Yea, 8.16.2.4.3 is what my brain said, but fingers weren't paying attention.
Exactly how I'm reading it. Any more opinions before I seek the informal interpretation? Ed Kramer Littleton, CO >You mean 8.16.2.4.3? > >That's for multiple system control valves on a common manifold that >would share a common run-in. It's just saying where the FD piping >connection should attach to the risers between the supply (OS&Y) control >valve and the System (Alarm Check) valves. > >If you're running new UG to this new addition, it's a totally separate >system from the other part of the building and doesn't need to have >anything to do with the existing. Let it stand on it's own. > >As far as 8.16.2.4.5, what they are alluding to there is if for example >a system only serves from columns a-f on the south side of the bldg then >there should be a sign stating such. That way the FD knows which riser >is serving what portion of the building. > > > > >Craig L. Prahl, CET >Fire Protection Group >Mechanical Department >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.lg.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer >Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:28 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: FDC's on multiple systems > >Run into something new that I need opinions on. > >An addition is being added to an existing building. Existing building >is fully sprinklered. The total area of the combined existing and new >structure exceeds 52,000 sf and the existing system riser is in the far >corner away from the addition. So the decision was made to bring in a >new underground supply to serve the new addition. Thus the new addition >will have its own independent system riser and fire department >connection. > >Does 2002 NFPA 13 section 8.16.l2.4.3 (or any other section) require the >two FDCs (one existing, one new) be tied together? > >The commentary hints at this, but I've never thought that was the >intent. >I thought the intent was that multiple systems SERVED BY THE SAME >UNDERGROUND LEAD-IN be served by the same FDC. Section 8.16.2.4.5 seams >to >support this. > >Opinions? > >Ed Kramer >Littleton, CO > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
