Ron,
The scenario you described (and loss of smoke alarms when the power is
cutout as well) creates whats referred to as an unsafe structure (lack of
fire protection). The building is posted, fire department advised and
occupancy prohibited until protection is restored. The order to restore
such
A branch line can be a single head per the definition in NFPA 13. Does
this mean each arm-over, drop, or return bend regardless of length must
have a branch line restraint? It seems sprigs are given special
attention in Chapter 9 but the other categories of branch line are not.
I guess I'm
Bill, I do not see the definition that way. I think you are reading into it
to much. The Pipes supplying sprinklerS, either directly, or Through..
Sprigs, drops, etc It is making a distinction in the different ones,
further clarified by the definitions for sprig, drop, armover., etc..
R/
The way we view that is, if you have a pipe from a cross main feeding a
sprinkler or sprinklers - this would require a restraint - it is a branch
line.
Branch lines supply sprinkler(s) directly or through sprigs, drops, return
bends, or arm-overs - only branch lines require them per 9.3.6 so the
Why not re-calc with K81 and see if the pipe sizes still work? You are not
mixing orifice sizes for balancing so there is now rule against.
Ron Fletcher
Aero Automatic
Phoenix, AZ
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aydin ÖZKAYA
Sent:
Thanks for all of the input. If I were writing code I would strongly
encourage the use of outside PIVs. In the cold parts of the world, it
gives easier access to control the water line to the sprinklers inside
the building, without having to dig through snow or chip away ice.
I like the idea of
Both K 7.9 and K 8.1 are in the same allowed range so are considered
the same. You are suppose to be using the nominal K factor for both.
Roland
On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:28 AM, Aydın ÖZKAYA wrote:
Let me give some more details:
- area is approx. 2500 m2 single space
- the ocupancy
I disagree that the definition states a single sprinkler is a branch
line. It says supplying sprinklers (plural) and that pipe can have
individual sprinklers off of it feeding arm-overs, sprigs etc. Just
like risers are all vertical pipes (for 4 way braces) but a sprig is
excluded since
The only reason I say a pipe feeding a single sprinkler can be a branch line
is per definition.
3.5.1 BRANCH LINES The pipes supplying sprinklers
3.5.2 CROSS MAINS The pipes supplying the branch lines either directly or
through risers.
3.5.9 ARM-OVER A horizontal pipe that extends from a
Would you be calculating the interior piping for the combined flows of
the exterior streams and interior sprinkler system? Keeping in mind
that a wall hydrant - if it's a real wall hydrant and part of the site
fire flow design - would likely have to discharge 1500 GPM minimum,
perhaps more per
NFPA-13 2007 Chapter 3.5 specifically defines branch lines, cross
mains, feed, mains, risers, arm-over, etc.
Mark E. Eckard S.E.T.
Engineering Manager
Lowe's Companies
1605 Curtis Bridge Road
REEC Dock
Wilkesboro, N.C. 28697
Phone: (336) 658-4359
Fax: (336) 658-3257
Cell: (336) 467-0194
Email:
All the discussion on the branch line restraint has reminded me to ask the
question regarding T-Bar penetration per the 2007 CBC. Chapter 13 address
Seismic Design for Categories D through F which is basically all of
California. Has anyone come across this or have seen it enforced?
Bobby is correct. I have talked to NFPA on this matter and had an informal
interpretation done.
Steven P. Biship, P.E.
Pacific Fire Engineering
www.pacificfireeng.com
The only reason I say a pipe feeding a single sprinkler can be a branch
line
is per definition.
3.5.1 BRANCH LINES The
If it has a sprinkler head (Up down or around) on the pipe, and the pipe
requires a hanger, restrain it.
Thom McMahon, SET
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
P.O. Box 882136
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
so would you restrain one and not the other? I still think the
restraint does not apply to an arm-over regardless if it is tied
directly to a cross main or a branch line. Short is short (or should
I say vertically challenged?).
Having said that, I have given up on trying to say what any
That would be extreme overkill and could become very costly. The restraints
have minimal requirements for a reason. But since they are called BRANCH
LINE restraints that is where they are expectedand we have fought this
fight with all kinds of AHJ's.
Bobby Gillett
Project Manager
[EMAIL
Roland,
But it is not an arm-over if it is a horizontal pipe (not a return bend,
drop or sprig) fed from a cross main...it is, by definition, a branch line.
You must restrain it if it is required to have a hanger.
Bobby Gillett
Project Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(731)-424-0130
In the past, the AHJ's have only required 250 GPM at the wall hydrant.
This would be combined in at the point of connection to a common system
point. I think the intent is to provide an outside hose connection for
the FDP when it is impractical / impossible to get their pumper truck to
this
There was a proposal (13-283) to require restraint on drops greater
than 10 ft which the TC rejected.
Roland
On Jun 19, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Roland Huggins wrote:
Having said that, I have given up on trying to say what any large
group will ultimately decide (that being the technical
(in this case horizontally challenged)
Bobby Gillett
Project Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(731)-424-0130
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:01 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Regardless of the specifics, if the AHJ wants a wall hydrant and will
approve the primary and auxiliary water supply arrangement(s) with
combined mains, and if you can calculate an adequate allowance for the
require outside streams, then I can't see why this would be any
different than taking a
Thanks Steve for the insight.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Leyton
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Wall hydrants
Regardless of the specifics, if the AHJ wants a wall
Bobby,
Thanks for holding this dead horse down while I beat it some more.
I don't necessarily agree with your statement that hanger = restraint.
9.3.6.3 says nothing about any hanger - only that the end sprinkler on a
line shall be restrained and there's nothing in 9.3.6 that links a
restraint
I don't believe the intent was to restrain the individual armovers, as their
short length usually will not allow them the motion we're trying to
prevent.(Perhaps the TC could provide a maximum length of armovers, vs.
single head branchlines.) But the branchline they are attached to must be
Bill,
You are correct about the hanger means restraint, but typically what we
run into is if it is short enough that it doesn't require a hanger, then the
AHJ's don't require the restraintit usually has to be horizontally
challenged (short) not to require a hanger in a seismic zone,
But it does say if it is a horizontal pipe from a cross main then it is a
branch line...doesn't mean I agree, but they do make us apply it.
Bobby Gillett
Project Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(731)-424-0130
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Still a Californian but no longer living in California I have no
notion of the CBC. But if you are talking about the giant hole in the
ceiling tile when end of drop restraint is not used then the answer is
yes, It is being enforced in Washington.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Gregg Fontes
/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3201 (20080619) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus
28 matches
Mail list logo
