I don't have 13 in front of me. But personal experience is that pipe that is 
attached to roof, and then down to columns, racks, or (tilt-up) walls is 
subject to breaking when the ground moves. This seemed worse when attachment to 
one surface is rigid, i.e. Unistrut-type channel and clip. Walls and racks 
seemed worse than columns. 

I was quite shocked at how effective flex couplings were at reducing failures. 

Many breaks I saw were in auxiliary drain and inspector's test drops. 1". While 
causing property damage flow would not have caused system to fail to control 
fire. Would larger hose stream supply pipes failures cause inadequate flow to 
remain in system?

Hmm. I don't know that 13 identifies a goal. Sufficient post-earthquake 
integrity to control fire? Or very few failures causing property damage? 

See wikipedia, Nisqually earthquake. Silty, with some layers of muck, soils of 
the Kent valley.

Best

Bruce Verhei

Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:17, Parsley Consulting <parsleyconsult...@cox.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> Craig, 
>     The first comment is valid, if the pipe Rocci described was a "drop to a 
> hose line" it would certainly require flexible couplings per 9.3.2.4.  
>     I noted in Rocci's comment that he was considering an 1½", so I conclude 
> that the "other piping" would not apply for lateral bracing as it didn't 
> reach the 2½" minimum for branch lines and other piping.
>     As for the 4-way bracing required in 9.3.5.8, as long as the pipe Rocci's 
> considering doesn't have a change in elevation of 3'-0" or more, there's no 
> need for a 4-way brace.
>     And Ron's point is valid.  All system risers are "risers", however, not 
> all "risers" are system risers.
> 
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> Parsley Consulting
> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025
> Phone 760-745-6181
> Visit our website
>> On 09/21/2016 10:02 AM, craig.pr...@ch2m.com wrote:
>> 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> 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
>> 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] 
>> On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM
>> To: 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to