13. My point is only to reinforce the intent of the standard(s) and also that the manufacturers will warrant the application.
The word that’s in Travis’s way here is “private”. But from a fire hazard perspective, the garages are still private in scale if I understand correctly. IMHO, I think the concept of accessible to others besides just those in a single dwelling unit implies a larger communal space where more hazardous loads and uses could occur. Individual unit garages that have a corridor between them and the unit aren’t going to be measurably more hazardous. I think it’s the intent of the book and the listing to allow the CPVC. SL From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ben Young Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 12:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: NFPA 13R - Garages - CPVC Just to be clear Steve, was the that proposal for NFPA 13R or for 13 and 13R? On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:05 PM Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com<mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote: For the 2019 edition, I proposed and the committee accepted the following 2nd draft comment, creating a new subsection: “16.3.9.6.2 Where nonmetallic pipe installed in accordance with 16.3.9.6 supplies sprinklers in private garage within a dwelling unit not exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. in area, it shall be permitted to be protected from the garage compartment by not less than the same wall or ceiling sheathing that is required by the applicable building code.” This is NOT the condition Travis described but it does speak to the extent of the listing and the willingness by the manufacturer to warrant the product in OH compartments up to 1,000 sq. ft. My intent was to clarify that it’s NOT the intent of the standard or the product listing limitations to require steel piping in small parking garages in R2 occupancies protected by NFPA 13, which is how it went down. We are seeing AHJs in the southwest requiring double layers of Type ‘X’ and other fairly extreme measure. One jurisdiction (City of San Diego) has flat-out mandated steel pipe in the those applications. Going forward, I hope this expands the application for CPVC to at least homogenize the bill of materials in attached residential projects. Travis – you could probably push through an all-CPVC piping plan by bringing in BlazeMaster or Spears to support your design. SML From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Fire Design Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 10:51 AM To: b...@firebyknight.com<mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: NFPA 13R - Garages - CPVC I would agree with CPVC because of the manufacturer listing. However, if you were using a manufacturer that did not have that verbiage and you were back to your interpretation of 13R I think you are wrong in applying the aggregate for the 400 sq. ft. rule. 13R specifically calls out "rooms" and not 'areas'. I personally think it's completely within the scope of 13R to have a 300 sq. ft. storage room next to a 150 sq. ft. mop closet and be able to use CPVC to feed each room because individually they're less than 400 sq. ft. Now, perhaps in the rare event you have a large run of such rooms next to each other it may be better to have your line out in the corridor or something and poke a head into each room in lieu of running the line directly over the run of OH rooms but that is still just a matter of preference in my opinion. I think the main thing to be concerned about is being able to provide the correct water density since the piping above is not going to be compromised if the sprinkler activates and controls the fire when it should. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Bob <b...@firebyknight.com<mailto:b...@firebyknight.com>> wrote: Travis, Based on the product listing, CPVC is appropriate. Thank you, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of MFP Design, LLC Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 9:57 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Subject: NFPA 13R - Garages - CPVC Good morning forum members. I would like to get your take on the concept below. We have a building that meets all criteria to be protected per NFPA 13R (2013 edition). These buildings have garages and dwelling units on the lower floor separated from the dwelling units by a common corridor. As such, these garages are not a separate building, but are accessible by more than one dwelling unit. This requires designing the garages per 7.2 – Areas outside the dwelling unit. Since garages are typically OH1, it is the intent to calculate these spaces with a density of 0.15. The spaces are ≤ 500 sq ft, so 7.2.2.1 allows us to limit the number of calculated sprinklers to all in a compartment to a maximum of 4. We are using QR sprinklers in these garages. Now, here is where the wrinkle comes. Are we permitted to use CPVC above the ceiling in these areas? The ceiling is double layered gyp board. NFPA 13R 5.2.2.2 states pipe or tube listed for light hazard shall be permitted where the room does not exceed 400 sq ft. I was always informed that you must consider the aggregate area for determining this 400 sq ft. Some of these garages are just over 400 sq ft. Others are ±300 sq ft. However, there are multiple garages side by side, so the aggregate is well over 400 sq ft. In this section, I would state that CPVC would not be an option above the garages. But, the listing of CPVC has a section for garages. It states that CPVC is permitted provided that: * Minimum protection of 3/8” gypsum * Listed sprinklers ≤225°F utilized * System shall be installed per NFPA 13R * CPVC pipe / fittings to be installed per manufacturer’s criteria. I am proposing that the piping be steel due to 5.2.2.2 but the builder is wanting CPVC and is stating it is possible by the CPVC listing noted above. The issue is that we have floor joists closely spaced and you can’t get steel going perpendicular to the floor joists up in the floor joist space. So, the builder will have to build a soffit where we run perpendicular to the floor joists. We can be up in the joist space running parallel. So, CPVC or steel? What is the forum consensus? [MFP_logo_F] Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 3356 E Vallejo Ct Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:email:tm...@mfpdesign.com> http://www.mfpdesign.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfpdesign.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=HJ8OA4xyeHAoxXNz5mu%2FYfycgtd5nsFrrpvzulZiNkQ%3D&reserved=0> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FMFP-Design-LLC%2F92218417692&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=H%2BwdcgK8DLGBcNoqJEvUrzsXngySwkX56Vgf9gM9EGk%3D&reserved=0> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D&reserved=0> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftravismack&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180&sdata=tT5E7LsZjSmyreKi4gDCa70EWN%2BZodi%2FhbeCbHNRijI%3D&reserved=0> “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.” _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Benjamin Young
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
