of not 'flowable." > >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 Art Tiroly >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:53 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Commodity classification > >Is the powdered product combustible? Likely yes. Then It is likely class 3 . >Powder may be explosion hazard like flour or grain dust. > >ART >ATCO Fire > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Jay Stough >Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:34 PM >To: Sprinkler Forum >Subject: Commodity classification > >I am trying to figure out the correct classification ( NFPA 13 2010 or >2013) for a warehouse. It is food grade powders used in food and medical use. > it is stored in fiberboard containers on pallets exactly as shown in this >link ( http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23417&catid=692). I >have gone through the examples and read the paragraphs on classification, but >am not sure which it is. I am thinking Class II and 1 upgrade for the pallets. >I don't think they are reinforced since they are always breaking them. > >-- >*Jay Stough* >NICET IV LAYOUT >NICET III ITM >_______________________________________________ >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 > >______________________________________________________________________ >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/ >______________________________________________________________________ > >------------------------------ > >Message: 24 >Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:09:52 -0400 >From: Jay Stough <[email protected]> >To: Sprinkler Forum <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Commodity classification >Message-ID: > <cahkke-f9mkxwfptfg55oydlqhakxreefucrbuvxar3zynek...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >It is a non-combustible and free flowing. > >On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> My instinct tells me class III for the food-grade powders, with maybe a >> classification reduction if they can easily flow out of broken containers. >> >> But then a class upgrade for the plastic pallets...?...back up to class >> III or maybe IV of not 'flowable." >> >> 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 Art Tiroly >> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:53 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Commodity classification >> >> Is the powdered product combustible? Likely yes. Then It is likely class >> 3 . >> Powder may be explosion hazard like flour or grain dust. >> >> ART >> ATCO Fire >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> [email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Jay Stough >> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:34 PM >> To: Sprinkler Forum >> Subject: Commodity classification >> >> I am trying to figure out the correct classification ( NFPA 13 2010 or >> 2013) for a warehouse. It is food grade powders used in food and medical >> use. it is stored in fiberboard containers on pallets exactly as shown in >> this link ( >> http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23417&catid=692). I >> have gone through the examples and read the paragraphs on classification, >> but am not sure which it is. I am thinking Class II and 1 upgrade for the >> pallets. >> I don't think they are reinforced since they are always breaking them. >> >> -- >> *Jay Stough* >> NICET IV LAYOUT >> NICET III ITM >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > >-- >*Jay Stough* >NICET IV LAYOUT >NICET III ITM > > >------------------------------ > >Subject: Digest Footer > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > >------------------------------ > >End of Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 18, Issue 2 >********************************************* > > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
