technical committee on hanging and bracing systems · pdf filetechnical committee on hanging...

Technical Committee on

Hanging and Bracing Systems

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: May 21, 2014

TO: Principal and Alternate Members of the Technical Committee on Hanging and

Bracing Systems

FROM: Matt Klaus, Principal Fire Protection Engineer/NFPA Staff Liaison

SUBJECT: AUT-HBS AGENDA PACKAGE – A2015 Second Draft Meeting

________________________________________________________________________

Enclosed is the agenda for the Second Draft meeting for NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation

of Sprinkler Systems. NFPA 13 has entered the Annual 2015 revision cycle and will produce a

2016 Edition. It is imperative that you review the attached public comments in advance, with your

ideas and substantiations for your views. If you have alternate suggestions for text changes, please

come prepared with the words and respective substantiation.

For administrative questions, please feel free to contact Elena Carroll at (617) 984-7952.

For technical questions, please feel free to contact Matt Klaus at (617) 984-7448. You can

also reach either of us via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected]. We look forward to

meeting everyone in Del Mar, CA at the San Diego Marriott Del Mar.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents

Part 1 - Meeting Agenda

Part 2 - Committee Address List

Part 3 – New Process Worksheets

Part 4 – A2015 First Draft Meeting Minutes

Part 5 - A2015 Key Dates

Part 6- HBS Public Comments

PART 1 –

MEETING AGENDA

Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing Systems

Second Draft Meeting

June 17-18, 2014 San Diego Marriott Del Mar

11966 El Camino Real

San Diego, CA 92130

AGENDA

Tuesday June 17, 2104

1. Call to Order – 8:00 AM

2. Task Group Meetings

3. Adjournment TBD

Wednesday, June 18, 2104

1. Call to Order – 8:00 AM

2. Introductions of Members and Staff

3. Review and Approval of A2015 First Draft Meeting Minutes

4. Review of A2015 Revision Cycle and Meeting Schedule

5. Review of Distributed Material and Workload

b. Overview of Public Comments

c. Overview of Potential Committee Second Revisions

6. Task Group Reports

a. Cp Validation Task Group

b. Metric Task Group

c. Other Task Groups

7. Review Public Comments

8. Adjournment TBD

PART 2 –

COMMITTEE ADDRESS LIST

Address List No PhoneHanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems AUT-HBS

Automatic Sprinkler Systems

Matthew J. Klaus05/19/2014

AUT-HBS

James B. Biggins

ChairGlobal Risk Consultants Corporation15732 West Barr RoadManhattan, IL 60442-9012

SE 1/16/1998AUT-HBS

Steve Berry

PrincipalRaleigh Fire Department310 West Martin StreetRaleigh, NC 27602

E 10/29/2012

AUT-HBS

Robert G. Caputo

PrincipalFire & Life Safety AmericaConsolidated Fireprotection, Inc.657 Cantara LaneVista, CA 92081

SE 03/05/2012AUT-HBS

Samuel S. Dannaway

PrincipalS. S. Dannaway Associates, Inc.501 Sumner Street, Suite 421Honolulu, HI 96817-5304

SE 4/17/1998

AUT-HBS

Christopher I. Deneff

PrincipalFM Global270 Central AvenuePO Box 7500Johnston, RI 02919

I 9/30/2004AUT-HBS

Daniel C. Duggan

PrincipalFire Sprinkler Design1318 Colony Way CourtChesterfield, MO 63017Alternate: Daniei J. Duggan

M 10/23/2003

AUT-HBS

Thomas J. Forsythe

PrincipalHughes Associates, Inc.2551 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Suite 209San Ramon, CA 94583Alternate: Steven W. Dellasanta

SE 1/16/1998AUT-HBS

John D. Gillengerten

PrincipalConsulting Structural Engineer5155 Holly DriveShingle Springs, CA 95682Building Seismic Safety Council/Code Resource SupportCommittee

U 7/14/2004

AUT-HBS

Jeffrey E. Harper

PrincipalThe RJA Group, Inc.Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.600 West Fulton Street, 5th FloorChicago, IL 60661-1241Alternate: Matthew W. Donahue

SE 11/2/2006AUT-HBS

David J. Jeltes

PrincipalERICO International Corporation31700 Solon RoadSolon, OH 44139Alternate: Scott E. Anderson

M 8/9/2011

AUT-HBS

Kraig Kirschner

PrincipalAFCON9600 Klingerman StreetPO Box 3365South El Monte, CA 91733

M 10/10/1997AUT-HBS

Alan R. Laguna

PrincipalMerit Sprinkler Company, Inc.930 Kenner AvenuePO Box 1447Kenner, LA 70062-1447

IM 10/3/2002

AUT-HBS

George E. Laverick

PrincipalUL LLC333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Alternate: Emil W. Misichko

RT 4/15/2004AUT-HBS

Philip D. LeGrone

PrincipalRisk Management Solutions, Inc.4247 Lindawood DriveNashville, TN 37215

SE 7/12/2001

1




AUT-HBS

Leslie “Chip” L. Lindley, II

PrincipalLindley Fire Protection Company Inc.2220 East Via BurtonAnaheim, CA 92806Alternate: Leslie L. Lindley

IM 8/9/2011AUT-HBS

Wayne M. Martin

PrincipalWayne Martin & Associates Inc.136 Bardsdale AvenueOxnard, CA 93035

SE 10/10/1997

AUT-HBS

David S. Mowrer

PrincipalBabcock & Wilcox Technical Services, LLCY-12 National Security ComplexPO Box 2009, MS-8107Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8107Alternate: J. Scott Mitchell

U 10/10/1997AUT-HBS

Randy R. Nelson

PrincipalVFS Fire and Security Services1011 East Lacy AvenueAnaheim, CA 92805Alternate: John Deutsch

IM 10/10/1997

AUT-HBS

Marco R. Nieraeth

PrincipalXL Global Asset Protection Services5641 Pepperwood AvenueLakewood, CA 90712Alternate: Todd A. Dillon

I 3/2/2010AUT-HBS

Janak B. Patel

PrincipalSavannah River Nuclear Solutions3704 Clark CrossingMartinez, GA 30907

U 10/10/1997

AUT-HBS

Michael A. Rothmier

PrincipalUA Joint Apprenticeship Committee LU 6691315 Berrytree DriveSugarland, TX 77479United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of thePlumbing & Pipe Fitting IndustryAlternate: Charles W. Ketner

L 4/17/1998AUT-HBS

Daniel Sanchez

PrincipalCity of Los AngelesBuilding & Safety201 North Figueroa Street, Suite 400Los Angeles, CA 90012

E 10/29/2012

AUT-HBS

Peter T. Schwab

PrincipalWayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.222 Capitol CourtOcoee, FL 34761-3033

IM 3/15/2007AUT-HBS

Zeljko Sucevic

PrincipalVipond Fire Protection6380 Vipond DriveMississauga, ON L6M 3C1 CanadaCanadian Automatic Sprinkler AssociationAlternate: Matthew Osburn

IM 11/2/2006

AUT-HBS

James Tauby

PrincipalMason Industries, Inc.350 Rabro DriveHauppauge, NY 11788Alternate: Scott Butler

M 10/10/1997AUT-HBS

Glenn E. Thompson

PrincipalLiberty Mutual National Accounts Property2959 Bighorn DriveCorona, CA 92881-8770

I 10/27/2005

2




AUT-HBS

Victoria B. Valentine

PrincipalNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.40 Jon Barrett RoadPatterson, NY 12563-2164National Fire Sprinkler AssociationDesign Technician

M 4/3/2003AUT-HBS

George Von Gnatensky

PrincipalTolco1375 Sampson AvenueCorona, CA 92879-1748National Fire Sprinkler AssociationManufacturerAlternate: Joseph Normandeau

M 10/10/1997

AUT-HBS

Kenneth W. Wagoner

PrincipalParsley Consulting Engineers350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206Escondido, CA 92025-5053American Fire Sprinkler AssociationInstaller/MaintainerAlternate: E. Parks Moore

IM 10/4/2007AUT-HBS

Ronald N. Webb

PrincipalS.A. Comunale Company, Inc.2900 Newpark DriveBarberton, OH 44203National Fire Sprinkler AssociationContractorAlternate: Sheldon Dacus

IM 1/14/2005

AUT-HBS

Thomas G. Wellen

PrincipalAmerican Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.12750 Merit Drive, Suite 350Dallas, TX 75251American Fire Sprinkler AssociationDesign TechnicianAlternate: Ray Lambert

IM 7/28/2006AUT-HBS

Douglas Wilson

PrincipalCity of San Diego1222 First Avenue, MS 401San Diego, CA 92101

E 03/03/2014

AUT-HBS

Robert E. Bachman

Voting AlternateRobert E. Bachman, Consulting Structural Engineer25152 La Estrada DriveLaguna Niguel, CA 92677FlexHead Industries, Inc.

M 11/2/2006AUT-HBS

Jack W. Thacker

Voting AlternateAllan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of So. California3233 Enterprise StreetBrea, CA 92821-6239

IM 10/10/1997

AUT-HBS

Scott E. Anderson

AlternateERICO International Corporation34600 Solon RoadSolon, OH 44139Principal: David J. Jeltes

M 10/29/2012AUT-HBS

Scott Butler

AlternateMason Industries, Inc.350 Rabro DriveHauppauge, NY 11788Principal: James Tauby

M 10/23/2013

AUT-HBS

Sheldon Dacus

AlternateSecurity Fire Protection Company4495 Mendenhall RoadMemphis, TN 38141National Fire Sprinkler AssociationDesign TechnicianPrincipal: Ronald N. Webb

IM 10/10/1997AUT-HBS

Steven W. Dellasanta

AlternateHughes Associates, Inc.117 Metro Center Boulevard, Suite 1002Warwick, RI 02886Principal: Thomas J. Forsythe

SE 03/03/2014

3




AUT-HBS

John Deutsch

AlternateVFS Fire & Security Services1011 West Lacy AvenueAnaheim, CA 92805Principal: Randy R. Nelson

IM 7/26/2007AUT-HBS

Todd A. Dillon

AlternateXL Global Asset Protection Services1620 Winton AvenueLakewood, OH 44107Principal: Marco R. Nieraeth

I 10/23/2003

AUT-HBS

Matthew W. Donahue

AlternateThe RJA Group, Inc.Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.2099 South State College BoulevardSuite 360Anaheim, CA 92806Principal: Jeffrey E. Harper

SE 3/4/2008AUT-HBS

Daniei J. Duggan

AlternateVibration & Seismic Technologies30025 Alicia Parkway, #113Laguna Niguel, CA 92677Principal: Daniel C. Duggan

M 10/29/2012

AUT-HBS

Charles W. Ketner

AlternateNational Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee7050 Oakland Mills RoadColumbia, MD 20732United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of thePlumbing & Pipe Fitting IndustryPrincipal: Michael A. Rothmier

L 1/10/2008AUT-HBS

Ray Lambert

AlternateWestern Fire Protection Inc.13630 Danielson StreetPoway, CA 92064American Fire Sprinkler AssociationDesign TechnicianPrincipal: Thomas G. Wellen

IM 08/09/2012

AUT-HBS

Leslie L. Lindley

AlternateLindley Fire Protection Company Inc.2220 East Via BurtonAnaheim, CA 92806Principal: Leslie “Chip” L. Lindley, II

IM 10/29/2012AUT-HBS

Emil W. Misichko

AlternateUL LLC333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Principal: George E. Laverick

RT 10/10/1997

AUT-HBS

J. Scott Mitchell

AlternateB & W Technical Services PantexPO Box 1241Panhandle, TX 79068Principal: David S. Mowrer

U 7/12/2001AUT-HBS

E. Parks Moore

AlternateS & S Sprinkler Company, LLCPO Box 7453Mobile, AL 36670American Fire Sprinkler AssociationInstaller/MaintainerPrincipal: Kenneth W. Wagoner

IM 03/05/2012

AUT-HBS

Joseph Normandeau

AlternateTyco/SimplexGrinnell12728 Shoemaker AvenueSanta Fe Springs, CA 90670National Fire Sprinkler AssociationManufacturerPrincipal: George Von Gnatensky

M 8/9/2011AUT-HBS

Matthew Osburn

AlternateCanadian Automatic Sprinkler Association335 Renfrew Drive, Suite 302Markham, ON L3R 9S9 CanadaPrincipal: Zeljko Sucevic

IM 08/09/2012

4




AUT-HBS

Matthew J. Klaus

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

12/16/2010

5

PART 3 –

NEW PROCESS WORKSHEETS

NEW PROCESS ACTIONS AND MOTIONS

Possible Action #1: Accept Public Comment (exactly as it is)

Action Required Sample motion

Create a Second Revision I move to create a Second Revision using PC #

______.

Possible action #2: Reject but see (revise submitted text)


Step 1 Create a Second Revision based on a

Public Comment

I move to create a Second Revision based on PC # _____with the following changes to the text . .

.

Step 2 If the revision is related to multiple PCs,

respond to all of them together using the cart function

I move to create a Second Revision based on PC # ____and incorporating PC #s _____with the

following changes to the text . . .

Possible action #3: Reject (no change to the standard)


Generate a statement (substantiation) I move to reject PC # ____ with the following

substantiation . . .

Possible Action #4: Reject but hold (new material)


Reject Public Comment for this cycle, but

save for next revision cycle

I move to reject PC # ____ but hold it for consideration during the First Draft meeting next

cycle.

PART 4 –

A2015 FIRST DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

TC on Hanging and Bracing Systems

First Draft Meeting

Union Station Hotel

Nashville, Tennessee

August 12-13, 2013

Attendees:

See attached list of attendees.

1. Jim Biggins (TC Chair) called the meeting to order at 8:00 am and began

introductions.

2. The A2012 ROC minutes were approved.

3. Matt Klaus gave the staff report and a presentation on the meeting procedures.

4. Jim Biggins discussed the logistics for the meeting and the order of the task group

reporting.

5. The committee processed the public input that was included in the meeting

agenda. See the First Draft Report for the official actions on the public input and

the First Revisions created by the TC.

6. New Business: The TC discussed several topics that will be studied by task group

prior to the Second Draft Meeting. These topics and assignments are as follows:

i) Cp Validation Task Group – This Task Group will look into

verifying/validating the Cp values used in NFPA 13. This may include

looking outside of the technical committee for additional information on these

values (ASCE). This task group will also look at concerns about the use of

non-metallic piping.

Bob Bachman – TG Leader

Ray Lambert

Chip Lindley

Victoria Valentine

John Gillengarten

ii) HBS Metric Review Task Group – This task group will review the metric

values associated with the example in Figure A.9.3.5(b).

Jeff Harper – TG Leader

Janak Patel

Steve Berry

iii) The remaining task groups that were formed for the Pre-First Draft Meeting

may need to meet prior to the Second Draft Meeting pending public comment

submissions.

7. The Second Draft meeting is scheduled for Summer 2014 at a date and location to

be determined.

8. Meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm on August 13.

Attendees

Principals:

James Biggins, Chair

Steve Berry

Robert Caputo

Samuel Dannaway

Christopher Deneff

Daniel Duggan

Thomas Forsythe

John Gillengerten

Jeffrey Harper

David Jeltes

Kraig Kirschner

Alan Laguna

George Laverick

Philip LeGrone

Leslie “Chip” Lindley

Norman MacDonald

Randy Nelson

Marco Nieraeth

Janak Patel

Peter Schwab

Zlijko Sucevic

James Tauby

Glenn Thompson

Victoria Valentine

Kenneth Wagoner

Ronald Webb

Thomas Wellen

Alternates:

Robert Bachman

Sheldon Dacus

John Deutsch

Daniel Duggan

Ray Lambert

E. Moore

Joseph Normandeau

Matthew Klaus, NFPA Staff Liaison

Guests:

Elena Carroll

Chuck Oakes

PART 5 –

A2015 KEY DATES

2015 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE *Public Input Dates may vary according to standards and schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA Website for the most up‐to‐date information on Public Input Closing Dates and schedules at

www.nfpa.org/document # (i.e. www.nfpa.org/101) and click on the Next Edition tab.

Process Stage

Process Step

Dates for

TC

Dates forTC with CC

Public Input Closing Date* 7/8/2013 7/8/2013

Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 12/13/2013 9/13/2013

Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 1/31/2014 10/25/2013

Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 7/21/2014 11/15/2013

(First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot ‐ recirc 2/28/2014 11/22/2013

Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 11/29/2013

Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 1/10/2014

Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 1/31/2014

Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 2/21/2014

Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot ‐ recirc 2/28/2014

Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 3/7/2014 3/7/2014

Public Comment Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 4/11/2014 4/11/2014

Public Comment Closing Date for Online Submittal (e‐PC)* 5/16/2014 5/16/2014

Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Documents (Standards that received no Comments)

5/30/2014 5/30/2014

Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that received no Comments)

6/13/2014 6/13/2014

Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 10/31/2014 7/25/2014

Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 12/12/2014 9/5/2014

Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 1/2/2015 9/26/2014

(Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot ‐ recirc 1/9/2015 10/3/2014

Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 10/10/2014

Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 11/21/2014

Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 12/12/2014

Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 1/2/2015

Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot ‐ recirc 1/9/2015

Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 1/16/2015 1/16/2015

Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 3/6/2015 3/6/2015

Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent Standards

5/1/2015 5/1/2015

(& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 5/16/2015 5/16/2015

SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 5/26/2015 5/26/2015

Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/22‐25/2016 6/22‐25/2016

Appeals and Appeal Closing Date for Standards with CAMs 7/15/2015 7/15/2015

Issuance SC Issuance Date for Standards with CAMs 8/20/2015 8/20/2015

Approved___ October 18, 2011 _ Revised__March 7, 2013_____________

PART 6 –

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Public Comment No. 276-NFPA 13-2014 [ New Section after 3.11.11 ]

AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEFINITIONS

3.12 Agro-Industrial Definitions

3.12.1 Agro-Industrial Facility. A facility, or portion thereof, housing operations involving thetransformation of raw agricultural products into intermediate or consumable byproducts.

3.12.2 Biomass. Plant or animal-based material of biological origin, excluding material embedded ingeological formations or transformed into fossil.

3.12.3 Solid Biofuel. Densified biomass in the form of cubiform, polyhedral, polyhydric or cylindricalunits, produced by compressing milled biomass.

3.12.4 Solid Biomass Feedstock. The basic materials from which biofuel is comprised, manufactured ormade.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

The proposed language facilitates the full characterization of agro-industrial biomass manufacturing operations for the NFPA 13 user as Occupancy Classification Ordinary Hazard – G2. It includes the assessment of fire control and the reduction of exposures to and from facilities storing and processing crop-residue and/or animal-based materials of biological origin as "solid biomass feedstock" for industrial-scale, biofuel production.

NOTE: The BIPCS believes the DEFINITIONS section to be the most appropriate location for the proposed Occupancy Classification as it relates to existing solid biomass feedstock (Class III Commodities), that are already and identified by name (below) in existing in Table A.5.6.3.3. These BIOMASS products already have been identified as Class III Commodities:1. Beans – Dried (e.g., packaged or cartoned)2. Cartons – Corrugates (e.g., unassembled in neat piles)3. Cereals (e.g., oats) – Packaged or cartoned4. Charcoal – Bagged (e.g., standard)5. Cloth – Cartoned and not cartoned (e.g., enatural fiber, viscose6. Cocoa Products – Packaged, cartoned 7. Coffee – Packaged, cartoned 8. Coffee Beans – Bagged9. Cotton – Packaged, cartoned10. Empty Containers – Wood, solid sided containers (e.g., crates, boxes or barrels) empty11. Grains — Packaged in Cartons (e.g., Barley, Rice, Oats)12. Nuts – Packaged, cartoned and Bagged13. Skis – Wood14. Textiles – Natural fiber clothing or textile products, Synthetics (except rayon and nylon), 50/50 blend or less (e.g., Thread, yarn on wood or paper spools, Fabrics)15. Tobacco Products – in paperboard cartons16. Wood Products – Spools (empty), Toothpicks, clothespins, hangers in cartons, Doors, windows, wood cabinets, and furniture

The Biomass Industry Panel on Codes & Standards (BIPCS), led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), is an initiative of the Department of Energy Biomass Technologies Office (BTO). As part of the BTO integrated biorefinery efforts, the BFICOCS was assembled to conduct analysis of existing fire and building codes and to prepare proposed code changes designed to facilitate the development of the commercial-scale biomass industry while maintaining a focus on safety. The committee is made up of managers, engineers and code officials from industry, government laboratories, consulting firms, and the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE).

Fire codes related to storage, handling, and pre-processing of biomass are based on industries that operate in a significantly different manner than the growing biomass-based energy industry. Applying current research on biomass properties and knowledge of conventional and emerging storage, handling, and pre-processing technologies, the BIPCS has submitted changes to both the NFPA and ICC development processes intent on

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

77 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

benefiting both industry and the public.

Related Item

Public Input No. 488-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after 3.11.11]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Darren Meyers

Organization: IECC LLC

Affilliation: Co-Chairman DOE Biomass Industry Panel on Codes & Standards (BIPCS)

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu May 15 20:36:42 EDT 2014


78 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 122-NFPA 13-2014 [ Section No. 9.1.1.6.3 ]

9.1.1.6.3 *

Ferrous hanger rods shall be fabricated from steel that meets the requirements of ASTM A307, StandardSpecification for Carbon Steel Bolts and Studs , 60 000 psi tensile strength, Grade A or B, or the material,strength and fit requirements of other equivalent standards.


There is no practical method to label or brand the ATR to prove that it was manufactured to meet the requirements of ASTM A307. There have not been documented failures of all thread rod. Delete this section.

Related Item

Public Input No. 45-NFPA 13-2013 [Section No. 9.1.1.6]


Submitter Full Name: Peter Schwab

Organization: Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinkler

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Apr 18 14:08:46 EDT 2014


161 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.1.1.6.3 *

Ferrous hanger rods shall be fabricated from steel that meets the requirements of ASTM A307, StandardSpecification for Carbon Steel Bolts and Studs , 60 000 psi tensile strength, Grade A or B, or the material,strength and fit requirements of other equivalent standards.


Although it is recognized that hanger rods should be of good quality, this requirement is virtually unenforceable and therefore unreasonable to implement. There is no practical way to mark hanger rods in order to positively identify them as meeting this requirement.

Related Item

First Revision No. 38-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after A.9.1.1.5.3]

First Revision No. 5-NFPA 13-2013 [Section No. 9.1.1.6]


Submitter Full Name: Robert Upson

Organization: National Fire Sprinkler Association

Affilliation: NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon May 12 11:27:48 EDT 2014


162 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.1.1.7.9

Where angles are used for slotted holes are utilized with angle trapeze hangers, the slotted holes shallmeet all of the following:

(1) The length of each slotted hole shall not exceed 3 in.

(2) The width of the slotted hole shall not exceed 1 ⁄16 in. greater than the bolt or rod diameter.

(3) The minimum distance between slotted holes shall be 3 in. edge to edge.

(4) The minimum distance from the end of the angle to the edge of the slotted hole shall be 3 in.

(5) The number of slots shall be limited to three per section of angle.

(6) The washer required by 9.1.1.7.8 shall have a minimum thickness of one-half the thickness of theangle.

(7) Multiple washers shall not be used.

(8) Washer and nuts required by 9.1.1.7.8 shall be provided on both the top and bottom of the angle.


As currently written, this section mandates the use of slots when using angle iron for trapeze hangers.

Related Item

First Revision No. 39-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after 9.1.1.7.8]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



163 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.1.1.7.9

Where angles are used for trapeze hangers, slotted holes shall meet all of the following:










Using multiple washers is common practice.

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



164 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.1.1.7.9

Where angles are used for trapeze hangers, slotted holes shall meet all of the following:









Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

LGK_NFPA_13-2013_Comment_9-1-1-7-9.pdf PC Form


The steel angle sizes listed in Table 9.1.1.7.1 (b) range from ⅛ to 1 in in thickness, so the provision for washers one half the thickness of the angle would require washers up to ½ inches thick with different washers required for each different size of trapeze member. This is a totally impractical proposition. Standard washers come with only limited thickness ranges. For example the nominal thickness of a ½ In. SAE washer is only 0.074 inches and ½ in USS washers are just 0.086 inches. Extra thick washers are not commonly available in the marketplace and no substantiation has been provided to justify the need for such abnormally thick washers.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: Larry Keeping

Organization: Professional Loss Control

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Apr 28 08:50:08 EDT 2014


165 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.1.1.8.1 *

Sprinkler piping or , sprinklers or hangers shall not be used to support non-system components.


Currently this section implies that you cannot hang from the sprinkler since it is connected to piping and the hangers. This section should explicitly state sprinklers cannot be used to hang to.

Related Item

Public Input No. 147-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after 6.2.1]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



166 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 290-NFPA 13-2014 [ Section No. 9.1.3.1 ]

9.1.3.1

CURRENT: Unless prohibited by 9.1.3.2 or 9.1.3.3, the use of listed inserts set in concrete and listedpost-installed anchors to support hangers shall be permitted for mains and branch lines.

PROPOSAL: Unless prohibited by 9.1.3.2 or 9.1.3.3 , the use of listed inserts set in concrete and listedpost-installed anchors to support hangers shall be permitted for mains and branch lines. Specialtyconcrete inserts and post-installed concrete anchors that meet the requirementes of ICC-ES AC446Acceptance Criteria for Cast-In Speciality Inserts , AC193 Acceptance Criteria for Mechanical Anchors inConcrete Elements or AC308 Acceptance Criteria for Adhesive Anchors in Concrete Elements areconsidered as listed for use with this standard.


The independent testing and follow up quality inspections provided by ICC-ES meet the definition of listing according to this standard. This revision is needed to support the proposed amendments for the anchoring requirements in seismic applications as well.

Related Item

First Revision No. 36-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after A.9.3.6.6]


Submitter Full Name: Jake Olsen

Organization: STANLEY BLACK & DECKER

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri May 16 09:42:56 EDT 2014


167 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 272-NFPA 13-2014 [ New Section after 9.2.1.3.1 ]

Add new annex:

A.9.2.1.3.1 The intent of this section is not to place the burden of verifying adequacy of structural design onthe installing contractor. The weight of the water filled pipe plus 250 lb (114 kg) are estimated loads forstructural engineers to calculate structural elements in the building. Determining the actual weights of eachutility system is not practical and the structural design is based on a dead load allowance for these items.The actual weight of equipment to be installed is unknown during the design phase of a building since thesize and arrangement of the equipment has yet to be determined. Estimates by structural engineers ofdead loads are typically greater than the actual dead loads so that the computations are conservative and aredesign of the structure will not be necessary when the actual weights become known. The loads forstructural designs are required to be approved by the building official. Thus verification by the structuralengineer should not be necessary for branch lines but may be needed for the loads of feed mains andcross mains.


Contractors are being required to prove the connection can support the weight of the pipe plus 250 lbs. This is also being required for existing buildings where drops are being relocated. Some AHJs are rejecting plans since the steel structural member can handle the sprinkler piping and components but the loads are exceeded when the 250 lbs is added as a point load. Example - The steel data sheet will show it can support a point load of 180 lbs. A branch line is far below that weight but the 250 lbs. exceeds the permitted point load. Safety factors are already addressed by the design of the structural engineer.

References in A.9.2.1.3 may also be affected by this comment.

Related Item

First Revision No. 10-NFPA 13-2013 [Section No. 9.2.1.3.1]


Submitter Full Name: Thomas Wellen

Organization: American Fire Sprinkler Associ

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



168 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.2.1.3.1

Sprinkler piping shall be substantially supported from the building structure, which must support the addedload of the water-filled pipe plus a minimum of 250 lb (114 kg) applied at the point of hanging, exceptwhere permitted by by 9.2.1.1.2 , 9.2.1.3.3 , and 9.2.1.4.1 .


Structural engineers do not design for the weight of the water-filled pipe plus 250 lbs. The 250 lb reference is meaningless to structural engineers. Structural engineers have their own design guidelines and safety factors applied and do not match the requirement of NFPA 13.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: Thomas Wellen

Organization: American Fire Sprinkler Associ

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



169 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 328-NFPA 13-2014 [ New Section after 9.2.6.1.1 ]

9.2.6.1.1.1

The requirements of 9.2.6.1.1 shall not apply to short (4ft or less) pipe stands used for BFPs, Fire

Pump Piping and Test Headers.


It is not the intent of the this section to be applied to short pipe stands of 4 ft or less as are commonly used to support components such as BFPs, Pump Piping and Test Headers. These components have been successfully supporting with short pipe stands in systems without a history of failure.

Related Item

First Revision No. 41-NFPA 13-2013 [Section No. 9.2.6]





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



170 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.3.4.10 *

The installed horizontal and upward vertical clearance between horizontal sprinkler piping and equipmentattached to the building structure or other systems’ piping shall be at least 2 in. (50 mm).

No clearance shall be required where piping is supported by holes through structural members aspermitted by 9.1.1.6.3.


This is a return to the language of the 2013 edition. This requirement would place an unreasonable burden on sprinkler installers by requiring them to maintain clearances from equipment and systems that are not under their control.

Related Item

First Revision No. 16-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after A.9.3.4]

First Revision No. 45-NFPA 13-2013 [Sections 9.3.4.9, 9.3.4.10]





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



171 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.3.4.11

The installed clearance between sprinklers (drops and sprigs) and structural members not usedcollectively or independently to support the sprinklers, or from equipment attached to the building structure,or from other systems’ piping shall be at least 3 in. (75 mm) in all directions unless the requirements of9.3.4.11.1 are met.

9.3.4.11.1

Where sprinklers are installed using flexible sprinkler hose, clearance for the sprinkler shall not berequired.


This new section is too onerous and essentially impossible in certain installations where there are multiple additional trades (Hospitals). The use of a flexible hose does help to alleviate the issue but what about uprights and sprigs. Delete this section.

Related Item

First Revision No. 16-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after A.9.3.4]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



172 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM


9.3.5.5.10 *

The requirements of9.3.5.5.10* The lateral sway bracing required by 9.3.5.5 shall be permi ed to be omi ed when

either9.3.5.5.10.1 for branch lines or 9.3.5.5.10.2

arefor mains is met.


173 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

9.3.5.5.10.1

Branch lines shall comply with all of the following:

(1) * The branch lines shall be individually supported within 6 in

.

(1) (152 mm) of the structure, measured between the top of the pipe and the point of attachmentto the building structure.

Seventy

(1) At least seventy -five percent of all the hangers on the branch line shall meet

, and not

(1) the requirements of 9.3.5.5.10.1(1).

(2) Not more than two consecutive hangers on the branch line shall be permitted to exceed

,

(1) the limitation in 9.3.5.5.10.1 (1).

9.3.5.5.10.2

Main piping

Mains shall comply with all of the following:

(1) * The main piping shall be individually supported within 6 in

.

(1) (152 mm) of the structure, measured between the top of the pipe and the point of attachment to thebuilding structure.

Seismic

(1) At least seventy-five percent of all the hangers on the main shall meet the requirements of9.3.5.5.10.2(1)

(2) Not more than two consecutive hangers on the main shall be permitted to exceed the limitation in9.3.5.5.10.2(1).

(3) The seismic coefficient ( C p ) shall not exceed 1.0.

(4) The nominal pipe diameter shall not exceed 6 in

.

(1) (152 mm) for feed mains and 4 in

. Hangers are not

(1) (102 mm) for cross mains.

Seventy-five percent of all the hangers on the main shall meet, and not more than two consecutive hangersshall be permitted to exceed, the limitation in 9.3.5.5.10.2 (1).

(1) Hangers shall not be omitted in accordance with 9.2.4.3 , 9.2.4.4 , or 9.2.4.5 .



NFPA13-2016-FD-NFSA-FRs.pdf 6-inch Rod Rule Text



174 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

The so-called “6 inch rod rule” is often misapplied. This proposal and accompanying drawings clarifies the intent and proper application of the rule.

Related Item






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



175 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Action Items from Spring 2014 E & S Meeting for NFPA 13 (2016) FR (Upson) Closes 5/16/14 @ 1700 ET

10

Item10–6‐inchRodRule

Proposed:9.3.5.5.10* The lateral sway bracing required by 9.3.5.5 shall be permitted to be omitted when 9.3.5.5.10.1 for branch lines or 9.3.5.5.10.2 for mains is met. 9.3.5.5.10.1 Branch lines shall comply with all of the following: (1) * The branch lines shall be individually supported within 6 in (152 mm) of the structure, measured

between the top of the pipe and the point of attachment to the building structure. (2) At least seventy‐five percent of all the hangers on the branch line shall meet the requirements of

9.3.5.5.10.1(1). (3) Not more than two consecutive hangers on the branch line shall be permitted to exceed the

limitation in 9.3.5.5.10.1(1). 9.3.5.5.10.2 Mains shall comply with all of the following: (1) * The main piping shall be individually supported within 6 in (152 mm) of the structure, measured

between the top of the pipe and the point of attachment to the building structure. (2) At least seventy‐five percent of all the hangers on the main shall meet the requirements of

9.3.5.5.10.2(1) (3) Not more than two consecutive hangers on the main shall be permitted to exceed the limitation in

9.3.5.5.10.2(1). (4) The seismic coefficient (Cp) shall not exceed 1.0. (5) The nominal pipe diameter shall not exceed 6 in (152 mm) for feed mains and 4 in (102 mm) for

cross mains. (6) Hangers shall not be omitted in accordance with 9.2.4.3, 9.2.4.4, or 9.2.4.5.

9.3.5.5.10.3 Branch lines permitted to omit lateral sway bracing by 9.3.5.5.10* shall not be omitted

from load calculations for the mains serving them in 9.3.5.9.6*.

A.9.3.5.5.10 This does not apply to piping supported by or suspended from trapeze hangers.

Public Comment No. 329-NFPA 13-2014 [ New Section after 9.3.5.5.10.2 ]

9.3.5.5.10.3

Branch lines permitted to omit lateral sway bracing by 9.3.5.5.10* shall not be omitted from loadcalculations for the mains serving them in 9.3.5.9.6*.



Related Public Comments for This Document

Related Comment Relationship

Public Comment No. 297-NFPA 13-2014 [Section No. 9.3.5.5.10]

Related Item






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



176 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM



177 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

9.3.5.11.8*


178 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

The loads determined in 9.3.5.9 shall not exceed the lesser of the maximum allowable loads provided inTable 9.3.5.11.8(a) , Table 9.3.5.11.8(b) , and Table 9.3.5.11.8(c) or the manufacturer's certified maximumallowable horizontal loads for brace angles of 30 to 44 degrees, 45 to 59 degrees, 60 to 89 degrees, or 90degrees.

Table 9.3.5.11.8(a) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with l/r = 100 for Steel Braces with Fy =36 ksi

Area

(in.2)Least Radius ofGyration (r) (in.)

Maximum Horizontal Load (lb)

MaximumLength for l/r =

100Brace Angle

Brace Shapeand Size (in.)

ft in.

30° to 44°

Angle fromVertical

45° to 59°

Angle fromVertical

60° to 90°

Angle fromVertical

Pipe

Schedule40

1 0.494 0.421 3 6 3,150 4,455 5,456

11⁄4 0.669 0.540 4 6 4,266 6,033 7,389

11⁄2 0.799 0.623 5 2 5,095 7,206 8,825

2 1.07 0.787 6 6 6,823 9,650 11,818

Angles11⁄2 ×11⁄2 ×

1⁄40.688 0.292 2 5 4,387 6,205 7,599

2 × 2× 1⁄4

0.938 0.391 3 3 5,982 8,459 10,360

21⁄2 ×2 × 1⁄4

1.06 0.424 3 6 6,760 9,560 11,708

21⁄2 ×21⁄2 ×

1⁄41.19 0.491 4 1 7,589 10,732 13,144

3 ×21⁄2 ×

1⁄41.31 0.528 4 4 8,354 11,814 14,469

3 × 3× 1⁄4

1.44 0.592 4 11 9,183 12,987 15,905

Rods 3⁄8 0.07 0.075 0 7 446 631 773

(allthread)

1⁄2 0.129 0.101 0 10 823 1,163 1,425

5⁄8 0.207 0.128 1 0 1,320 1,867 2,2863⁄4 0.309 0.157 1 3 1,970 2,787 3,4137⁄8 0.429 0.185 1 6 2,736 3,869 4,738

Rods 3⁄8 0.11 0.094 0 9 701 992 1,215

(threadedat

1⁄2 0.196 0.125 1 0 1,250 1,768 2,165

ends only) 5⁄8 0.307 0.156 1 3 1,958 2,769 3,3913⁄4 0.442 0.188 1 6 2,819 3,986 4,8827⁄8 0.601 0.219 1 9 3,833 5,420 6,638

Flats11⁄2 ×

1⁄40.375 0.0722 0 7 2,391 3,382 4,142

2 × 1⁄4 0.5 0.0722 0 7 3,189 4,509 5,523

2 × 3⁄8 0.75 0.1082 0 10 4,783 6,764 8,284


179 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Table 9.3.5.11.8(b) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with l/r = 200 for Steel Braces with Fy =36 ksi

Area



MaximumLength for

l/r = 200 Brace Angle

Brace Shapeand Size (in.) ft in.

30° to 44°

Angle fromVertical

45° to 59°

Angle fromVertical

60° to 90°

Angle fromVertical

Pipe 1 0.494 0.421 7 0 926 1310 1604

Schedule40

11⁄4 0.669 0.540 9 0 1254 1774 2173

11⁄2 0.799 0.623 10 4 1498 2119 2595

2 1.07 0.787 13 1 2006 2837 3475

Angles11⁄2 ×11⁄2 ×

1⁄40.688 0.292 4 10 1290 1824 2234

2 × 2× 1⁄4

0.938 0.391 6 6 1759 2487 3046

21⁄2 ×2 × 1⁄4

1.06 0.424 7 0 1988 2811 3442

21⁄2 ×21⁄2 ×

1⁄41.19 0.491 8 2 2231 3155 3865

3 ×21⁄2 ×

1⁄41.31 0.528 8 9 2456 3474 4254

3 × 3× 1⁄4

1.44 0.592 9 10 2700 3818 4677

Rods 3⁄8 0.07 0.075 1 2 131 186 227

(allthread)

1⁄2 0.129 0.101 1 8 242 342 419

5⁄8 0.207 0.128 2 1 388 549 6723⁄4 0.309 0.157 2 7 579 819 10047⁄8 0.429 0.185 3 0 804 1138 1393

Rods 3⁄8 0.11 0.094 1 6 206 292 357

(threadedat

1⁄2 0.196 0.125 2 0 368 520 637

endsonly)

5⁄8 0.307 0.156 2 7 576 814 997

3⁄4 0.442 0.188 3 1 829 1172 14357⁄8 0.601 0.219 3 7 1127 1594 1952

Flats11⁄2 ×

1⁄40.375 0.0722 1 2 703 994 1218

2 × 1⁄4 0.5 0.0722 1 2 938 1326 1624

2 × 3⁄8 0.75 0.1082 1 9 1406 1989 2436

Table 9.3.5.11.8(c) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with l/r = 300 for Steel Braces with Fy =36 ksi


180 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Area



MaximumLength for

l/r = 300

Brace Angle

Brace Shapeand Size (in.)

ft in.

30° to 44°

Angle fromVertical

45° to 59°

Angle fromVertical

60° to 90°

Angle fromVertical

Pipe 1 0.494 0.421 10 6 412 582 713

Schedule40

11⁄4 0.669 0.540 13 6 558 788 966

11⁄2 0.799 0.623 15 6 666 942 1153

2 1.07 0.787 19 8 892 1261 1544

Angles11⁄2 ×11⁄2 ×

1⁄40.688 0.292 7 3 573 811 993

2 × 2× 1⁄4

0.938 0.391 9 9 782 1105 1354

21⁄2 ×2 × 1⁄4

1.06 0.424 10 7 883 1249 1530

21⁄2 ×21⁄2 ×

1⁄41.19 0.491 12 3 992 1402 1718

3 ×21⁄2 ×

1⁄41.31 0.528 13 2 1092 1544 1891

3 × 3× 1⁄4

1.44 0.592 14 9 1200 1697 2078

Rods 3⁄8 0.07 0.075 1 10 58 82 101

(allthread)

1⁄2 0.129 0.101 2 6 108 152 186

5⁄8 0.207 0.128 3 2 173 244 2993⁄4 0.309 0.157 3 11 258 364 4467⁄8 0.429 0.185 4 7 358 506 619

Rods 3⁄8 0.11 0.094 2 4 92 130 159

(threadedat

1⁄2 0.196 0.125 3 1 163 231 283

endsonly)

5⁄8 0.307 0.156 3 10 256 362 443

3⁄4 0.442 0.188 4 8 368 521 6387⁄8 0.601 0.219 5 5 501 708 867

Flats11⁄2 ×

1⁄40.375 0.0722 1 9 313 442 541

2 × 1⁄4 0.5 0.0722 1 9 417 589 722

2 × 3⁄8 0.75 0.1082 2 8 625 884 1083


CC NOTE: The following CC Note No. 18 appeared in the First Draft Report as Global First Revision No. 25.


181 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

The TC should review this language to confirm that the language adequately addresses the intent of the TC.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: CC on AUT-AAC

Organization: CC on Automatic Sprinkler Systems

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Apr 29 14:15:04 EDT 2014


182 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 298-NFPA 13-2014 [ Section No. 9.3.5.12.7.1 ]

9.3.5.12.7.1 *

CURRENT: Concrete anchors shall be prequalified for seismic applications in accordance with ACI 355.2,Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete and Commentary, and installed inaccordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

PROPOSED: Concrete anchors shall be prequalified for seismic applications in accordance with ACI355.2, Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete and Commentary,ACI355.4, Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete and Commentary, ICC-ES AC446Acceptance Criteria for Cast-In Specialty Inserts , AC193, Acceptance Criteria for Mechanical Anchors inConcrete Elements, or AC308, Acceptanc Criteria for Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in ConcreteElements . Anchors must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.


ACI355.2 does not cover all types of concrete anchors typically used by the fire-protection industry. The additional ICC-ES acceptance criteria listed all include seismic qualification tests in accordance with either 355.2 or 355.4, and Evaluation Reports and approvals according to these acceptance criteria have a higher level of recognition - both at the design level and jobsite inspector level.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: Jake Olsen

Organization: STANLEY BLACK & DECKER

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



183 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 288-NFPA 13-2014 [ Section No. A.9.1.1.6.3 ]

A.9.1.1.6.3

Other standards equivalent to ASTM A307 grades A or B include SAE J429 Grades 1 or 2. Both fastenersare fabricated from low or medium carbon steel, and requirements have a minimum tensile strength of 60ksi.


Although it is recognized that hanger rods should be of good quality, this requirement is virtually unenforceable and therefore unreasonable to implement. There is no practical way to mark hanger rods in order to positively identify them as meeting this requirement.




Related Item

First Revision No. 38-NFPA 13-2013 [New Section after A.9.1.1.5.3]





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



552 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Public Comment No. 300-NFPA 13-2014 [ Section No. A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1) ]


553 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)


554 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

Figure A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)(a) and Figure A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)(b) are examples of how to measure the distancebetween the top of pipe and the point of attachment.

Figure A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)(a) Measurement for Distance Between Top of Pipe and Point of Attachment(Example 1).

[NEW DRAWING SUBMITTED]

Figure A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)(b) Measurement for Distance Between Top of Pipe and Point of Attachment(Example 2).


555 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

[NEW DRAWING SUBMITTED]



rod_rule_revised-steel.pdf

Figure A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)(a) Measurement for Distance Between Top of Pipe and Point of Attachment (Example 1).

rod_rule_revised-wood.pdf

Figure A.9.3.5.5.10.1(1)(b) Measurement for Distance Between Top of Pipe and Point of Attachment (Example 2).






Related Item






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


556 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM



557 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM

6 inch max.

Wood Beam

6 inch max.

Public Comment No. 292-NFPA 13-2014 [ Section No. A.9.3.5.9.6.1 ]

A.9.3.5.9.6.1

Where the C p is 1.0 or greater, the calculation should be done for any length riser nipple. The loads in

this condition can rapidly exceed the yield strength. Where steel Schedule 10 and Schedule 40 pipe areused, the section modulus can be found in Table 9.1.1.7.1(b) .

Seismic Coefficient

C p ≤ 0.50 C p ≤ 0.67 C p ≤ 1.0 C p > 1.0

Riser

Nipple

Length

> 4ft (1.2 m) X X X X

≤ 4 ft (1.2 m) X X X

≤ 3 ft (915 mm) X X

≤ 2 ft (610 mm) X

Note: Conditions marked X are required to satisfy the equation provided in 9.3.5.9.6.1.

TABLE A.9.3.5.9.6.1


This table clarifies the circumstances under which the allowable yield strength (Fy) must be calculated using the equation provided in 9.3.5.9.6.1 and the conditions under which it is deemed to comply without calculation according to the three combinations of riser nipple length and seismic coefficient provided in that section.

Related Item

First Revision No. 48-NFPA 13-2013 [Section No. 9.3.5.9.6.1]





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



558 of 579 5/19/2014 1:50 PM