You're quoting the 2009 - we're using 2012 and the language is different. What you've quoted is actually more open to interp - the 2012 less so, but still leaves a little doubt. 2009 says, "... each standpipe ..." 2012 says, "... a hose connection ..." My personal read is that you can go a lot crazier with the 2009 than the 2012 and both of them are a little different than what we say in the 14, though the language of 7.3.2 (5) could also be read to require one at the top of any standpipe that COULD be extended to a roof with slope less than 4:12. I reiterate, as Pete and others have said, it's not the intent.
HOWEVER , if the serving fire department has tactical strategies that could include taking water from the standpipes at the roof, I would always defer to them regarding spacing. But the standard IS clear on one thing, that is that it's not the intent to maintain any spacing patterns for roof connections. The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the opinion or intent of the NFPA 14 Technical Committee on Standpipe and Hose Systems. Steve L. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Frazier Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building I'm a little confused on how it is more stringent IBC 2009 905.4.5 "Where the roof has a slope less than four unit is vertical in 12 units horizontal (33.3 percent slope), each standpipe shall be provided with a hose connection located either on the roof or at the highest landing of a stairway with stair access to the roof. An additional hose connection shall be provided at the top of the most hydraulically remote standpipe for testing purposes" NFPA 14 2010 "7.3.2 Class I systems shall be provided with 2½" hose connections in the following locations..... (5) At the highest landing of stairways with stairway access to a roof, or on roofs with a slope of less than 4/12 where stairways do not access the roof. " "7.10.1.1.1 For class I & III systems, the minimum flow rate for the hydraulically most remote standpipe shall be 500 gpm......" "7.10.3.1 The maximum flow required from a 2½" hose connection shall be 250 gpm" IBC is just mirroring 7.3.2 as well as telling you to put a second fhv on the hydraulically remote standpipe which goes along with NFPA 14. If anything its less stringent because with IBC if you have a roof with a slope over 4/12 with roof access you do not need to put the fire hose valve at the top landing, NFPA 14 tells you to put the valve at the top landing regardless of roof slope (as long as there is access to the roof). If you have a roof that is under 4/12, you need to either put a fhv on the highest landing if it has roof access, if it doesn't then put the fire hose valve on the roof. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building Thanks for posting Peter. Norman has correctly pointed out that the building code contains language that can be interpreted as more strict than the NFPA standard. It says "... a connection at the roof or at ...", which I've seen interpreted as meaning "... at the top of each standpipe." But what it literally says is "... a connection ..." as in one single connection. The TC's intent was that there be fire hose connections at locations where fire-fighter access to the roof is likely during a fire, so the language is in harmony with the building code otherwise, i.e. at the top landing of stairs accessing the roof and at the roof level where access is provided by way of stairs and a hatch, presuming that the roof isn't sloped, which makes fire fighting ops (and testing of standpipes) not-so-viable. Reference also §A7.3.2, which helps to articulate the technical committee's intent: "Only one standpipe is necessary to serve the roof regardless of the travel distances in 7.3.2.2; it is not the intent to extend each standpipe to the roof level." Even though I run smack like a committee member, the foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the opinion or intent of the NFPA 14 Technical Committee on Standpipe and Hose Systems. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting San Diego, CA -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Frazier Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building Is this in the 2013 Ed? I'm not seeing it in 2010. So it looks like no matter which way you interpret it you do not need a roof hydrant valve, you would only need a FHV at the highest landing near the roof access. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building Jeremy The 200 ft travel distance does not apply to the roof if it is not intended for occupancy Pete 7.3.2.2* Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is located in excess of 150 ft (45.7 m) of travel distance from a hose connection in or adjacent to a required exit or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is located in excess of 200 ft (61 m) of travel distance from a hose connection in or adjacent to a required exit, additional hose connections shall be provided, in approved locations, where required by the local fire department or the AHJ. 7.3.2.2.1 The distance requirements in 7.3.2.2 shall not apply to the roof if it is not intended for occupancy. Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com Please check out our website for the details! -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Frazier Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building You shouldn't need a roof hydrant if you are under 200' from your last fire hose valve to the furthest point on the roof, but you do need to put the fire hose valve at the highest landing to the roof hatch. NFPA 14 2010 7.3.2 Class I systems shall be provided with 2½" hose connections in the following locations..... (5) At the highest landing of stairways with stairway access to a roof, or on roofs with a slope of less than 4/12 where stairways do not access the roof. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Roof Hydrant Valves - Multi-Story Building We are having some differences of opinion with a local fire marshall requesting the installation of roof hydrant valve. We are protecting a 4-story building that will be fully sprinklered utilizing a Class 1 - combination standpipe in the north stairwell and south stairwells. Two standpipe stacks were provided to get the 200' travel distance across the building. Hose valves are located on intermediate landings. Near the center of the building on the top floor there is a permanent ladder leading to a roof hatch. The owner does not intend to utilize the roof for any type of occupancy, only service for MEP. Since the owner does not intend to use the roof for occupancy, our travel distance from our standpipe through the roof hatch is approx. 180'-0", and our roof slope is less than 4/12 we were not planning on installing any additional hose valves / roof hydrant valves in the small room where the roof hatch is located. Were we right by leaving out the hose valve in this roof on the original design? Thank you _______________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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
