How about making your own? And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh Eze 11:19
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Rocci Cetani 3 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Best disclaimer EVER Steve!!! I wish I has some laughing face emoji's to > post . > > Rocci Cetani III, CET > Senior 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 > > > [email protected] > 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. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 11:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3 > > Sure thing. If you want to "poach" symbols from other parties, why not go > straight for the top of the food chain?: NFPA 170, Chapter 7 ... > > Good luck, > Steve Leyton > Protection Design and Consulting > San Diego, CA > > The statement above is not intended to be taken seriously and does not > actually represent my own opinion nor should it be taken in any way as > directive or permission to copy any symbols or content of any kind that may > be protected by copyright or intellectual property laws, that may vary by > state. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Versoi, Michael > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 11:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3 > > Good morning, I thought I'd seen comments regarding Bluebeam a few months > ago. > > I've recently downloaded Bluebeam Revu 2017 eXtreme. With no other CAD > design programs to import from, does anyone have suggestions regarding where > I can go to import (poach) Fire sprinkler symbols? > Any direction would be helpful. > Thanks > > > Best regards, > > Michael Versoi > Fire Sprinkler General Foreman > NICET III > > Siemens Industry, Inc. > Building Technologies > 15900 SE Eastgate Way > Bellevue, WA. 98008 > 425.507.4300 Office > 1.866.674.2728 Fax > 425.281.7313 Mobile > 24 hr Dispatch: 800-952-6348 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 2:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3 > > Send Sprinklerforum mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Sprinklerforum digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question (Parsley Consulting) > 2. RE: Longitudinal Bracing Question (Hinson, Ryan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 14:18:18 -0700 > From: Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], "Kyle.Montgomery" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Kyle - > > Perhaps you've misinterpreted my comment, or I didn't make it very clear > that what I was categorizing as "rubbish" was not the issue that there are > net vertical reaction forces on seismic bracing. Far from it. What I was > referring to, and I thought I made it fairly clear, was the idea that the > lateral braces would have to "work harder" if the longitudinal braces were > configured in a way that resulted in eccentric loading of the hardware (at > either end) or the fastener to the structure. > > In looking at your sketches I observed that the angle from vertical of the > brace was indicated as 45? in section view A. That would suggest to me > perhaps wrongly on my part, that what you were working with had a Wp value > that did not exceed 1.0. I gladly concede that the net vertical reaction > forces are present regardless of the Wp and the angle of the brace. What I > don't concede is that unless the Wp exceeds 0.5 and the angle is less than > 45?, or the Wp exceeds 1.0 and the brace angle is less than 60?, those > forces require a modification of the brace arrangement. I didn't see > anything in your sketches that suggested NVRF needed to be addressed, and if > it does under the provisions of 9.3.5.10 then it must be accounted for. > > If you're installing rigid bracing it is designed to function in both > tension and compression at all times. In fact, the L/r limits in Table > 9.3.5.11.8(a)-(b)-(c) are based on the brace member being in compression and > are a means to evaluate the resistance to buckling. > > I think we've exhausted this. Thanks for the discussion. > > 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 08/01/2017 > 12:41 PM, Kyle.Montgomery wrote: >> >> Rubbish? Challenge accepted! >> >> Of course the ?standard? configuration of seismic braces imparts a >> vertical force on the main. A bunch of sketches would be helpful here, >> but in lieu of, let me try to describe: >> >> In a standard configuration, the brace works in tension and >> compression to resist the horizontal seismic forces. As the brace is >> compressed, it imparts a vertical force downward onto the pipe; as it >> acts in tension, it imparts a vertical force upward onto the pipe. But >> don?t take my word for it, you helped describe it in *9.3.5.10 Net >> Vertical Reaction Forces*, particularly where it states ?*the net >> vertical reaction produced by the horizontal load*?. Maybe I was >> unclear, it imparts this force as it is working (during an earthquake) >> not in a static condition. >> >> Now in the case of the bracing configuration we?re discussing: As the >> brace works in tension as the brace works in compression, it will >> impart a vertical force downward and a lateral force to the right; >> vice versa in compression. This is what I mean by making the adjacent >> lateral braces work harder, as they would have to account for the? >> let?s call it ?net horizontal reaction force?. >> >> As far as the eccentric loads, I think you guys have a point there. I >> think the 825 is designed to work perpendicular-to or parallel-to the >> structure, but maybe not both conditions at the same time. My section >> view B is kind of misleading (aka sucky), in reality the brace pipe >> would point towards the center of the main, so it wouldn?t be as bad >> as it looks. >> >> Sounds like I might be back to square 1. >> >> -Kyle M >> >> *From:*Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of >> *Parsley Consulting >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 01, 2017 11:51 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question >> >> Kyle, >> >> The photos did show up, however they're very small. >> >> From what I could discern from the photos I'd have to conclude that >> the plan view and section view B would lead me to conclude that this >> installation does conflict with 9.3.5.11.5, as the brace fittings at >> the attachment to structure and attachment to the main would be >> subject o eccentric loading for which they may not have been >> listed/tested. >> >> When in doubt check with the good people at B-Line to see if their >> figure 825 was tested for such an installation, not to mention the >> figure 4A. I would doubt that it was. It is also possible that there >> are tension only brace fitting attachments to the structure which >> would allow what you're showing, however I simply have not designed >> bracing with that method enough to direct you to the correct >> equipment. I believe this is a circumstance where you're going to have >> to get the building structural engineer involved. >> >> I'm not sure how you're reaching the conclusion that a "standard >> configuration" would impart any sort of vertical force on the main. >> As for the adjacent lateral braces "work harder", in as polite >> language as I can generate - rubbish. Lateral bracing is only intended >> to resist horizontal motion perpendicular to the axis of the pipe. >> Consider - if the detail in the "top plan view" below was for a >> lateral brace it would still generate eccentric loads on the hardware, >> and that would be unacceptable. >> >> 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 08/01/2017 11:06 AM, Kyle.Montgomery wrote: >> >> Here is a picture of what I'm talking about (let me know if the >> picture shows up): >> >> It still maintains an appropriate angle from vertical. And it >> still resists motion "parallel to the axis of the system piping". >> But in doing so it will impart an additional horizontal load >> perpendicular to the axis of the pipe (lateral) whereas a standard >> configuration only imparts an additional vertical force. So it is >> making the adjacent lateral braces work harder, so to speak; Is >> that OK? >> >> -Kyle M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 9:18 AM >> To: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question >> >> Thanks Ken. >> >> I was referring to this: >> >> * The only "angle" which really applies in providing longitudinal >> >> bracing is the measurement from vertical. That angle must be at >> least 30? and have a maximum of 90? from vertical (which is >> perfectly horizontal, and would make the brace parallel to the pipe. >> >> I am thinking in plan view, based on Kyle's original question, so >> any angle from vertical would 'appear' to be parallel to the pipe. >> >> To us Sprinkler Eccentrics, nothing is Minor >> >> :) >> >> Brad >> >> Quoting Parsley Consulting <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >>> Brad, >> >>> >> >>> While the quote from NFPA 13 is entirely correct and the brace >> pipe >> >>> and fittings must be in a straight line, thus avoiding eccentric >> >>> loading on the fittings and fasteners, I did not say that the >> brace >> >>> has to be parallel to the pipe. >> >>> >> >>> What I did say was that a longitudinal brace resists horizontal >> motion >> >>> of the main in a direction which is parallel to that main. >> >>> >> >>> The angle, measured from vertical, must be at least 30? and can >> be as >> >>> much as 90? from vertical, which would make the brace pipe >> parallel to >> >>> the main, however that is not required. >> >>> >> >>> Minor but relevant clarification. >> >>> *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 >> >>> 08/01/2017 8:17 AM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> From 13-2016: >> >>>> >> >>>> 9.3.5.11.5 All parts and fittings of a brace shall lie in a >> straight >> >>>> line to avoid eccentric loadings on fittings and fasteners. >> >>>> >> >>>> The above means, to me anyway, that it is NOT ok to kick the >> >>>> longitudinal brace out at an angle as seen in plan view. In >> this way >> >>>> I think that is an angle that does matter, but Ken cleared it >> up by >> >>>> saying the brace pipe has to be parallel to the main pipe. >> >>>> >> >>>> As always, I am willing to stand to be corrected, >> >>>> >> >>>> Brad >> >>>> >> >>>> Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I knew where you were going, Steve, and I agree that this is a >> good >> >>>>> approach. We?ve gone this route in the past, but when you get >> to the >> >>>>> stage of the job where I?m usually involved (closer to >> >>>>> construction) and everyone has contracts for construction, it >> can >> >>>>> sometimes be contentious as far as who would provide and pay >> for >> >>>>> this additional engineering. So I was looking for ways to >> control >> >>>>> our own destiny, so to speak. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks for everyone?s input. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -Kyle M >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Sprinklerforum >> >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of >> >>>>> Steve Leyton >> >>>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 3:25 PM >> >>>>> To: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>>> Subject: RE: Longitudinal Bracing Question >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What he said. To clarify my earlier comment ? I did not >> intend to >> >>>>> suggest that you could use the trapeze values in NFPA 13 for >> hangers >> >>>>> and apply them to EQB anchorage. However, we have worked with >> our >> >>>>> structural engineers on previous projects to design for >> similar >> >>>>> conditions where the shear load bearing value of the strut >> (notice I >> >>>>> just said strut instead of trapeze) was specified by the SEOR >> and >> >>>>> was adequate for the applied loads of the specific braces we >> needed >> >>>>> to anchor. It CAN be done, but as Ken says, it can?t be done >> by >> >>>>> simply using the trapeze section moduli published in NFPA 13. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Steve L. >> >>>>> Back Peddling, CA >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Sprinklerforum >> >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of >> >>>>> Parsley Consulting >> >>>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:53 PM >> >>>>> To: >> >>>>> >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]%3Cmailto:sprinklerforum >> @lists.f> >> >>>>> iresprinkler.org> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Forumites, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Let's clarify a couple of items here. [All references to the >> 2016 >> >>>>> edition, and all emphasis is mine] >> >>>>> >> >>>>> * Longitudinal bracing on mains must be spaced no more than 80' >> >>>>> apart, per 9.3.5.6.1 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> * The distance from the end of the line and the last (or first) >> >>>>> longitudinal brace must no exceed 40', per 9.3.5.6. >> >>>>> * Your first longitudinal brace could be as much as 40' from >> >>>>> the end of the pipe run. >> >>>>> * The structural components of the building must be able to >> >>>>> resist the added seismic loads, per 9.3.5.1.2 >> >>>>> * This is something the building structural would have to >> >>>>> provide, as it's not something a sprinkler contractor should >> attempt >> >>>>> without some training and experience in structural engineering. >> >>>>> * A trapeze installed per NFPA 13 guidelines is not intended to >> >>>>> address loads other than gravity in the vertical orientation, >> and >> >>>>> any resistance to horizontal movement would have to be >> designed by a >> >>>>> structural engineer. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> * As long as the brace member (pipe, rod, flat, etc) does not >> >>>>> exceed the limits on the length imposed by tables >> >>>>> 9.3.5.11.8(a)-(c) having it be four feet to the nearest bar >> joist >> >>>>> should be no problem. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> * The only "angle" which really applies in providing >> >>>>> longitudinal bracing is the measurement from vertical. That >> angle >> >>>>> must be at least 30? and have a maximum of 90? from vertical >> (which >> >>>>> is perfectly horizontal, and would make the brace parallel to >> the >> >>>>> pipe. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The addition of another flexible coupling on the main could >> create a >> >>>>> further requirement for additional lateral bracing within 24" >> of the >> >>>>> flexible coupling per 9.3.5.5.9. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I hope that provides some guidance. >> >>>>> As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee of NFPA >> 13, >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >>>> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> >>>> ler.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.org > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > /attachments/20170801/f331a8ed/attachment-0001.htm> > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: image001.jpg > Type: image/jpeg > Size: 22957 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > /attachments/20170801/f331a8ed/attachment-0001.jpg> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:18:48 +0000 > From: "Hinson, Ryan" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Longitudinal Bracing Question > Message-ID: > > <mwhpr07mb31339699cf629eaf56305220c8...@mwhpr07mb3133.namprd07.prod.outlook. > com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Ken, > I will respectfully disagree with you on this point in that I believe the > ?straight line to avoid eccentric loading on fittings and fasteners? of > Section 9.3.5.11.5 is in fact a line running through the center of the > braced pipe?s long axis and acting in a coaxial line along the long axis of > the bracing member itself. The eccentric load Section 9.3.5.11.5 is > referring to is the loading of the braced, not the braced pipe. This brace > is not required to be located in a vertical plane passing though both of > these axes. In many cases, this is not possible since the braced pipe may > not be running parallel to and directly below a structural member to which > it must be braced fo r spacing reasons. Listed/approved braced piping > connections including: welded tab; Cooper B-line Figures 4A, 4LA, 4L; or > others may be rotated as necessary around the axis of the braced pipe as > long as the ?longitudinal? component of the horizontal seismic load required > for this brace can be withstood for > all brace components as indicated in calculations. A longitudinal brace > need not be oriented in the vertical plane as discussed above, it needs to > meet the minimum angle requirements of Figure 9.3.5.1.12.1 and those > indicated in Section 9.3.5.11.8 and Tables 9.3.5.11.8 (a-c) in the plane > where BOTH axes lie. Eccentric loading in this plane is not allowed. It > should be noted that any brace on a pipe is going to induce an eccentric > load on the BRACED pipe. > > It is my opinion that Kyle?s proposal is correct if verified by > calculation?and if the components, namely the Figure 4LA, are turned as > necessary into the plane I discussed above. > > Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell Senior Fire Protection > Engineer O 952-656-3662 \ M 320-250-5404 \ F 952-229-2923 > [email protected] \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/> > 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437 *Registered > in: LA, MD, MN, PA, TX, & UT **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 1:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question > > Kyle, > > The photos did show up, however they're very small. > > From what I could discern from the photos I'd have to conclude that the plan > view and section view B would lead me to conclude that this installation > does conflict with 9.3.5.11.5, as the brace fittings at the attachment to > structure and attachment to the main would be subject o eccentric loading > for which they may not have been listed/tested. > > When in doubt check with the good people at B-Line to see if their figure > 825 was tested for such an installation, not to mention the figure 4A. I > would doubt that it was. It is also possible that there are tension only > brace fitting attachments to the structure which would allow what you're > showing, however I simply have not designed bracing with that method enough > to direct you to the correct equipment. I believe this is a circumstance > where you're going to have to get the building structural engineer involved. > > I'm not sure how you're reaching the conclusion that a "standard > configuration" would impart any sort of vertical force on the main. As for > the adjacent lateral braces "work harder", in as polite language as I can > generate - rubbish. Lateral bracing is only intended to resist horizontal > motion perpendicular to the axis of the pipe. Consider - if the detail in > the "top plan view" below was for a lateral brace it would still generate > eccentric loads on the hardware, and that would be unacceptable. > > 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 08/01/2017 11:06 AM, Kyle.Montgomery wrote: > Here is a picture of what I'm talking about (let me know if the picture > shows up): > > [cid:[email protected]] > > It still maintains an appropriate angle from vertical. And it still resists > motion "parallel to the axis of the system piping". But in doing so it will > impart an additional horizontal load perpendicular to the axis of the pipe > (lateral) whereas a standard configuration only imparts an additional > vertical force. So it is making the adjacent lateral braces work harder, so > to speak; Is that OK? > > -Kyle M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 9:18 AM > To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > kler.org> > Subject: Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question > > Thanks Ken. > > I was referring to this: > > * The only "angle" which really applies in providing longitudinal > bracing is the measurement from vertical. That angle must be at least 30? > and have a maximum of 90? from vertical (which is perfectly horizontal, and > would make the brace parallel to the pipe. > > I am thinking in plan view, based on Kyle's original question, so any angle > from vertical would 'appear' to be parallel to the pipe. > > To us Sprinkler Eccentrics, nothing is Minor > :) > > Brad > > Quoting Parsley Consulting > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: > >> Brad, >> >> While the quote from NFPA 13 is entirely correct and the brace pipe >> and fittings must be in a straight line, thus avoiding eccentric >> loading on the fittings and fasteners, I did not say that the brace >> has to be parallel to the pipe. >> >> What I did say was that a longitudinal brace resists horizontal motion >> of the main in a direction which is parallel to that main. >> >> The angle, measured from vertical, must be at least 30? and can be as >> much as 90? from vertical, which would make the brace pipe parallel to >> the main, however that is not required. >> >> Minor but relevant clarification. >> *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 >> 08/01/2017 8:17 AM, > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> From 13-2016: >>> >>> 9.3.5.11.5 All parts and fittings of a brace shall lie in a straight >>> line to avoid eccentric loadings on fittings and fasteners. >>> >>> The above means, to me anyway, that it is NOT ok to kick the >>> longitudinal brace out at an angle as seen in plan view. In this way >>> I think that is an angle that does matter, but Ken cleared it up by >>> saying the brace pipe has to be parallel to the main pipe. >>> >>> As always, I am willing to stand to be corrected, >>> >>> Brad >>> >>> Quoting "Kyle.Montgomery" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>>> I knew where you were going, Steve, and I agree that this is a good >>>> approach. We?ve gone this route in the past, but when you get to the >>>> stage of the job where I?m usually involved (closer to >>>> construction) and everyone has contracts for construction, it can >>>> sometimes be contentious as far as who would provide and pay for >>>> this additional engineering. So I was looking for ways to control >>>> our own destiny, so to speak. >>>> >>>> Thanks for everyone?s input. >>>> >>>> -Kyle M >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Sprinklerforum >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> Steve Leyton >>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 3:25 PM >>>> To: >>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >>>> iresprinkler.org> >>>> Subject: RE: Longitudinal Bracing Question >>>> >>>> What he said. To clarify my earlier comment ? I did not intend to >>>> suggest that you could use the trapeze values in NFPA 13 for hangers >>>> and apply them to EQB anchorage. However, we have worked with our >>>> structural engineers on previous projects to design for similar >>>> conditions where the shear load bearing value of the strut (notice I >>>> just said strut instead of trapeze) was specified by the SEOR and >>>> was adequate for the applied loads of the specific braces we needed >>>> to anchor. It CAN be done, but as Ken says, it can?t be done by >>>> simply using the trapeze section moduli published in NFPA 13. >>>> >>>> Steve L. >>>> Back Peddling, CA >>>> >>>> From: Sprinklerforum >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> Parsley Consulting >>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:53 PM >>>> To: >>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]%3Cmailto:sprinklerfor >>>> [email protected]> >>>> iresprinkler.org> >>>> Subject: Re: Longitudinal Bracing Question >>>> >>>> Forumites, >>>> >>>> Let's clarify a couple of items here. [All references to the 2016 >>>> edition, and all emphasis is mine] >>>> >>>> * Longitudinal bracing on mains must be spaced no more than 80' >>>> apart, per 9.3.5.6.1 >>>> >>>> * The distance from the end of the line and the last (or first) >>>> longitudinal brace must no exceed 40', per 9.3.5.6. >>>> * Your first longitudinal brace could be as much as 40' from >>>> the end of the pipe run. >>>> * The structural components of the building must be able to >>>> resist the added seismic loads, per 9.3.5.1.2 >>>> * This is something the building structural would have to >>>> provide, as it's not something a sprinkler contractor should attempt >>>> without some training and experience in structural engineering. >>>> * A trapeze installed per NFPA 13 guidelines is not intended to >>>> address loads other than gravity in the vertical orientation, and >>>> any resistance to horizontal movement would have to be designed by a >>>> structural engineer. >>>> >>>> * As long as the brace member (pipe, rod, flat, etc) does not >>>> exceed the limits on the length imposed by tables >>>> 9.3.5.11.8(a)-(c) having it be four feet to the nearest bar joist >>>> should be no problem. >>>> >>>> * The only "angle" which really applies in providing >>>> longitudinal bracing is the measurement from vertical. That angle >>>> must be at least 30? and have a maximum of 90? from vertical (which >>>> is perfectly horizontal, and would make the brace parallel to the >>>> pipe. >>>> >>>> The addition of another flexible coupling on the main could create a >>>> further requirement for additional lateral bracing within 24" of the >>>> flexible coupling per 9.3.5.5.9. >>>> >>>> I hope that provides some guidance. >>>> As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee of NFPA 13, >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >>> resprinkler.org> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >>> ler.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > kler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > kler.org> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > /attachments/20170801/a4ee150c/attachment.htm> > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: image001.jpg > Type: image/jpeg > Size: 22957 bytes > Desc: image001.jpg > URL: > <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/private.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > /attachments/20170801/a4ee150c/attachment.jpg> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Sprinklerforum Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3 > ********************************************* > > This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended > recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, > protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise > confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, > copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and > may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, > dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please > contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your > system. Thank you for your cooperation > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
