You might want to look at the wording in 9.3.2.4 which deals with Flexible 
Coupling for Drops where it uses the term “drops to hose lines”.  So a line 
coming off a sprinkler system serving a hose line is referred to as a “drop”, 
not a riser.

Also, for example, 9.3.5.5 speaking of lateral sway bracing uses the phrase 
“…and OTHER piping….”, therefore addressing piping in the system which does not 
fall within the definitions of Feed and Cross Mains and Branch lines which are 
the typical piping components of a sprinkler system.  I would submit that a 
drop to a hose valve would fall under the “other piping” category.


Craig L. Prahl
Fire Protection Group Lead/SME
CH2M
200 Verdae Blvd.
Greenville, SC  29607
Direct - 864.920.7540
Fax - 864.920.7129
CH2MHILL Extension  77540
craig.pr...@ch2m.com


From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of rongreenman .
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:40 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: small hose connections [EXTERNAL]

You might also want to point out for the approximately 650 lurkers on the forum 
who may be confused that a riser is any vertical piping, regardless of the 
direction of water flow that isn't a drop, sprig up or arm over ending with a 
sprig or drop.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016, Parsley Consulting 
<parsleyconsult...@cox.net<mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>> wrote:
Cliff,
    You've pointed out a conclusion on my part that was not in what Rocci 
posted.  He didn't say it was a part of a standpipe.  That was a supposition on 
my part.
    If it were a part of a sprinkler system, such as a line feeding a hose 
valve in rack storage, the horizontal portions would not require bracing, in my 
perspective, as they simply aren't mains [longitudinal], and aren't branch 
lines [lateral].
    Now, if they had an elevation change exceeding 3'-0", that pipe would be 
regarded as a "riser", by 3.5.9, it would require a 4-way brace at the top per 
9.3.5.8.1.
    It also might fall into the need for flexible couplings per 9.3.2.3.1(1).
    Good call.  And I suppose I should acknowledge Craig's question, and note 
that I made the conclusion that since Rocci is in California, where almost 
everything has to be protected from earthquake damage, AND he asked the 
question, that seismic protection was necessary on his system.
sincerely,
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 09/21/2016 9:10 AM, Cliff Whitfield wrote:
Ken,

If this is an 1½” hose line in an NFPA 13 condition (which Rocci didn’t 
actually state but I’m assuming it is), then the definition of ‘branch line’ in 
NFPA 14 would not apply.  If that is the case, would this still be considered a 
‘branch line’ or does it become a ‘feed main’?

Cliff Whitfield

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org');>]
 On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org');>
Subject: Re: small hose connections

Rocci,
    Glad to see you made it back safely from Nashville, and it was great to 
meet there and put a face with the name.
    By the definition in section 3.3.2 of NFPA 14 [2013 ed], the pipe you 
describe is a "branch line."  Section 6.1.2.5 of that document advises that you 
need to follow NFPA 13 to provide protection against damage from earthquakes.
    Lateral bracing for that line is not required per NFPA 13 [2013] 9.3.5.5.1, 
as it is not a branch line 2½" or larger.
    Longitudinal bracing for that line is not required per 9.5.6.1 as it is not 
a feed or cross main.
    My opinion only.  Please see the disclaimer below.
sincerely,
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/>
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued 
pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of 
the author and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA 
or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither 
intended, nor should it be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or 
services

It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 
Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee in accordance with the 
NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be 
considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the NFPA or its 
Committees


On 09/21/2016 8:17 AM, Rocci Cetani 3 wrote:
Do I need to earthquake brace my 1½” feed for hose connections?

Rocci Cetani III, CET
Designer
Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.111
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roc...@norcalfire.com');>
www.norcalfire.com<http://www.norcalfire.com/>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may 
contain confidential information
belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the 
employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking of 
any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately 
notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.




_______________________________________________

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org');>

http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


________________________________
[Avast 
logo]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>




_______________________________________________

Sprinklerforum mailing list

Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org');>

http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org



--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to