Valves are open and no paint on the spinklers as far as i know Craig On Mar 31, 2016 4:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> So what exactly is the purpose and scope of an inspection? > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > 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 Brad > Casterline > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > Because that 'impairment' thinking creates endless difficulties for Insp. > Sprinks. > Poke your head up through that missing tile and look at the rated wall > penetrations; does everything still look like the perfect and beautiful and > approved detail you submitted on your plans? > My guess is: > Uhhh, NOPES > On Mar 31, 2016 1:48 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could you not cite it as deficient or non-compliant if the sprinklers > exceed the maximum allowable distance below the deck above? > > If you had a ceiling 4 ft below the deck with pdt sprinklers in it, we > know you can't install a sprinklers out in the open 4 ft below the deck > based on obstructed or unobstructed construction rules. We also don't > install sprinklers out in space with pie pans on them anymore either to > "catch the heat". > > Also the ceiling is where the heat collects to set off the room > sprinklers. If there is no ceiling or the ceiling is now incomplete, where > will heat collect, above the ceiling in the unprotected area. This could > delay sprinkler operation. > > So if the installation was based on a compete ceiling being provided in > order for sprinklers to operate properly, why wouldn't an incomplete > ceiling be considered the same as any other impairment? > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > 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 Jay Stough > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:20 PM > To: Sprinkler Forum <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Missing ceiling tiles > > I don't see how I can cite the building code, fire code or NFPA 101 if I > am doing an NFPA 25 inspection. And as far as allowing openings in the > ceiling, I am sure there are no sprinklers above the ceiling or that the > tiles are removed due to the reasons cited in 13. I guess the best way to > denote it is as a change in the building per chapter 4 since the code or > fire official probably did not accept the building with missing tiles or > they were not missing last year. > > *Jay Stough* > NICET IV LAYOUT > NICET III ITM > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Larrimer, Peter A < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > John, > > > > I am not sure what your finding is, but I would be careful when > > trying to use that for a missing escutcheon for a sprinkler. That > > paragraph in NFPA > > 101 allows a penetration (of a pipe likely) in a smoke barrier that > > has a fire resistance rating to be sealed by an non-combustible > > escutcheon plate provided the gap around the pipe isn't greater than > > 1/2 inch. It would only apply if the barrier was a smoke barrier with > > a fire resistance rating and it is a membrane protection (one side of > > the wall) and it wouldn't actually require an escutcheon plate. That > > paragraph in NFPA 101 will likely not be a very helpful reference when > > trying to require a sprinkler to have an escutcheon. Hope this helps. > > > > Thanks > > > > Pete Larrimer > > VA > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John > > Allen, CET, CFPS > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:40 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > > > This is the code we use to support our findings: > > > > NFPA 101 (2012) 8.5.6.4 Where sprinklers penetrate a single membrane > of > > a fire resistance rated assembly in buildings equipped throughout with > > an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, noncombustible escutcheon > > plates shall be permitted, provided that the space around each > > sprinkler penetration does not exceed 1/2 in. (13 mm), measured > > between the edge of the membrane and the sprinkler. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > John Allen, CET, CFPS > > President > > > > > > > > AFS: Allen Fire & Security > > Your Safety is Our Success > > Direct: 770.715.7261 | Office: 770.723.7280 Ext 2 | Fax: 678.894.4180 > > > > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email This > > email contains proprietary and confidential material for the sole use > > of the intended recipient and is the sole property of AFS. Any > > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others without the > > permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the > > intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), > > please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the > message. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of michael G > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:08 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > > > As a general rule we have always noted if there is missing tile in the > > room, (near the edges away from the sprinklers. I know that I have > > always written it up as a deficiency if the tile was out within a 5ft > > area around the sprinkler. if it's a small closet or storage room and > > its missing a tile or two, then I have written it down as a deficiency > > as well due to the potential for the heat loss not allowing for the > > activation of the sprinkler. > > > > As for the missing escutcheons, (this is my opinion) I don't see why > > they wouldn't be a critical deficiency due to the listings on the > sprinklers. > > The sprinklers are listed with the plate to be installed in the manner > > for the plate that it was installed with ( recessed, flush, Concealed, > 401). > > > > But you are definitely correct in the statement that this is a gray > > area in NFPA #25. I guess if we step back and think about the > > original installation of the ceilings and sprinklers, when the system > > was bought off by the fire marshal, wasn't it required to have all the > > tile in at the time of his walk through? So why wouldn't the building > > still be required to have all the tiles in place on a NFPA 25 inspection. > > > > Michael Goodis > > Estimator, Project Manager > > IL#000635 NICET#135586 > > Key Fire Protection Enterprises LLC > > 3200 Mike Padgett HWY > > Augusta, GA 30906 > > Office- (706)790-3473 > > Cell- (706) 220-8822 > > Fax: (706) 738-2119 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] > > On Behalf Of Jay Stough > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:33 AM > > To: Sprinkler Forum > > Subject: Missing ceiling tiles > > > > We are having a discussion as to whether missing ceiling tiles are a > > deficiency in NFPA 25. It does not specifically mention it, but it is > > a non-critical deficiency if it is missing escutcheons and cover > > plates on semi-recessed, recessed and concealed sprinklers. Wouldn't > > missing ceiling tiles create the same problem in a room with a drop > > ceiling? I would think it would really screw up the air flow of heat > > to the sprinklers if there are 2' X 2' or 2' X 4' holes in the ceilings. > > > > *Jay Stough* > > NICET IV LAYOUT > > NICET III ITM > > _______________________________________________ > > 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-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
