report of the committee on gerald r. schultz, schirmer … · 2016-03-28 · report of the...

Report of the Committee on

Automatic Sprinklers

Chester W. Schirmer, Chairman Schirmer Engineering Corp., NC

Stephen R. Hoover, Nonvoting Secretary Kemper Nat'l. Insurance Companies, IL

Charles B. Barnett, ASCOA Fire Systems, OH Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association

Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL Edward K. Budnick, Hughes Assn. Inc., MD Albert M. Comly, Vitetta Group, PA

Rep. American Institute of Architects Thomas G. Daly, Hilton Hotels Corp., CA

Rep. American Hotel & Motel Assn. James R. DoMing, Nat'l Assn. of Home Builders, DC

(Vote Limited to 13D, 13R) Robert E. Duke, Fire Control Inc., IL Russell P. Fleming, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY Christopher M. Goddard, ICI Americas Inc., DE Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

RobertJ. Gray, Fire Spec Inc., MA Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn., Inc.

Richard E. Hughey, ISO Commercial Risk Services, NJ Rolf H. Jensen, RolfJensen & Associates Inc., IL Kenneth W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers, CT B.J. Lukes, Grinnell Fire Protection System Co. Ltd., BC Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn.

Daniel Madrzykowski, Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD Wayne M. Martin, Los Angeles City Fire Dept., CA M. L. "Larry" Marnskin, U.S. Fire Administration, MD

(Vote Limited to 13D, 13R)

J . IL Mawhinney, Nat't Research Council of Canada, ON oseph G. Novak, S. Pasadena Fire Dept., FL Rep. Fire Marshals Association of North America

John G. O'Neill, Gage-Babcock & Assn. Inc., VA E. J. Schlffhauer, Eastman Kodak Co., NY Thomas L. Siegfried, Altamonte Springs Fire Dept., FL

Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs William P. Stackpole, Liberty Mutual, NH

Re . The Alliance of American Insurers WilllPe R, Templin, American Automatic Sprinkler, Inc., TX

Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. William L. Testa, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. Inc., RI

Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association JohnJ. Walsh, United Assn. ofJrnymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Ind of US & Can, MD William E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA IL J. Wright, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, ON

Alternates

James R. Bell, Marriott Corp., DC (Alt. to T. G. Daly)

Antonio C. M. Braga, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA (Art. to W. E. Wilcox)

Graham Clarke, Gage-Babcock & Associates, CA (Alt. toJ. G. O'Neill)

Don R. Dean, Dow Chemical Co., TX (Art. to IFPS Representative)

David D. Evans, Ctr for Fire Research, MD (Art. to D. Madrzykowski)

John Gait, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn., ON (Art. to B.J. Lukes)

Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY (Art. to R. P. Fleming)

George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL (Art. to K. M. Bell)

Edward R. Lising, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, ON (Art. to R.J. Wright)

Francis J. Mikloucich, Eastman Kodak Co., NY (Art. to E.J. Schiffhauer)

RobertJ. Pearce, industrial Risk Insurers, CA (Art. to K. W. Linder)

James Retzioff, The Viking Corp., MI (Art. to C. Barnett)

J. K. Richardson, Nat'l Research Council of Canada (Art. toJ. IL Mawhinney)

Paul E. Rousseau, HFP Sprinkler Inc., MA (Alt. to W. R. Templin)

Gerald R. Schultz, Schirmer Engineering Corp., IL (Art. to C. W. Schirmer)

Harry Shaw, Hurry Shaw & Associates Inc., MD (Art. to T. L. Siegfried)

Nell P. Stong, Joseph Stong Inc., PA (Alt. to R.J. Gray)

Jack Thacker, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of S. (LA, CA (Alt. to W. L. Testa)

James B. Visger, Road Sprinkler Fitters Union, MD (Art. toJ.J. Walsh)

William A.Webb, RolfJensen & Assn. Inc., IL (Alt. to R. H.Jensen)

Nonvoting

William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates Inc., MD Barry M. Lee, Wormald Australia Pty Limited, Australia John Nigel Stephens, Loss Prevention Council, England Richard G. Walker, Bassett Consulting Engineers, Australia

StaffLiaison: Robert E. Solomon

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

Committee Scope: The design, installation, inspection and maintenance of automatic and of open sprinkler systems, including the character and adequacy of water supplies, and the selection of sprinklers,piping, valves and all materials and accessories: but not including the installation of fire pumps, nor the construction and installation of gP'Aty and pressure tanks and towers, nor the installation, maintenance and use of central station, proprieta~, auxiliary and local signaling systems for watchmen, fire alarm and supervisory service, nor the supervision and care of valves controlling water supplies, nor the design of fire department hose connections, nor the installation of private fire service mains and their appurenances.

The Report of the Committee on Automatic Sprinklers is presented for adoption in 4 parts.

Part I of this Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 13-1991, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systerrrs. NFPA 13-1991 is published in Volume 1 of die 1992 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part I of dais Rel~ort has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers which consists of 28 voting members; of whom 27 voted affirmatively, and 1 ballot was not returned (Mr. Dean).

Part II of this Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers and proposes for adoption the withdrawal of NFPA 13A-1987, Recommended Practice for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems. NFPA 13A-1987 is published in Volume 9 of the 1992 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part II of dais Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers which consists of 28 voting members; of whom 25 voted affirmatively, and 3 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Dean, O'Neill, and Wright).

Part III of this Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 13D-1991, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes. NFPA 13D- 1991 is published in Volume 1 ofdae 1992 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part IlI of this Report has been submitted to letter ballot of tire Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers which consists of 30 voting members; of whom 28 voted affirmatively. 1 voted negatively (Mr.Jensen), and 1 ballot was not returned (Mr. Dean).

Mr.Jensen voted negatively stating: "13D-1 (Log #29). The submitted Test Data does not support die

proposal. See my letter of March 30, 1992 regarding TIA #387 for additional supporting comments. This is a serious and unwarranted lowering of system design criteria and is likely to result in a high rate of system failure."

460

Note: T h a t p o r t i o n of Mr. Jensens letter, referred to above follows. This letter is based u p o n a Tentative Inter im A m e n d m e n t on this concept (TIA #387) which was circulated for Public C o m m e n t in March, 1992 but was withdrawn by t h e p r o p o n e n t of the TIA.

"My negative on this is on both procedural and technical grounds . From . . . . . a procedural s tandpoint , the exception to 4-2.1 permits special resldenual spnnklers when installed m accordance with listing limitations provided they do no t otherwise violate the Standard. Thus, to the extent that the system has a water supply capable of supplying two sprinklers as provided for in 4-1.2, a flow rate or design basis o ther than 4-1.1 is already permissible both in 13D and in related port ions of 131L Accordingly, it does no t appear that the p r o p o n e n t has established that an emergen t need exists. Indeed, there are n u m e r o u s sprinklers listed by nationally recognized testing laboratories with coverage areas and flow rates that differ f rom those specified in the appropr ia te paragraphs of 13D and 13R.

The technical issue at the core of this submittal is whether it is appropriate to design any sprinklers system, i.e., 13, 13D or 13R for less than a two-sprinkler design basis. W h e n the 13 Commit tee created the concept of a low cost, slightly imperfect system, at the onset of the Standard, I do no t believe that they conceived a system having no safety factor. The test data which fo rmed the basis of the substantive revisions that were made in the 1980 revision to 13D covered a broad array of tests at a n u m b e r of testing agencies, including Factory Mutual, Los Angeles Fire Depar tment , NFPA, UL, and others. If one reanalyzes the bu lk of that test data it will become clear tha t mos t of the successfully ext inguished fires were extin- gu i shed with one sprinkler. Wha t was critical to the successful per formance was tha t the flow rate and response and distribution characteristics were such that water was applied to the fire at a sufficiently early t ime in its growth stage to effectively stop growth while, concurrently, assur ing tenability conditions. Thus, the rationale proposed by the submit ter of this TIA could jus t as well have been adop ted by the Sprinkler Commit tee in the promulga t ion of the 1980 edition of the Standard. T he two-sprinkler design was established to assure a safety factor in the system for the rare c i rcumstance where the sprinkler in the immedia te proximity of the fire origin is, for some reason, impaired. This approach provided two sprinklers, one in a backup mode, and the data cited by the p r o p o n e n t in his paragraph n u m b e r 4 indicates that this has, in fact, been happening .

The reasons that the submit ter offers in his paragraph n u m b e r e d 1 and 2, are political and no t technical reasons. As was learned with clarity in Bi rmingham, a 13D system, with an impaired water supply, will no t save lives, and regardless of the rationale that says that there are places where the water supply wiU no t mee t the cur rent criteria there will also be places where the water supply will no t mee t the pflroposed reduced criteria. Again, the issue is the degree to which

le safety factor is e roded by this proposal. 13D, t h rough its history

has propor ted to have provided a 90 percent system which, because of its low cost, has the potential to be installed in a large n u m b e r of

operties. That , in comparison, to a 100 percen t very costly system. e issue here is, are we now going to a 50 or a 75 percen t system, or

possibly, an even lower system, a n d i s that false security. The test data referred to the submit ter ' s reason n u m b e r 3, is no t

submi t ted in its complete form with the TIA. It is necessary that this be done in order for the Commit tee to adequately evaluate the test criteria and the safety factor yielded for application. As an example, have there been tests to evaluate the impact of an impaired sprinkler on the probability of success in main ta in ing tenable condit ions for the purpose of saving lives?

The last sen tence in the submit ter ' s reason n u m b e r 4, is a s ta tement of hope and no t a s ta tement of fact.

The results cited in submit ter ' s reason n u m b e r 6, suggests that a one-sprinkler design is inadequate , and if there is an impairment , the system will fail.

The submit ter ' s rationale for cost savings is counte red by his reason n u m b e r 8.

While the beliefs of the people cited in reasons 11 and 12, a n d / o r their presence at testing, are clearly commendab le and laudable, they are not rational reasons for technical suppor t of this proposal.

Submit ter ' s reason n u m b e r 13 does not relate to data which in any way supports dais proposal. Reason 14 has absolutely no bear ing on this submi~al . Similarly, reason 15 has no bearing, i.e., singling out one communi ty as the basis for writing a national s tandard that may significantly lower the safety factor in a system in tended to be installed for life safety.

I tem 17, 18, and 19 provide no technical suppor t for the proposal. Finally, there is no test data submit ted to show how well the

proposed system might per form unde r residential ceiling configurations that may be other than fiat (i.e., cathedral, etc.).

In summary, while the concept may have meri t in some rarer, l imited circumstances, the emergen t need has not been established, nor does the data base (not submi t ted for review and scrutiny by the Committee) indicate that the submit ter ' s concept has been fully and carefully evaluated."

Part IV of this Report was prepared by the Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers and proposes for adopt ion a m e n d m e n t s to NFPA 13R-1991, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies U p to and Including Four Stories in Height. NFPA 13R-1991 is publ ished in Volume 1 of the 1992 National Fire Codes and in separate pamph le t form.

Part IV of this Report has been submi t ted to letter ballot of the Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers which consists of 30 voting members; of whom 29 voted affirmatively, and 1 ballot was not re tu rned (Mr. Dean).

461

N F P A 13 ~ F 9 3 T C R

PART I (Log # 65)

13- 1 - (Index): Accept SUBMITTER: L G Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited RECOMMENDATION: Change the Index i tem for Rooms, small to read:

"Small ................. 4-2.2.1.3, 44.1.2.1, 6-4.4.6, A44.1 .2 .1 , A-5-2.3.3.1, A-64.4.6." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 46) 13- 2 - (1-1, TIA 91-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Brian R. Boyer, Seckman Fire Sprinklers, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise wording as follows:

Storage in excess of 12 ft (3.7 m) in he igh t is outside the scope of this standard.

Storage of high hazard materials such as Level II and III aerosols, idle pallets, rubber tires, rolled paper stored on end, plastics, and f lammable liquids are outside the scope of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Including references to storage he igh t and high hazard materials in the same paragraph may indicate the exceptions apply to storage he igh t also.

Example: Exception No. 3: Up to 10,000 units of rubber tire storage. Exception No. 3 applies only if storage height does not exceed

12ft. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed wording will be added to become 1-1 of the wording in 13-3 (Log #4).

(Log # 4) 13-3- (1-1, Table 1-4.7.4.2 ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Task Force of Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add the following to Section 1-1:

"Storage in excess of 12 fl (3.7 m) in he igh t or storage of high hazard materials such as Level II and III aerosols, idle pallets, rubber tires, roiled paper stored on end, plastics, and f lammable liquids are outside the scope of this standard.

Exception No. 1: Occupancies o ther than warehouses conta in ing up to 1,000 Ib of Level II aerosols or 500 lb of Level III aerosols or 1,000 lb of combined weight; warehouses containing up to 2,500 lb of Level II aerosols or 1,000 lb of Level III aerosols, or a combined weight of not more than 2,500 lb. (For quanti t ies exceeding these limits see NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Product.s.)

Exception No. 2: Wooden pallets s tored up to 6 ft (1.8 m) in height or plastic pallets up to 4 ft (1.2 m) in height with not over four stacks of wooden pallets or two stacks of plastic pallets separated from other stacks by at least an 8-ft (2.4-m) aisle. (For heights or quantit ies exceeding these limits see NFPA 231, Standard for General Storage.)

Exception No. 3: Up to 10,000 units of rubber tire storage. (For quantit ies in excess of 10,000 units see NFPA 231D, Standard for Storage of Rubber Tires.)

Exception No. 4: Rolled paper stored on end in heights up to those indicated in Table 1-4.7.4.2. (For heights exceeding these liuiits see NFPA 231F, Standard for the Storage of Roll Paper.)

Exception No. 5: Plastic storage up to the limits of Table 1-4.7.4.2. (For quanti t ies exceeding these limits see NFPA 231, Standard for General Storage, or 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials.)"

2. Revise Table 1-4.7.4.2 as follows: (Table shown on following page)

SUBSTANTIATION: The changes to this s tandard are based upon the need to dist inguish between fire protection criteria for incidental or ufiscellaneous storage in a bui lding that is primarily used for some other use. This distinction is necessary so as to not impose all of the fire protection criteria that are usually requi red in a warehouse. The scope and additional criteria that are proposed for this s tandard will allow the user to better unde r s t and and apply the fire protection criteria for a given occupancy.

This proposed action is also satisfying the direction given by the NFPA Standards Council to the Cha i rmen of the Sprinkler Commit- tee, Storage Committee, and Rack Storage Commit tee to resolve the overlapping scope issues between the three documents . This directive conies as the result of a complaint to the NFPA Standards Council.

COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise Exception No. 2 to read: " ... or two stacks of plastic pallets and either of which are sepa-

rated...." The r e c o m m e n d e d wording in Proposal 13-2 (Log #46) will be

incorporated into 1-1 as a part of this Commit tee Action. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: These revisions will fur ther clarify the scope of NFPA 13 with respect to these special hazards.

(Log # 126) 13-4- (14.2): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add new definition:

"Fire Restraint. Inhibi t ing fire growth to control tempera ture and toxic fire products for a period of t ime to provide a safe egress f rom the fire area." SUBSTANTIATION: Definitions of fire control and fire suppression are misleading when applied to residential sprinklers. Listed residential sprinklers are only required to delay the growth of fire for a specified period of time, not to control fire. Listing methods described in U.L.I. Standard 1626. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13- 52 (Log #124) and 1 3-8 (Log #127).

(Log # CP18) 13- 5 - (1-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definit ion of miscellaneous storage as follows:

Miscellaneous Storage*. Storage that does not exceed 12 ft (3.7 m) in he igh t and is incidental to ano the r company use group as defined in 1-4.7 (see 5-2.3.1.1). Such storage shall no t constitute more than 10 percent of the building area or 4,000 square feet of the sprinklered area, whichever is greater. SUBSTANTIATION: While TIA 91-1 closed the gap significantly on the issue of miscellaneous storage in buildings, it did not define what should be considered miscel laneous storage in terms of a percentage of total bui lding area. The revised definit ion will allow the designer to look at the overall use of the building, and, based upon what port ion is used for storage, decide if the design parameters are eithin the limits of NFPA 13 or some other d o c u m e n t such as NFPA 231 or NFPA 231C.

The 10 percent limit used in the revised definit ion comes from BOCA's accessory use definition. The 4000 square foot limit is derived f rom the 10 percent value applied to a m a x i m u m allowable 40,000 ft 2 area of coverage limit for a warehouse sprinkler zone. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 77) 13- 6 - (1-4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman. National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add two definit ions as follows:

"Gridded System. A sprinkler system in which parallel cross mains are connec ted by multiple branch lines. An operat ing sprinkler will receive water f rom both ends of its branch line while o ther branch lines help transfer water between cross mains.

LoopedSys tem. A sprinkler system in which adjacent cross mains are tied together so as to provide more than one path for water tn flow to an opera t ingspr inkler ." SUBSTANTIATION: Looped and gridded systems tend to be lumped together in the same category, yet they are very different in per formance characteristics. These differences need to be spelled out. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept the definit ion for gr idded system as shown. Modify the proposed definition for looped systems by delet ing the

word "adjacent" and substi tut ing the word "multiple". Add "... and branch lines are not tied together."

Add a sketch showing a Loop and Grid Example in the Appendix. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes these improvements will clarify the r e c o m m e n d e d definitions even further. The sketches will be of benefit to new users of the standard.

Figure A-l-4.3(a) Grid System and Figure A-1-4.3(b) Lap System will appear in the Standard.

462

N F P A 13 - - F 9 3 T C R

Table 1-4.7.4.2 Occupancy Group Classification for Miscellaneous Storage 12 ft (3.7 m) or Less in Height

Commodi ty Classes I t h r o u g h IV

Commodi ty Palletized Classification and Bin Box

Rack

I OH-1 OH-1 II OH-1 OH-1 Ill OH-2 OH-2 IV OH-2 OH-2

Group A Plastics

Height Ceiling Rack-R Car toned of Clearance to or

Storage Top of Storal~e Palletized-P Solid Expanded

To 5 ft No Limit R-P OH-2 OH-2

Over 5 ft to 10 ft To 5 ft R-P EH-1 EH-1

Over 5 ft Over 5 ft to 10 ft to 10 ft R-P EH-2 EH-2

Over 5 f t t o 8 f t Over 5 ft P

Over 1'0 ft to 12 ft To 15 ft P EH-2 EH-2

Over 10 ft OH-2 OH-2 to 12 ft Over 5 ft R +1 Level +1 Level

In Rack In Rack

Solid

OH-2

EH-2

EH-2

OH-2 +1 Level In Rack

Exposed

Expanded

OH-2

EH-2

EH-2

OH-2 +1 Level In Rack

Over 10 ft t o 12 ft To 5 ft R-P EH-2* EH-2* EH-2* EH-2

*For rack storage, OH-2 +1 Level In Rack shall be permit ted to be used.

Tire Storage Height o f Storage Occupancy Group

On Floor Storage To 5 ft OH-2 Over 5 ft to 12 ft EH-1

Palletized or To 5 ft OH-2 Rack Storage Over 5 ft to 10 ft EH-1

Over 10 ft to 12 ft EH-2 or OH-2 +1 Level In Rack Sprinklers

Rolled Paper Stored on E nd Height o f Storage Occupancy Group

Heavy and To 8 ft OH-2 Med ium Weight Over 8 ft to 12 ft EH-1

Tissue To 10 ft EH-1 Over 10 ft to 12 ff EH-2

Pallet Storage Height o f Storage Occupancy Group

To 6 ft Wooden OH-2 To 4 ft Plastic OH-2

For storage heights or clearance to ceiling in excess o f the above configurations, see NFPA 231,231C, 231D, or 2B1F as appropriate.

463

N F P A 13 - - F 9 3 T C R

(Log # CP13) 13- 7 - (1-4.4, 4-5.3.2, A-4-5.4.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definit ion and revise as follows:

a. Paragraph 1-4.4 Flexible Listed Pipe Couplings and Fittings. A listed coupling which allows at least 10. of angular m o v e m e n t without inducing h a r m on the pipe.

b. Paragraph 4-5.4.3.2 - Change the 3 1 /2 in. d imens ion to 2 1 /2 in.

c. Paragraph 4-5.4.3.2(b) -With in 12 in. (305 m m ) above and below the floor in multi-story buildings such that the flexible coupling below the floor is below the main supplying that floor.

d. Paragraph 4-5.4.3.2(g) Above and below any intermediate points of suppor t for a riser or o ther vertical pipe.

e. Paragraph A-4-5.4.3.2 - Delete the informat ion in die 3rd paragraph relat ing to flexible couplings. SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee has changed the phraseology to note the use of "flexible listed pipe couplings and fittings" in lieu of listed flexible pipe couplings. This is necessary since no coupling is specifically listed as being flexible.

Item a and e - This definit ion will note what level of movemen t is necessary to prevent the pipe f rom breaking or bend ing du r ing a seismic event.

Item b: The Commit tee believes that pipe 2 1 /2 in. and larger needs to be provided with flexible couplings. Pipes of this size and larger have greater rigidity thus they are more likely to fail.

I tem c. Some building structures wilt permi t up to 2 percent of drift dur ing an earthquake. Recognizing this, the Commit tee is of the opinion that each floor s h o u l d b e provided with two flexible couplings to accomodate the expected m o v e m e n t of 2 percent f rom vertical.

I tem d. Since paragraph 4-5.2.5.4 requires in termediate hangers on risers ex tending 25 feet in height, guidance is needed to brace these sections as well. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 127) 13-8- (1-4.5.1): Reject SUBMITTER:James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise definit ion of Residential Sprinkler to be:

"A type of fast response sprinkler specifically listed to provide fire restraint when protect ing fire hazards typically f ound in a dwelling uniL" SUBSTANTIATION: Residential sprinklers are not tested for and do not have to provide fire control in the normally accepted terms. Fire tests are te rminated after 10 minutes (UL 1626). At this point in time, die fire may still be growing and flashover could follow. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Listed residential sprinklers have proven to be effective in controll ing residential fires when tested using fully furn ished rooms and when conducted for more than 10 minutes.

(Log # 138) 13- 9 - (Table 2-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Change orifice type "ESFR" to 'Nery Extra I ~ r g e . " SUBSTANTIATION: At present, S tandard 13 does not provide for ESFR. sprinklers of o ther orifice, sizes. Approved. specific, application. sprinklers could be recogmzed as ESFR sprinklers if appropriate changes are made.

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-10 (Log #76). ESFR sprinklers mus t mee t a specific listing s tandard which specifies orifice size.

(Log # 76) 13- 10 - (Table 2-2.2, 4-3.2, Table 4-4.1.3.1.2, 4-4.1.6 and 5-2.3.2.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER:JohnJ . Walsh, Langley Park, MD RECOMMENDATION: 1. Table 2-2.2:

a. Delete the line referencing Large-Drop Sprinklers. b. Change ESFR to Very Ex~a Large.

2. 4-3.2: a. Revise to read: "...fire tests related to the hazard category u n d e r various ignition

scenarios:" b. Add to end of the paragraph: "K factors and tempera ture ratings of special sprinklers shall be

within the ranges established in Table 2-2.2 and Table 2-2.3.1." c. Add to Exception No. 2: " o f l 2 f f x l 2 f t , 1 4 f t x 1 4 f t , l f i f t x 1 6 f t , 1 8 f t x 1 8 f t o r 2 0 f t x 2 0

ft ." d. Add Exception No. 3: "Extended coverage sprinklers shall be provided with the

m i n i m u m flow corresponding to the m a x i m u m density specified for the hazard as specified in Figure 5-2.3 at die least coverage area."

e. Add Exception No. 4: "Extended coverage sprinklers shall no t be permi t ted within

.trusses having web members greater than 1-in. m a x i m u m dimension.

3. Table 4--4.1.3.1.2 - Revise as follows:

Table 4-4,1.3.1.2 Position o f Deflector when Located above Bottom of Obstruction

Distance f rom Sprinkler to Side of Obstruct ion

Standard Sprinklers

Less than I ft ...................................................... 1 ft to less than 2 ft ............................................. 2 f t t o less than 2 f t 6 in ..................................... 2 f t 6 in. to less than 3 f t .................................... 3 ft to less than 3 ft 6 in ..................................... 3 ft 6 in. to less than 4 ft .................................... 4 ft to less than 4 ft 6 in ..................................... 4 ft 6 in. to less than 5 ft .................................... 5 ft to less than 5 ft 6 in ..................................... 5 ft 6 in. to less than 6 ft .................................... 6 ft 0 in. to less than 6 ft 6 in ............................. 6 ft 6 in. to less than 7 ft 0 in .............................

0 In. 1 in. 2 In. 3 m. 4 in. 6 m. 7 m. 9 m.

11 m. 1 4 m . N / A N / A

M a x i m u m Allowable Distance Deflector above

Bottom of Obstruct ion

Extended Coverage Sprinklers

0 in. 1 m. 2 In, 2 m. 3 m. 3 m. 7 m. 9 m.

11 in. 11 m. 14in. 14in.

464

N F P A 13 - - F93 T C R

4. 4-4.1.6- Revise the Exception to read: "ESFR, large drop and special sprinklers shall be permitted to be

listed for a minimum clearance of 36 in." 5. 5-2.3.2.2- Add Exception No. 3: Exception No. 3: For extended coverage sprinklers the minimum

design area shall be that corresponding to the maximum density for the hazard in Figure 5-2.3 or the area protected by 5 sprinklers, whichever is greater, SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes are necessary to accommodate the ECOH sprinkler and other types of special sprinklers. The proposed new requirements will encourage interchangeability which is the primary reason for standardization. The changes will also help ensure the integrity of the sprinkles under a range of fire conditions by providing additional guidance to the product listing laboratories.

The prohibition against the use of extended coverage sprinklers within trusses with web members greater than 1 in. maximum dimension is consistent with the present limitations on sprinkler spacing in light combust~ible framing members as noted in Table 4-2.2. Additional guidance is also provided for locating extended coverage sprinklers with respect to horizontal abstractions based on test results of presently listed ECOH sprinklers.

It is also proposed that, where the area density curves are used as the design basis, the operating area shall in no case be less than 5 sprinklers which provides for a ring of sprinkles around the first operating sprinkler. This five sprinkler minimum is not applicable to the room design method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Item 1 - Accept in Part in Principle - Add a column as follows: 3/4" VeryExtra Large 13.5-14.5 250 3/4" NPTYesYes Add in Pintle and Nominal Orifice Size Marked on the Frame

columns and the word "yes" after. 1/2 inch NPT for Large Orifice 3 /4 inch NPT for Extra Large Orifice 3 /4 inch NPT for Large Drop

Item 2a. - Accept in Principle. Add a new A-4-3.2 as follows: A-4-3.2 Tests of Standard Sprinklers by approved laboratories have

traditionally encompassed a fire test using a 350 lb wood crib and water distribution tests in which water is collected in pans from several arrangements of sprinklers to evaluate distribution under non-fire conditions.

Tests of special sprinklers are customized to evaluate responsive- ness, distribution and other unique characteristics of the sprinkler to control or extinguish. These may include variables such as:

(a) the location of the fire relative to the sprinklers, i.e., below 1 sprinkler or between 2, 4, or 6 sprinklers

(b) fire conditions which encompass a variety of fire growth rates representative of anticipated conditions of use

(c) tests of room areas where sprinklers are expected to function in multiple arrays

(d) adverse conditions of use, i.e., pipe shadows or other obstructions to discharge

(e) effect of a fire plume on water distribution and discharge under a variety of heat release rates..

Item 2b. - Accept. Item 2c. - Accept. Item 2d. -Accept in Principle - Revise to read: Exception No. 3: Extended coverage sprinklers shall be listed with

and designed for file minimum flow corresponding to the density for the smallest area of operation for the hazard as specified in Figure 5-2.3.

Item 2e -Accept in Principle. Change to read: "... trusses or bar joists having..." Item 3. Accept in Principle - Revise dais table as shown below. Item 4. Accept in Principle - Add new exception no. 2 to read: "A minimum clearance of 36 in. shall be permitted for special

sprinklers." Current exception becomes Exception No. 1. Item 5 - Accept.

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Item 1 - Retention of the large drop and ESFR columns is needed to clarify that other sprinklers with the same orifice size do not have the same performance characteristics. Remalningchanges are editorial for clarity. Item 2a. The established listing criteria currently accounts for

numerous scenarios such as plugged sprinklers and various fire conditions.

Item 2d. The Committee wishes to insure that the minimum listing criteria is used when the system is actually designed. This change will clarify that intent

Item 2e. The Committee notes that bar joists could fall into this category and is of the opinion that they should be included.

Item 3. The revised Table reflects the most current information available.

Item 4. Clearance criteria already exists for ESFR and large drop sprinklers in other portions of Chapter 4. The new exception will give special permission for listed, special sprinklers.

(Log # CP19) 13- 11 - (2-2.2.1 (c)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-2.1 (c) to read:

"... of sprinklers having nominal orifice sizes smaller than 3/8 in. (9.5 mrn)." Revise 3-7.6 to read: "... having nominal orifice sizes smaller than 3/8 in. (9.5 ram)."

SUBSTANTIATION: The term "nominal" orifice size is used in Table 2-2.2 to identify sprinklers. This term should also be utilized when determining ifa strainer is required. This revision will clarify that point. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

Table 4-4.1.3.1.2 Position of Deflector when Located above Bottom of Obstruction

Distance f rom Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction

Maximum Allowable Distance of Deflector

Above Bottom of Obstruct ion

Standard Sprinklers

Less than 1 ft .................................................................. 1 ft to less than 1 ft 6 in .................................................. 1 ft 6 in. to less than 2 ft .................................................. 2 ft to less than 2 ft 6 in ................................................... 2 ft 6 in. to less than 3 ft .................................................. 3 ft to less than 3 ft 6 in ................................................... 3 ft 6 in. to less than 4 ft .................................................. 4 ft to less than 4 ft 6 in ................................................... 4 ft 6 in. to less than 5 ft .................................................. 5 ft to less than 5 ft 6 in ................................................... 5 ft 6 in. to less than 6 ft .................................................. 6 ft to less than 6 ft 6 in .................................................. 6 ft 6 in. tu less than 7 ft ................................................. 7 ft and greater ..............................................................

0 in. 1 in. 1 in. 2 in. 3 in. 4 in . 6 in. 7 in . 9 in.

l l in. 14 in. N /A N/A N/A

0 0 1 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 7 9

11 14

Maximum Allowable Distance Deflector above

Bottom of Obstruction

Extended Coverage Sprinklers

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

465

N F P A 13 - - F 9 3 T C R

(Log # 36) 13- 12 - (2-2.7.3(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: DonnyJ Howard, McAlester Fire Depar tment RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

(a) For equipments less than 300 sprinklers, not less than 6 ~ T lets.

ANTIATION: If sprinkler system in question has 300 sprinklers, the occupancy could have 6 or 12 sprinklers in stock. Present language is ambiguous. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 37) 13- 13 - (Table 2-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERx John J. Walsh, United Association RECOMMENDATION: Add to the end of the Table:

Soldering Fluxed (Liquid & Paste) ASTM B813 SUBSTANTIATION: Requirin~ daat fluxes meet the new Standard will remove the problem of pitting corrosion of sprinklers and tube caused by overly aggressive solder fluxes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-15 (Log # 57).

(Log # 51) 13- 14 - (Table 2-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 2-3.1 to include listed non- metallic pipe and tubing.

Non-Metallic Piping

2~ ec. for Polybutylene (PB) Systems M D3309

Spec. for Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Pipe ASTM F442 SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to wbich special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMI'ITEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-18 (Log # 66).

(Log # 57) 13- 15 - (Table 2-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Proposed additions to Table:

Fluxes for solderin~ anolications of Conner and CoDner Alloy Tube ASTM B813 SUBSTANTIATION: This specification was developed to give guidance to flux manufacturers producing solder fuxes for applications, such as fire sprinkler systems, where aggressiveness, corrosivity, flushability and solder spread are of importance.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 58) 13- 16- (Table 2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change: Brazing Filler Metal (Classification BCuP-3 or BCuP-4) AWS A5.8

Proposed: Brazin~ Filler Metal (BCuP. conner-nhosohorus 9r copper-phosphorus-silver brazlfig filler n~etal)

AWS A5.8 SUBSTANTIATION: The existing restriction to BCuP-3 or BCuP-4 brazing filler metals ignores other available BCuP brazing filler metals commonly used that exhibit the same joint sn'ength properties and can be used without flux on copper to copper joints. They also have a melting temperature above 1000°F.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA H eadquar te rs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Committee requires that the submitter provide to the Committee additional support ing docu- mentation showing the comparative characteristics of the proposed filler metals to the materials currently approved for sprinkler system installations.

(Log # 59) 13- 17 - (Table 2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change: Solder metal, 95-5 .......

Proposed: Solder metal (alloy Lrrades containing less than 0.2% lead and identified in ASTM B32. Table 5. Section 1 and have a solidus temoerature that exceeds 400°F) SUBSTANTIATION: The current table does not take into consideration the existing lead free solders listed in ASTM B32. These alloy grades have similar melting characteristics to the listed 95-5, tin antimony. These solders all contain high percentages of tin along with other alloying elements that will overcome some of the perceived difficulties associated with 95-5, tin-antimony.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee requires that the submitter provide to the Committee additional supporting docu- mentat ion showing the comparative characteristics of the proposed filler metals to the materials currently approved for sprinkler system installations.

(Log # 66) 13- 18 - (Table 2-3.1 and A-2-3.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise Table 2-3.1 to include special listed non-metallic sprinkler pipe.

Non-Metallic Piping Spec. for special listed chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe

ASTM F442 Spec. for special listed polybutylene (PB) pipe

ASTM D/3309 2. Add to Appendix A-2-3.5 "Not all pipe or tube made to ASTM

F442 and D/3309 as described in Section 10-1.3.2 is listed for fire sprinkler service. Listed pipe is identified by the logo of the listing agency. SUBSTANTIATION: Listing agencies require that special listed pipe be labeled with the specification to which the pipe is produced. Similar (unlisted) pipe produced to less su-ingent requirements can not be labeled with the same specification as listed pipe. Adoption of this proposal will further enable the AHJ to recognize and verify the use of only l is tedpiping materials. COMMITTEEACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept item 1 put "~-~" beside it and add: "~V(" In additional to satisfying these minimum standards, specially

listed pipe can be used when it complies with the provisions of paragraph 2-3.5." A-2-3.5 Add new second sentence: "These specially listed pipes are

identified by the presence of the logo from the listing agency." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee notes that the footnote will remind the user that special pipe products must still conform with listing criteria.

(Log # 132) 13- 19- (2-3.1.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER~ James M. Feld, Fairfield, CA RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 2-3.1.1 as follows:

"Threaded steel pipe shall have a corrosion resistance rate of not less than 0.90." SUBSTANTIATION: Threadable thinwall steel pipe has been UL listed and FM approved, the UL listing contains information regarding the ability of this pipe to resist corrosion. The Corrosion Resistance Ratio (CRR) for this pipe varies with the diameter. For some manufacturers this value is as low as 0.165 (0.17) for 1-14 in. diameter pipe. UL has indicated that this means that if Schedule 40 pipe were expected to last 100 years, then a pipe having a CRR of 0.17 would be expected to last 17 years. Should the installer cut the threads deeper the life of the pipe would be even less. For example, if threads in 1-1/4 in. diameter pipe are cut 0.003 in. deeper, the CRR would be 0.118-a life of less than 12 years. There appears to be only three investigations regarding this matter:

UL listing report, FM approval report, and a Battelle Report tide "Interior Corrosion Examination of Pipe Removed from Automatic Sprinkler Systems" dated 4/29/77.

Although the Battelle report provided information on the corrosion of pipe from existing sprinkler systems, the samples examined were not necessarily representative of the worst case pipe in the system. The samples were random samples. The pred ic ted life of threadable thinwall pipe in dais report was less than the life of Schedule 40 pipe. The depths of corrosion induced pits in the pipe samples varied from "negligible" to 45 mils (0.045 in.). Nine of the 41 samples examined had maximum pitting depths in excess of

466

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

0.020 in. The wall thickness at the first exposed thread of 1-1/4 in. diameter threadable thinwall pipe is 0.028 in.

Both the Battelle repor t and the FM approval repor t cited the lack of dissolved oxygen as being responsible for slow corrosion. However, i r a sprinkler s'rstem is main ta ined as required by NFPA 25, a system flush mus t be conducted at least every 5 years and an inspector 's test mus t be conducted quarterly. Both of these procedures will in t roduce oxygen to the system.

The Battelle repor t indicated areas where general corrosion occurred due to galvanic corrosion caused by the brass sprinkler in a steel system. This galvanic action has traditionally been treated as insignificant due to the thickness of Schedule 40 steel pipe. However, this action becomes more impor tan t for the threadable thinwall pipe due to the t h inne r wall.

The extent of corrosion is a funct ion of water quality (dissolved oxygen, sediment , calcium, etc.) and galvanic corrosion. Some water systems will be more corrosive than others.

The analysis on corrosion has considered the failure at the first exposed thread. However, should significant corrosion occur at he second, third, or four th unexposed thread, the pipe could fail catastrophically due to the th inner wall at these locations.

It appears sprinkler syslems us ing threadable thinwall pipe may n e e d t o be replaced within 20 years or less. Consider ing the n u m b e r of systems using threadable thinwall pipe, the risk can be considered quite high. Catastrophic failure would not be expected. However, once pin hole leaks start to occur, the owner will have little choice but to replace the system. This will benefit no one but the lawyers. COMMITTEE ACTION'. Reject- COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submit ter does not provide documenta t ion that a problem will in fact exist.

(Log # 31) 13- 20 - (2-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Raymond H.Jensen , Merit Mfg. Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION: Section IX, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has no such prohibition.

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION:: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submit ter provides no data to suppor t the removal of the paragraph ' s requirements . Welding of Schedule 5 piping is cow~red by 2-3.5.

(Log # 133) 13- 21 - (2-3.5.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER:James M. Feld, Fairfield, CA RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 2-3.5.1 as follows:

"Threaded steel pipe shall have a corrosion resistance rate of no t less than 0.90." SUBSTANTIATION: Threadable thinwall steel pipe has been UL listed and FM approved, the UL listing contains informat ion regarding the ability of dais pipe to resist corrosion. The Corrosion Resistance Ratio (CRR) for this pipe varies with the diameter. For some manufac ture rs dais value is as low as 0.165 (0.17) for 1-14 in. d iameter pipe. UL has indicated that this means that if Schedule 40 pipe were expected to last 100 years, t hen a pipe having a CRR of 0.17 would be expected to last 17 years. Should the installer cut the threads deeper the life of the pipe would be even less. For example, if threads in 1-1/4 in. d iameter pipe are cut 0.003 in. deeper, the CRR would be 0.118-a life of less than 12 years.

There appears to be only three investigations regarding this matter: UL listing report, FM approval report, and a Battelle Report tide "Interior Corrosion Examinat ion of Pipe Removed from Automatic Sprinkler Systems" dated 4 /29 /77 .

Al though the Battelle repor t provided information on the corrosion of pipe f rom existing sprinkler systems, the samples examined were no t necessarily representative of the worst case pipe in the system. The samples were r andom samples. The pred ic ted life of threadable thinwall pipe in this report was less than the life of Schedule 40 pipe. The depths of corrosion induced pits in the pipe samples varied f rom "negligible" to 45 mils (0.045 in.). Nine of the 41 samples examined had m a x i m u m pitt ing dep ths in excess of 0.020 in. The wall thickness at the first exposed thread of 1-1/4 in. d iameter threadable thinwall pipe is 0.028 in.

Both the Battelle r e p o ~ and the FM approval repor t cited the lack of dissolved oxygen as being responsible for slow corrosion. However, if a sprinkler system is main ta ined as required by NFPA 25, a system flush mus t be conducted at least every 5 years and an inspector 's test mus t be conducted quarterly. Both of these procedures will in t roduce oxygen to the system.

The Battelle report indicated areas where general corrosion occurred due to galvanic corrosion caused by the brass sprinkler in a steel system. This galvanic action has traditionally been treated as insignificant due to the thickness of Schedule 40 steel pipe. However, this action becomes more impor tan t for the threadable thinwall pipe due to the t h inne r wall.

The extent of corrosion is a funct ion of water quality (dissolved oxygen, sediment , calcium, etc.) and galvanic corrosion. Some water systems will be more corrosive than others.

The analysis on corrosion has considered the failure at the first exposed thread. However, should significant corrosion occur at he second, third, or four th unexposed thread, the pipe could fail catastrophically due to the th inner wall at these locations.

It appears sprinkler systems using threadable thinwall pipe may need to be replaced within 20 years or less. Consider ing the n u m b e r of systems using threadable thinwall pipe, the risk can be considered quite high. Catastrophic failure would not be expected. However, once pin hole leaks start to occur, the owner will have little choice but to replace the system. This will benefi t no one but the lawyers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-19 (Log #132).

(Log # 70) 13- 22 - (2-3.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph 2-3.6 to add CPVC and PB pipe.

2-3.6 Pipe Bending. Bending of steel pipe (sch. 40) copper tube (types K and L), CPVC and polybutylene may be accomplished when bends are made in conformance with good installation practices and show no kinks, ripples, distortions, reduct ion in diameter or any noticeable deviataons from round. The m i n i m u m radius of a bend in metallic pipe is 6 pipe diameters for pipe sizes 2 in. (51 mm) and smaller, and 5 pipe diameters for pipe sizes 2 1/2 in. (64 ram) and larger. The m i n i m u m radius o f a b e n d in polybutylene pipe shall be 12 pipe diameters. The m i n i m u m radius of a bend in CPVC pipe shall be in accordance with the manufac turers installation instructions. SUBSTANTIATION: Special listed non-metallic piping is inherent ly flexible increasing the ease and speed of installation and lowering overall installed cost but increasing the risk of exceeding the manufac turers r e c o m m e n d e d bend ing radius. Forced bends beyond the radius r e c o m m e n d e d by the manufac tu re r can induce undesir- able stresses in the system. Adoption of this proposal will alert the user of this s tandard of the n e e d t o observe the manufac turers r ecommenda t ions for m i n i m u m bending radius of special listed piping materials.

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add " t~ ' " symbol to non-metallic pipe s tandards in Table 2-3.1. Expand this to read:

"~-]'t Special listed pipe may be bent in accordance with its listing." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-24 (Log #53).

The Commit tee is of the opinion that an additional footnote to Table 2-3.1 is appropriate to notify the user that bending of non- metallic pipe is acceptable.

(Log # 38) 13- 23 - (2-3.6, 2-3.7 (New), and Table 2-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:JohnJ . Walsh, Uni ted Association RECOMMENDATION: 1. Insert new paragraphs 2-3.6 and 2-3.7.

2-3.6 Ferrous piping listed in Table 2-3.1 shall be color coded as follows:

Schedule 40 - Green Schedule 10 - Blue Schedule 5 - Red 2-3.7 Ferrous piping special listed in accordance with Paragraph 2-

3.5 shall be assigned a color code by the listing agency as part of the listing criteria.

2. Relocate existing 2-3.6 as 2-3.8. 3. Change footnote to Table 2-3.1 to reference 2-3.8.

SUBSTANTIATION: The listing of proprietory piping products has caused great confusion. Authorit ies having jurisdict ion mus t have a means of identification to ascertain that a product is installed in accordance with its listing and contractors doing retrofit mus t have a means of identification to ascertain listing requi rements and limitations of installed piping. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-25 (Log #79).

467

N F P A 13 - - F93 T C R

(Log # 53) 13- 24- (Table 2-3.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph 2-3.6 to add PB pipe.

2-3.6 Pipe Bending. Bending of steel pipe (Schedule 40), copper tube (Types K and L) and polybutylene pipe may be accomplished when bends are made in conformance with good installation practices and show no kinks, ripples, distortions, reduction in diameter, or any noticeable deviations from round. The minimum radius of a bend in metallic pipe a n d / o r tube shall be 6 pipe diameters for pipe sizes 2 in. (55 mm) and smaller, and 5p ipe diameters for pipe sizes 2 1/2 in. (64 mm) and larger. The minimum radius of a bend in polybutylene pipe a n d / o r tube shall be 12 pipe diameters. SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13-22 (Log #70).

(Log # 79) 13- 25 - (2-3.7 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new section as follows:

2-3.7 Pipe Identification. All pipe, including specially listed pipe allowed by Section 2-3.5, shall be permanently marked continuously along its length by the manufacturer in such a way as to properly identify the type of pipe. SUBSTANTIATION: In today's marketplace, pipe is getting increasingly difficult to identify from the outside. For instance, there are at least 6 types of steel pipe: 1) Schedule 40, 2) Large diameter threadable pipe with walls less than Schedule 40, 3) Small diameter threadable pipe with walls less than Schedule 40, 4) Extra High strength pipe which cannot be threaded, 5) Lightwall pipes greater than Schedule 5, but less than Schedule 40 which cannot be threaded, and 6) Schedule 5 which cannot be threaded. It is imperative that the installing contractor identify the correct pipe and joining techniques during installation and that anyone doing maintenance in the future recognizes the type of material used. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

[ Modify the proposed wording to remove the word "permanendy." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The revised wording meets the submitter 's intent.

(Log # 33) 13-26- (Table 2-4.1): Reject SUBMITTEII'a Raymond H.Jensen, Merit Mfg. Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to ASTM-A234, Spec. for Pipe Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for Moderate and Elevated Temperatures. SUBSTANTIATION: In connection with fittings employed in sprinkler systems, NFPA Bulletin 13 fur ther stipulates that fittings must conform to the specifications listed in Table 2-4.1, Title, "Fittings, Materials and Dimensions" under the category of "Steel," approved fittings are those manufactured in accordance with ANSI B16.9, covering factory made wrought steel buttwelding fittings, and those manufactured in accordance with ANSI B16.11, covering forged steel socket weld and threaded fittings. Moreover, the specification also lists ASTM A-234 covering fittings of wrought carbon and alloy steel for moderate and elevated temperatures. To uninformed, it is not clear that ASTM A-234 is only a raw

material specification which is used to qualify steel used to manufacture fittings under the requirements of ANSI BI 6.9. In my view, the inclusion of the material specification does not serve t hepu rpose of insuring that the fitting meets any other criteria, such as dimensional and or performance criteria. Unless the steel manufactured to the requirements of ASTM A-234 is used to produce fittings to the requirements of ANSI B16.9, there is no guarantee that fittings other than produced under B16.9 will meet even the minimal service requirements for a sprinkler system as outlined by NFPA 13. Accordingly, NFPA should delete reference to both "Material and Dimensions" in Table 2-4.1 and list only approved fittings. Inciden- tally, both ANSI B16.9 and B16.11 include references to materials and dimensional data.

As a matter of interest, ANSI B16.9 and B16.11 do not include provisions for the manufacture of welding outlet fittings. A welding outlet fitting is nei ther a butt weld or socket weld fitting, but is rather a fitting that installs using a combination of a groove and fillet weld to form a pipe intersection, or branch outlet connection. Some time ago, the Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS)

published their Standard Practice SP-97, covering forged carbon steel branch outlet fi t t ings-threaded, socket welding and buttwelding ends, but. the specification is limited to pipe schedules as related to buttweldmg ends, and to 3000 and 6000 lb. class as related to threaded and socket welded ends. Clearly, this specification would have little application to fire sprinkler installations.

Accordingly the, NFPA Bulletin 13, paragraph 2-4.2 requires that fittings employed shall be listed for the service intended if not manufactured to the specifications noted in Table 2-4.1. As you know, Merit has submitted its fittings to both UL, ULC and FM for

roval under the aegis of this paragraph. TI'EE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standards listed in Table 2-4.1 are dimensional and specify a material specification from which the fitting is to be made, except ASTM A 234. ASTM A234 is a material specification for wrought carbon and alloy steel from which fittings are to be made to the dimensional requirements of B16.9, B 16.11, B16.28 and MJS-SP-79. The reason for including ASTM A-234 in Table 2-4.1 is to allow fittings of carbon and low alloy steels along with cast iron, mallable iron, forged and wrought carbon steel. It is greater field of choice. The title of Table 2-4.1 is "Fittings Materials and Dimensions", therefore ASTM A-234 can be listed without any conflict.

(Log # 54) 13- 27 - (Table 2-4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 2-4.1 to include listed non- metallic pipe and tubing:

Polvbutvlene Spec. for Polybutylene (PB) Systems ASTM D3309 Chlorinated Polv(Vinvl Chloride) (CPVC) Spec. for CPVCPipe Fittings, Scil. 80 ASTM F439

SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-28 (Log #68).

(Log # 68) 13-28- (Table 2-4.1 and A-2-4.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add CPVC fittings to Table 2-4.1:

Chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) Spec. for sch. 80 CPVC threaded fittings, ASTM F437 spec. for sch. 40 CPVC socket-type fittings ASTM F438 spec. for sch. 80 CPVC socket-type fittings ASTM F439 2. Add new Appendix Section A-2-4.2.1. "Not all fittings made to ASTM F437, 438 and 439 are listed for fire

sprinkler service. Listed fittings are identified by the logo of the listing agency." SUBSTANTIATION: Listing agencies require that special listed fittings be labeled with the specification to which the fittings are produced. Similar (unlisted) fittings produced to less stringent requirements can not be labeled with the same specification as listed fitting. Adoption of this proposal will further enable the AHJ to recognize the verify the use of only listed fitting materials. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept item 1 as shown. Footnote the item with "J-" and have it

read: "t" In addition to satisfying these minimum standards, specially

listed fittings can be used when they comply with the provisions of paragraph 2-4.2. AdcT a new second sentence to A-2-4.2 to read: "These specially listed fittings are identified by the presence of the

logo from tlae listingagency. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee notes that the footnote will remind the user that special fittings must still conform with listing criteria.

(Log # 27) 13- 29 - (2-5.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:Janak Patel, Bechtel National Inc.

. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-5.2.2 to read as follows: 2-5.2.2* Sprinkler piping shall be shop welded. Exception: Welding of sprinkler piping in place inside buildings

shall be permit ted only when the welding process is performed in accordance with NFPA 51B, Standards for Fire Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding Processes.

468

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The present welding regulation stated in 2-5.2.2 Exception of NFPA 13, 1991 edition, is in direct conflict with the welding regulation stated in Chapter 3 of NFPA 51B, 1989 edition, which does permit welding when adequate controls are implemented for protection of combustible contents.

2. The present welding regulation stated in 2-5.2.2 of NFPA 13 does not address regulations for welding in existing (not new or under construction) buildings having combustible contents where new sprinkler system(s) are to be added. (3-1.1 (b) of NFPA 51B, 1989 edition, "welding ira sprinklered buildings while such protection is impaired," is not :applicable here).

3. The preseiat welding regulation stated in 2-5.2.2 of NFPA 13 does not disallow welding o f"o the r piping" (e.g., chemical process piping), handlers auxiliary steel members, etc., in the proximity of a sprinkler piping. Prohibiting the welding of only the sprinkler piping does not meet the intent of NFPA 13. The proposed revision of 2-5.2.2 of NFPA 13, as indicated above,

will permit welding of sprinkler piping in place in a building and comply with the welding regulations of NFPA 5lB. 4. NFPA 15, 1985 edition, Section 4-9.2.2.1 permits field welding

when "safe welding and cutting practices are followed." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new definition to Section 1-4.2 Shop Welded. As used in this standard, shop in the term shop

welded, means either: a) At a sprinkler contractor 's or fabricator's premise. b) In an area specifically designed or audmrized for such work

such as a detached outside location, maintenance shop, or other area (either temporary or permanent) of noncombustible or fire resistive construction free of combustible and flammable contents and suitably segregated from adjacent areas.

Revise 2-5.2.2 as follows.: 2-5.2.2* Sprinkler piping shall be shop welded. Exception No. 1 : Welding of tabs for longitudinal earthquake

bracing to in place piping shall be permitted when the welding process is performed in accordance with NFPA 5lB.

Exception No. 2: When the design specifications call for all or part of the piping to be welded in place, welding of sprinkler piping in place shall be permit ted when the welding process, is. performed, in accordance with NFPA 51B, and the mechamcal fittings reqmred by Sections 44.1.7.18 and 4-4.1.7.25 are provided.

Replace the existing A-2-5.2.2 with the following: A-2-5.2.2 Cutting and welding operations account for 4 percent of

fires each year in nonresidential properties and 8 percent in industrial and manufacturing properties. In place welding of sprinkler pipl~inlg introduces, a significant hazard, that. can be normally be avoided by shop welding the piping and mstalhng the welded sections with mechanical: fittings. As a result the standard requires that all piping be shop welded. When such situations cannot be avoided, the exceptions outline procedures and practices that minimize the increase in hazard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Sprinkler systems can be installed without any welding of the system. In fact, in place welding of sprinkler piping is seldom required, and occurs almost exclusively with the welding of tabs for EQ bracing allowed by Section 2-5.2.5.

TIA #381 implies that a conflict existed between NFPA 51B and NFPA 13. Opinions from two NFPA 51B members indicate that this is not the case.

Many years ago, NFPA 13 was modified to allow welding of

~l~ rinkler systems in non,-ombustible buildings under construction at were void of combustibles if the welding was in accordance with

NFPA 51B. The change was made, not due to the need for in-place welding, but because of a convenience issue, recognizing that every other trade was welding ,except the sprinkler contractor. Normally, the welding need is not for in place welding in most cases, but to weld, when it is safe to do so, in the general area where sprinklers are being installed..

The revised wording clarifies the areas where welding can be done safely, yet does not encourage in place welding except where absolutely necessary. The wording would allow welding of sprinkler piping in new, noncombustible buildings under construction when "authorized," as the standard currently does, provides additional guidance for the welding of sprinkler piping, and does not conflict with NFPA 51B.

Finally, in-place welding exacerbates the problem of welding and cutting when modifying sprinkler systems. If it was originally welded in place, it is tempting to make needed modifications by welding, even when it is not safe to do so. It has always been the intent that welded sections of sprinkler piping be connected with mechanical connections and the revised wording limiting "in place" welding promotes this practice. The revised wording allows for this option, supplanted by appendix material, when required.

(Log # 39) 13- 30 - (2-5.2.2 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:JohnJ. Walsb, United Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception to read:

"Welding of sprinkler piping in place inside previously unsprinklered buildings shall be permit ted only..." SUBSTANTIATION: AS currently worded the paragraph is in conflict with NFPA 5lB. Paragraph 2-5.2.7 continues to prohibit torch cutting or welding in sprinklered buildings when the system is impaired and is consistent with NFPA 5lB. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-29 (Log #27).

(Log # 32) 13- 31 - (2-5.2.8 (New)): Reject SUBMITTERa Raymond H.Jensen, Merit Mfg. Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

2-5.2.8 Welding Outlet Fittings. Employing intersection welds may be installed on sprinkler pipe of any thickness provided the welder is qualified in accordance with American Welding Society Standard D10.9, Level AR-3, or welder or welder operator is qualified under Section IX, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. SUBSTANTIATION: AWS D10.9, Level AR3, Table 7 limits the manual welder who qualifies his procedure and welder qualification to that procedure to a min imum thickness of 0.065 in. through pipe sizes to 1-1/2 in. and to 0.154 in. from 2 in. through 8 in. pipe. Again, this limitation applies only to circumferential groove butt welds and not to any other type of manual weld, such as a fillet weld or combination groove and fillet weld required to install an intersection fitting. Accordingly, awelder qualified under Table 7, Level AR3 would not be precluded from installing branch outlet fittings of the type manufactured by Merit. Incidentally. the Vice Chairman of AWSW D10.9, responsible for rewriting the specification indicated that any reference to a minimum wallthickness of Table 7, Level AR3 would be deleted, however, the time required to rewrite the specification may take up to two and one-half (2-1/2) years.

It should also be recognized that the dimensions of the weld required to install a Merit Tee-let, for example, do not vary from one wall thickness to another so far as the pipe schedule o f t b e beader is concerned. The Tee-let is contoured to allow tbe inside diameter of the fitting to intersect the outside diameter of the header pipe. This creates a groove the dimensions of which are governed by the thickness f t h e fitting, and of the header pipe, As a matter of interest, if only the groove were filled with weld metal, the thickness of the intersection would equal or exceed the minimum wall thickness referenced in Table 7, Level AR3 of D10.9 as well as that of the mating branch pipe; and when the re inforcement fillet is included,t he thickness of the jo in t would exceed the thickness of the header as well. A copy of the table, titled, "Recommended Amount of Weld" taken from our Installation Bulletin illustrates the point; that is, the weld remains constant regardless of the wall thickness of the header pipe.

In our view, it is unnecessary to further test Tee-Lets for their suitability on light or thin wall pipe (less than schedule 10) since the geometry of the weld does not change when the header pipe is made thinner. Accordingly, Merit Tee-Lets and branch connections in general are not limited with respect to weldability on schedule 40, 10, or 5 pipe no more than they are limited on any type of propri- etary pipe.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's substantiation does not support the proposal. He appears to be saying there is no problem but that AWS Standard D 10.9 is not understood.

(Log # 29) 13- 32 - (2-5.2.8.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Raymond H.Jensen, Merit Mfg. Corporation RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"...Level AR-3, or Section IX, Qualification Standard for Welding and Brazing Procedures, Welders, Brazers, and Welding and Brazing Operators, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, an American National Standard. SUBSTANTIATION: With regard to NFPA Bulletin 13, 1991, there are several problems which need to be rectified by the National Fire Protection Association. In particular, NFPA 13, paragraph 2-5.2.8, stipulates that a welding procedure shall be p repa redby the contractor or fabricator before anywelding is done. Moreover, the procedure and qualification must conform to tile requirements of the American Welding Society (AWS) Standard AWS B10.9, Level AR3.

469

N F P A 13 ~ F 9 3 T C R

Inasmuch as D10.9 only addresses the matter of developing a procedure and qualification for manual welding, automatic welding machine procedures cannot be qualified nor can a welder or welder operator be qualified unde r the provisions of AWS D10.9. Some time ago, I spoke with the Vice Chai rman of the Commit tee responsible for revising AWS D10.9 and he indicated to me that there are no plans to include mach ine welding in the specification.

In my view, an alternative specification that would address the problem is Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. This code provides for both the qualifications of procedures and welders for both manua l and mach ine operation, such as is under taken by the typical fire sprinkler contractor or fabricator. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: AWS Standard D10.9 does allow for machine welding.

(Log # 40) 13- 33 - (2-5.4.1and A-2-5.4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER; J o h n J . Walsh, Uni tedAssocia t ion RECOMMENDATION: The following assumes acceptance of my proposal on Table 2-3.1.

1. Revise 2-5.4.1 to read: "Soldering fluxes shall be in accordance with Table 2-3.1. Brazing fluxes, if used, shall not be of a highly corrosive type."

2. Revise A-2-5.4.1 to read: "Soldering fluxes manufac tu red to the specifications required by Table 2-3.1 will not cause damage to the seats of sprinklers. W hen brazing flux is used, it mus t be of a type not likely to damage the seats of sprinkles. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of commit tee ' s in tent in light of new ASTM Standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept i tem 1 as shown. Modify item 2 to read: A-2-5.4.1 Soldering fluxes manufac tu red to the specifications

required by Table 2-3.1 are unlikely to cause damage to the seats of sprinklers. Whe n brazing flux is used, it mus t be of a type not likely to damage the seats of sprinklers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee does not believe a guarantee can be made for the flux materials specified in Table 2-3.1. The appendix information should note this.

(Log # 13) 13- 34 - (Table 2-6.4.5): Accept SUBMITTER:Jenni fe r Stearn, Mr. Sprinkler Fire Protection RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 2-6.4.5 as follows:

Table 2-6.4.5 Screw Dimensions for Ceiling Flanges & U-Hooks

Pipe Size 2 Screw Flanges

l ;p to 2 in. Wood Screw No. 18 x 1 1/2 in. OR

Wording to be added Lag Screw 5 /16 in. x 1 1 /2 in.

SUBSTANTIATION: The general supply of No. 18 x 1 1/2 in. Wood Screws is unpredictable. The 5 /16 in. x 1 1/2 in. Lag Screwis more readily available. A Lag Screw is a h igher integrity fastener than a Wood Screw, and the 5 /16 in. Lag Screw has a larger Root Diameter than the No. 18 Wood Screw. Fur thermore , the 5,/16 in. Lag is compatible with most ceiling flanges. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

( L o g # 19) 13- 35 - (2-7.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gary R Long, East Whi te land Township RECOMMENDATION: Insert between the first and second sentences:

"Valves conU'olling a port ion of a floor or bui lding shall be properly identified as to the areas served. (Zone A or Zone 1 type identifiers are not acceptable, unless a floor plan showing that zone is displayed near the valve.)" SUBSTANTIATION: In complex buildings with several systems or zones it is not always apparen t what part of the building is served by a particular valve. A sign merely indicating "main control" valve or "zone A" is no t helpful when a t tempt ing to isolate a particular area. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add an Appendix note to A-2-7.3: A-2-7.3 The intent of dais section is to provide assistance in

de te rmin ing the ,area of a bui lding served by a particular control Waive.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes it is better to describe the in tent of this provision in the appendix rather than ~o manda te that it be done a certain way.

(Lc, g # 2) 13-36- (2-9.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Steve Leeds, Livermore, CLA RECOMMENDATION: Create new section or expand existing Section 2-9.1:

"When waterflow alarms are part of a building fire alarm system, the alarm shall be permit ted to be arranged to sound an audible alarm in a continuously a t tended location for purposes of initiating emergency action in lieu of a local alarm." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed wording would provide uniformity with other NFPA codes with respect to annuncia t ion ot fire alarms. As an example: NFPA 10l allows required dire alarms to be t ransmit ted to a continuously a t tended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The local alarm is still necessao'. The submit ter already has the option, if desired, to t ransmit an alarm to some offsite location which is constantly at tended. This alarm is used to locate buildings in which sprinkler equ ipment has operated. The Commit tee notes that Section 4-6.1.1 may be a more appropriate area to suggest this change.

(I.og # 78) 13- 37 - (3-2.2): Accept SUBMITTERz Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-2.2 to read:

3-2.2 Upr ight Sprinklers. Only upr ight sprinklers shall be installed on dry pipe systems.

Exception No. 1 : Listed dry-pendent sprinklers shall be permitted. Exception No. 2: Penden t sprinklers installed on return bends

shall be permi t ted when both the sprinklers and the return bends are located in a heated area. SUBSTANTIATION: Style. This more accurately reflects the intent to install upr igh t sprinklers and to utilize the two exceptions as the situation dictates. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Lo g # 1) 13- 38 - (3-2.6.2): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC RECOMMENDATION: Add sentence to end of paragraph:

"An air dryer shall be provided to eliminate moisture from air, which may condense and freeze dur ing cold weather." SUBSTANTIATION: Frozen condensate can obstruct water flow to sprinklers. COMMI'I*rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlYrEE STATEMENT: Sprinkler pipe installed with proper pitch in accordance with this s tandard has not been a problem. The Commit tee does not believe that the expense of this equ ipment is justif ied across the board on all dry pipe systems.

(Log # 128) 13. 39- (3-3.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add second sentence:

"Manual means of operat ion shall be hydraulic, pneumat ic or mechanical ." SUBSTANTIATION: Authorit ies and laboratories are requiring electric manual stations (which are no t fail safe) per NFPA 72. Additional sentence is required to indicate o ther modes of operation are acceptable and preferred. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 3-3.1.2 to the following: "The automatic water control valve shall be provided with

hydraulic, pneumat ic or mechanical manual means for opera6on that is i ndependen t of detection devices and of the sprinklers." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised wording should satisfy the intent of the submitter.

470

N F P A 13 - - F 9 3 T C R

(Log # 80) 13- 40 - (3-3.2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- t ion RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-3.2.4 to read:

3-3.2.4 Upr igh t Sprinklers. Only upr ight sprinklers shall be installed on preacfion systems.

Exception No. h Listed dry-pendent sprinklers shall be permitted. Exception No. 2: P e n d e n t sprinklers installed on return bends

shall be permi t ted when both the sprinklers and the re turn bends are located in a hea ted area. SUBSTANTIATION: Style. This more accurately reflects the in tent to install up r igh t sprinklers and to utilize the two exceptions as the situation dictates. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 81) 13-41 - (3-3.2.5 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add new section as follows:

3-3.2.5 System Pressure. For preaction system types described in 3-3.2.1 (c) a m i n i m u m of 7 psi shall be main ta ined in the system piping. SUBSTANTIATION: Starting water flow in these types of systems requires a sprinkler to actuate. UL 199 assumes that there will be some m i n i m u m pressure within the system piping to blow away the seat cap. Some of these systems are installed with low supervisory air (3-5 psi) which may no t work. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 3-3.2.3. Add second sen tence as follows: "All preactJons system types described in 3-3.2.1 (b) and (c) shall

mainta in a m i n i m u m supervising air pressure of 7 psi." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee has ex tended the 7 psi provision to 3-3.2.1(h) since the same problem can occur.

SUBSTANTIATION: Style. This more accurately reflects the in tent to install upr ight sprinklers and to utilize the two exceptions as the situation dictates. COMM1TrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 41 ) 13- 45 - (3-5.1, A-3-5.1 ): Reject SUBMITTER:JohnJ . Walsh, Uni ted Association RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise 3-5.1 to read: "Antifreeze systems shall have a m a x i m u m capacity of 40 gallons and shall be in conformity with state and local hea l th regulations."

2. Revise A-3-5.1 to read: "Antifreeze systems are in tended onlyfor use in small unhea ted areas." SUBSTANTIATION: There have been instances where, when heat was removed from buildings, large wet systems have been filled with antifreeze rather than being converted to dry systems. A m a x i m u m size is required in the body of the Standard to stop this abuse. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: No technical reason given for 40 gallon limit.

(Log # 5) 13-46- (3-5.4 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER:James A. Carlson, CNA Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

"Penden t sprinklers shall no t be installed on drop nipples unless listed dry-pendent sprinklers are used." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 9-4 requires that anti-freeze systems be dra ined annual ly to check the su 'ength of the solution. The proposed text would facilitate per formance of this required maintenance . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Sprinklers installed in this m a n n e r have no t presented a problem.

(Log # 82) 13-42- (3-3.2.6 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add new section as follows:

3-3.2.6 System Configuration. Preaction systems of the type described in 3-3.2.1 (c) with pressures in excess of 20 psi shall no t be

rUBidded. STANTIATION: These systems act like dry pipe systems and the

same limitations should .apply. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete f rom the proposal "with pressures m excess of 20 psi." COMMI'I'rEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes that dais restriction should be placed on all double interlock preaction systems and not jus t those with pressures greater than 20 psi.

(Log # 83) 13-43- (3-4.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. lsman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add a Section 3-4.1 to clarify the difference between a preaction sprinkler system as defined in 3-3.2.1 (b) and a combined dry pipe and preaction system. SUBSTANTIATION: Different rules seem to apply, but in performance these are the same type of system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No proposed wording submitted.

(Log # 84) 13- 44 - (3-4.1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th 17-. Isman, National Hre Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-4.1.4 to read:

3-4.1.4 Upr igh t Sprinklers. Only upr igh t sprinklers shall be installed on combined dry pipe and preact ion systems.

Exception No. 1: Listed dry-pendent sprinklers shall be permitted. Exception No. 2: Penden t sprinklers installed on re turn bends

sball be permi t ted when both sprinklers and re turn bends are located in a heated area.

(Log # 6) 13-47- (3-8.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:James A. Carlson, CNA Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence:

"Also, dry pipe systems shall be provided with automat ic air pressure ma in tenance devices, unless the low air-pressure alarm is a r ranged to send an audible alarm at a constantly a t tended location." SUBSTANTIATION: Free-ups of systems protect ing cold storage rooms cont inue to occur due to accidental t r ipping of dry pipe valves dur ing times when no one is in at tendance. In addition to the system damage sustained, the cost of restoring protect ion (i.e. thawing out the system) is extraordinary due to the na ture of the occupancy. A low air-pressure alarm is of no value if there is no one to hear it. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise as follows: 3-8.2 A low air pressure alarm to a constantly a t tended location

shall be installed on sprinkler systems supplying freezer sections. Exception: Dry pipe systems equipped with local low air pressure

alarms and an automatic air ma in tenance device. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes that dais provision is best handled by revising current 3-8.2 and by adding an exception.

(Log # 7) 13-48- (3-8.5 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:James A. Carlson, CNA Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

"A listed indicating valve(s) shall be installed to permi t isolation of the system's dry pipe or preaction valve from piping within cold storage rooms dur ing testing. This valve shall be supervised open as described in 4-5.1.1.3, me thod (a) or (b) only. The test connect ion required by 4-6.4 shall be located so as to permi t testing of the system with the isolating valve(s) in the closed position."

471

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

V~. wig ~

"1" . "r,~,s,r" F ~ I I

Y .-¢_..

Figure 3-8.5

SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 25 now requires that these systems be trip tested annual ly but without in t roducing moisture into the piping in the freezers. Specific installation requi rements are needed to address dais, and isolating valves are the only practical solution. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

3-8.5 (New) to be as follows: 3-8.5 Fittings which can be removed, or o ther a r rangements for

operational t e s t i ngo f dry pipe and preaction systems shall be provided outside the freezer space. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee agrees that a means for testing should be provided outside of the protected space. They do not believe that it is always necessary to have a control valve to accomplish this. Flanged connect ions could be provided and a blank flange could be used.

(Log # 26) 13- 49 - (Chapter 4): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th Goodwin, Indiana University RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

"The main sprinkler piping, valves, gauges, and drains shall have a m i n i m u m area of clearance of 3 ft out f rom the f ront and sides to allow for emergencies and testing of the system." SUBSTANTIATION: I have recently exper ienced a problem that we could not have changed due to the fact that there is no code in the local and state code books also NFPA.

We have a new system installed dur ing a remodel in a corner then an air handler duct was installed within 6 in. f rom the f ront of the main valve. We now have very little space f rom which to service or reset the system.

The engineer tom us that there was not a code problem. We have also exper ienced this same problem with zone valves and their locations. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clearance provisions a round this equ ipmen t are usually not a problem. Not all equ i pmen t requires this type of clearance and in some cases, the space is simply not available. Other means mus t be considered such as access panels in walls or relocation of e q u i p m e n t if absolutely necessary.

(Log # 22) 13- 50 - (4-2.2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Gary R Long, East Whi te land Township RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 4-2.2 and r e n u m b e r f rom existing Section 4-2.2.

"Fire Walls. Where buildings are subdivided by fire walls, each section shall be protected individually by i ndependen t systems ( including risers.) Sprinkler piping shall no t penetrate the fire wall." SUBSTANTIATION: Fire walls are des igned and constructed to withstand structural collapse of construct ion on either side. Often, they are constructed to stop fire spread when the sprinkler system(s) fail to achieve control. When roof failure occurs, all overhead sprinkler p iping comes down with it and if feed mains or branch lines penetra te tlae wall, the system(s) on both sides of the wall will be rendered ineffective. Each side of the wall should be indepen- dently protected. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The occurrence of sprinkler systems failing to control fires which result in collapse of walls is negligible. Sprinkers and fire rated walls work in ha rmony to control and contain fires to the immedia te area of origin.

In addition, if select occupancies are subdivided with 1 hour walls, a large n u m b e r of systems would be required.

(Log # CP20) 13- 51 - (4-3.2(1) (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add new section:

4-3.2.1 Extended coverage sprinklers shall be limited for use under horizontal, smoo th flat ceilings or pi tched roofs with a slope not exceeding 2 in. per ft.

Exception: When sprinklers are specifically listed for o ther construct ion features, they shall be permi t ted for such use. SUBSTANTIATION: A limitation should be placed on the types of ceilings unde r which an ex tended coverage sprinkler can be used. The proposed language is indicative of what the Commit tee believes is reasonable for currently listed, ex tended coverage sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: AccepL

(Lo g # 124) 13-52- (4-3.6.1 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception to 4-3.6.1 as follows:

"When fire control is required, residential sprinklers shall no t be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: Tests for the listing of residential sprinklers would permi t def ined unsafe condit ions and flashover to occur after a 10 minu te per iod of time from start of fire. This is described in ULI Standard 1626 unde r test method. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'ITEE STATEMENT: The concept of "fire restraint" h3.s not been accepted by the Commit tee in the previous proposals. Residential sprinklers are designed, depend ing on what s tandard is used, to, control the fire for a 10 or 30 minute period. The per formance of a residential sprinkler is similar to a spray sprinkler in that it will provide control as def ined in NFPA 13.

(Log # 130) 13- 53 - (4-3.6.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION" Delete 4-3.6.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 4-3.6.3 contains unsubstant ia ted restrictions not found in paren t d o c u m e n t NFPA Standard 13D. Fire tests conducted at Underwri ter 's Laboratories using a mix of e lements (Solder Links and Glass Bulbs) and Tempera tu re Ratings ( 155 °F and 165°F) would tend to indicate restrictions are not necessary.

FMRC repor t OTIN7.RA also illustrates that Residential Sprinklers with widely different RTI's, "C" factures and tempera ture ratings will respond very closely in a fire situation because these physical characteristics mus t balance in order to pass fire and sensitivity test requirements .

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters .

472

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise to read: 4-3.6.3 W h e n residential sprinklers are installed within a compart-

men t as def ined in 1-4.2 all sprinklers shall have the same temperature classification. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is impor tan t to utilize residential sprinklers which have the same tempera ture classification. This is pointed out in the substantiation for this proposal.

(Log # 87) 13-57- (44.1.3.1.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- t ion RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section as follows:

44.1.3.1.3 Horizontal Soffits. When upr ight or penden t sprinklers are installed near soffits, the sprinkler shall be placed at least as far f rom the wall as the sum of the depth of the soffit and the distance of the soffit below the deflector. The depth shall be limited to a 4-ft maxim um.

(Log # 85) 13-54- (4-4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Move 4-4.1.7.1, 4-4.1.7.2, 44.1.7.3, 4-4.1.7.4, 44.1.7.5, 4-4.1.7.6, 4-4.1.7.7, 44.1.7.1 1, 4-4.1.7.12, 4-4.1.7.13, 4-4.1.7.14, 4-4.1.7.15, 44.1.7.16, 44.1.7.17, 44.1.7.18, 4-4.1.7.19, 4-4.1.7.20, 4-4.1.7.21, 44.1.7.22, 44.1.7.23, 4-4.1.7.24 and 4-4.1.7.25 to ano ther section. SUBSTANTIATION: Artything start ing with 44.1 technically only applies to upr ight and penden t sprinklers. These sections contain information which should apply to all sprinklers no t jus t upr ight or pendents . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Relocate these sections to a new 4-5. Special Situations. Those sections remain ing will be r e n u m b e r e d as needed since they will remain as subsections which specifically apply to upr igh t and penden t sprinklers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee took specific action as to how and where to relocate the sections.

(Log # 86) 13- 55 - (Figure 4-4.1.3.1.1 (b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. lsman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add a plan view to Figure 44.1.3.1.1 (b) to show that the m i n i m u m horizontal distance can be the hypotenuse of a right triangle where the cross m e m b e r of a wood truss bisects the horizontal p l ane of the sprinkler deflector. SUBSTANTIATION: Current d iagram 4-4.1.3.1.1 (b) would seem to incorrectly indicate that the horizontal distance to the truss is measured exactly east-west (as the d iagram is drawn). In actuality, the direction of the m e a s u r e m e n t will d e p e n d on the exact penetra t ion of the horizontal plane containing the deflector by the truss web. COMMITTEE ACTION,. Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submit ter did not provide a sketch showing what he intends to accomplish with this change. The Commit tee does not believe that this change is needed as the cur rent me thods to use the horizontal point of reference have been working well.

< c

N o t e s 1) c>_a+b 2) b m a x o f 4 f t

I I I I I

I I I I

SUBSTANTIATION: There is currently no information in NFPA 13 on how to deal with this situation. Formal interpretat ion F.I. 76-11 which was reissued on the 1989 edition to Section 4-2.4.6 implies that this installation is acceptable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: F.I. 89-6 looked specifically at the condit ion of a wall and a soffit. F.I. 76-11 in tended to evaluated the soffit in the middle of a room.

The situations are different thus the answers are different. F.I. 76-11 assumes that sprinklers on both sides of the soffit can operate and control the fire. F.I. 89-6 evaluates a f i re unde r the soffit, that, if no t protected, would allow sprinkler discharge to only one side of the area unde r the soffit. The Commit tee intends for these situations to conform to Table 44.1.3.1.2 or to have additional sprinklers installed u n d e r n e a t h the soffit.

(Log # CP1) 13-56- (44.1.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

4-4.1.3.1 Obstruct ions Located at file Ceiling. Obstruct ions located at the ceiling or roof such as columns, bar joists, truss webs and cont inuous light fixtures, shall be treated as vertical obstructions.

Exception No. 1: Structm'al members located more than 18 in. below the deflector shall no t be considered vertical obstructions.

Exception No. 2: (Same as cur ren t exception for this paragraph.) SUBSTANTIATION: The new obstruction rules presented in the 1991 Edition have t remendous ly simplified the problems associated with interference of the ',sprinkler spray pattern by structural members and other bui lding equipment . For some situations, however, the new obstruction rules were too restrictive in that they allowed for little or no flexibility with respect to structural e lements located well below the deflector. The purpose of this revision is to basically note that such items do not pose a problem to the effectiveness of the sprinkler spray pattern. COMMITTEE ACTION'. Accept.

( L o g # 118) 13- 58 - (4-4.1.3.1 Figure 4-4.1.3.1.1 (d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Webb, Deerfield, IL RECOMMENDATION: Delete "bar joists" and delete Figure 44.1.3.1.1 (d). SUBSTANTIATION: The present requ i rements will often require sprinklers to be installed below the bar joists or in each joist channel with baffles to protect the sprinklers f rom cold soldering. Until the 1991 edition, sprinklers were installed th rough bar joists. The intent ion of tile new s tandard was to simplify the obstruct ion rules, no t create new requirements . There is no d o c u m e n t e d evidence that bar joists significantly affect sprinkler distribution. The present limitations should therefore be eliminated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13-56 (CP-1).

(Log # 134) 13- 59 - (44.1.3.2.3): Accept SUBMIT'rE]R: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC RECOMMENDATION: Add exception as follows:

Exception: Where ESFR sprinklers are installed, the sprinklers shall be located so that the deflectors are at least 1 ft horizontally f rom the nearest edge of any bo t tom chords at open trusses or open bar joists.

473

N F P A 13 m F 9 3 T C R

SUBSTANTIATION: There is a need to minimize obstructions to discharge f rom ESFR sprinklers f rom chord members . COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

Editorially change "where" to "when".

(Log # CP2) 13-60- (44.1.3.2.3, Figure 44.1.3.1.1(d) and 44.1.3.2.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: 1. Paragraph 4-4.1.3.1.1 add new Exception No. 2:

Exception No.2: W hen the sprinklers are installed in the centerl ine of bar joists or a truss the provisions of Section 4-4.1.3.2.3 shall apply.

2. Figure 44.1.3.1.1 (d) - Add a note to dais figure. Same note as in Figure (b) and (c).

3. Paragraph 44.1.3.2.3 Revise to read: • ... centeri ine of a truss, bar joist or directly above a beam provided

the ..." SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee did not in tend for the option of placing the sprinklers in the centerl ine of the bar joist web members to be removed f rom the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 88) 13- 61 - (44.1.4.2 Exception No. 3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception as follows:

Exception No. 3: Sprinklers shall only be permi t ted below composite wood joists when joist channels are f i restopped to the full depth of the joists with material equivalent to the web construct ion so that individual channel areas do not exceed 300 sq ft. SUBSTANTIATION: This r equ i rement was in Section 4-1.3.9 of the 1989 edition and was inadvertently left out of the rewrite. It is impor tant to reinstate this provision since this was a condit ion of the fire tests pe r fo rmed on composite wood joists. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # CP3) 13-62- (44 .1 .4 .3 , A-1-4.6(b)iii(a) and A-4-4.1.4.2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph 44 .1 .4 .3- Make dais Exception No. 3 to paragraph 44.1.4.2.

Add " ... shall be permit ted to " after ".. depth of the tee,..." Place an asterisk for the exception and add: A-4-4.1.4.2, Exception No. 3: For concrete joists spaced less than 3

feet on center, the rules for obstructed construct ion shown in 44.1.4.2 apply.

Add figure of typical concrete joist construction.

INSERT FIGURE HERE (typical concrete joist construction)

In section A-1-4.6(b)iii(a) - Delete "concrete joists less than 3 ft (0.9 m) on centers. SUBSTANTIATION: The s tandard has no t provided any guidance on the t r ea tment of concrete joists which were spaced less than 3 feet on center. The proposed revision will now treat this condit ion as obstructed construction, requir ing compliance with the require- men t contained in paragraph 4-4.1.4.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 89) 13- 63 - (4-4.1.6 and A-44.1.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise 44.1.6" to read: "...between top of storage or equ i pmen t and ceiling sprinkler deflectors."

2. A d d t o A-4-4.1.6 "This min imumclea ra r l ce is also applicable to enclosed file cabinets, compute r equ i pmen t and other types of fixed equ ipmen t which could encroach into the 18-in. space." SUBSTANTIATION: The 18-in. clearance is in tended to allow for the sprinkler spray pat tern to develop to a reasonable extent. Any obstructions such as those men t i oned will have the same impact on the spray pat tern as would storage. '

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes that the cur rent language is adequate for the situations ment ioned .

(Log # 30) 13-64- (44.1.7.1.4 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Laurie Labelle, Building Standards, Communi ty Services RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

4-4.1.7.1.4 Sprinklers in exterior combustible soffit overhangs may be omit ted when all of the following condit ions prevail:

1. The space contains no equ ipmen t such as s team pipes, electrical wiring, or electrical fixtures.

2. All spaces that could expose the exterior soffit to fire f rom below are protected with sprinklers.

3. (i) The space is fire-stopped with a non combustible or limited

combustible material into volumes not exceeding 160 ft 3 or (ii) When the soffit space s used for providing ventilation to a

combustible attic space, (a) The attic sprinklers mus t be spaced no t more than 7 ft 6 in.

f rom the outer edge of the soffit (b) the air space between the top of the insulation and the roof

deck mus t not be less than 2 in., and (c) the soffit space mus t be fire-stopped with non combustible or

l imited combustible material every 25 ft or less. SUBSTANTIATION: Protecting the soffit space with automatic sprinklers is cosdy and difficult to maintain. The sprinkles which protect these spaces in cold climates mus t be a dry pipe system which requires many low point drains. It is difficult to install piping in these spaces and the water distribution of the sprinkler is suspect due to obstructions. The space is no t readily accessible when problems occur. With the building being protected with an automatic sprinkler

system, the likelihood of fire spreading to the soffit space is negligible.

I tem 3 is in tended to provide protect ion to the soffit space should a fire spread into this area. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Conmaittee is not sure of what is mean t in i tem 2. It appears as t hough a 2 foot wide combustible soffit could require sprinklers which is more conservative than what is currendy required in NFPA 1 3, paragraph 44.1.7.6.2. In addition, several options exist for omit t ing sprinklers in concealed combustible spaces in Section 44.1.7.1.1.

(Lo g # 16) 13- 65 - (44.1.7.2.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Lewis H Z immermann , W Conshohocken, PA RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "accessible," or define what is mean t by "accessible." SUBSTANTIATION: Local authorit ies are requir ing a sprinkler at the bot tom of all elevator shafts. They argue that the bot tom of the shaft is "accessible" by raising the car in the test mode, and opening the elevator doors. If that is the in tent of the Committee, t hen the word shou ld simply be deleted. If that is no t the in tent of the Committee, maybe an appendix item could give some indication of the Commit tee definit ion of "accessible." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13-68 (Log # 47).

(Log # 90) 13-66 - (44.1.7.3.4 Exception No. 2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new exception to read:

Exception No. 2: When fast response sprinklers are installed with deflectors at least 8 in. f rom the ceiling, draft stop depth shall be permit ted to be reduced to 8 in. SUBSTANTIATION: This would appear to be a logical allowance. Increased sprinkler sensitivity would mean that less hea t would have to be t rapped in order to actuate sprinklers. The 8-in. n u m b e r comes f rom the 8-in. lintel depth already allowed by NFPA 13D and 13R when utilizing fast response sprinklers. COMMrI'rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The analogy to NFPA 13D/13R is not comparable to the scenario as larger compar tments (area and width) are anticipated and greater ceiling heights are typically encounte red in the condit ion governed in this section of NFPA 13.

474

N F P A 13 1 F 9 3 T C R

(Log # 91 ) 13- 67 - (44.1.7.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "...in spaces unde r all combustible g r o u n d floors." SUBSTANTIATION: The te rm "combustible" has been added to the base paragraph. It appears as t hough the m a i n problem with the spaces described occurs with combust ible g r o u n d floor conditions. This change would agree with the language used in NFPA 13-1989, Paragraph 4-4.3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 47) 13- 68 - (44.1.7.5, 44.1.7.5.1, 44.1.7.5.2, 4-4.1.7.5.3 (New) A-4-4.1.7.5.1, A-4-4.1.7.5.2, and A-4.4.1.7.5.3 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David A Wizda, ASME A17 Elevator & Escalator Comm. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add the following new Section 4-4.1.7.5 and r e n u m b e r the paragraph beginning with cur rent 44.1.7.5:

4-4.1.7.5 Elevator Hoistways and Machine Rooms. 4-4.1.7.5.1 Sidewall spray sprinklers shall be installed at the bot tom

of each elevator hoistw,q.y, no t more than 2 ft above the floor of the pit.

4-4.1.7.5.2 Automat ic sprinklers in elevator machine rooms or at the tops of hoistways shall be of ordinary or intermediate temperature rating.

4-4.1.7.5.3 Upr igh t or p e n d e n t spray sprinklers shall be installed at the top of elevator hoistways.

Exception: Sprinklers are not required at the tops of noncombustible hoistways of passenger elevators whose car enclosure materials mee t the requ i rements ofASME A17.1.

2. Add the following to Appendix A: A-4-4.1.7.5.1 The sprinklers in the pit are in tended to protect

against fires caused by debris which can accumulate over time. Ideally, the sprinklers should be located near the side of the pit below the elevator doors, where most debris accumulates. However, care should be taken that the sprinkler location does not interfere with the elevator toe guard which extends below the face of the door opening.

A-44.1.7.5.2 The ASME A17.1 code requires the shutdown of power to the elevator upon or prior to the application of water in elevator mach ine rooms or hoistways. This may be accomplished by a detect ion system with sufficient sensitivity to operate prior to the activation of the sprinklers (see also NFPA 72). As an alternative, the system may be a r ranged using devices or sprinklers capable of effecting power shutdown immediately upon sprinkler activation, such as a water-flow switch without a t ime delay. This is in tended to in terrupt power before significant sprinkler discharge.

A-4-4.1.7.5.3 Passenger elevator cars which have been constructed in accordance with A17.1 Rule 204.2a (under A17.1a-1985 and later editions of the Code) have l imited combustibility. Materials exposed to the interior of the car and the hoistway, in their end-use composi- tion, are l imited to a f lame spread rating of 0 to 75, and a smoke deve lopment of 0 to 450. SUBSTANTIATION: Criteria for the protection of elevator hoistways (shafts) and mach ine rooms needs to be clarified. Unde r tire Exception to 4-4.1.7.5.3, sprinklers should only be needed in the pit where combustibles accumulate, and those sprinklers should be placed to minimize potential wetting of an interference with control equipment . Guidance on power shutdown is also needed.

This proposal was dew.qoped by a task g roup composed of representatives of ffie fire protection and elevator industries as a result of the February 1991 Symposium on Elevators & Fire which was sponsored by ASME, CABO, and NFPA. COMMITI 'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the proposal as follows: 4-4.1.7.5" Elevator Shafts. 4-4.1.7.5.1 Sprinklers shall be installed at the top and bot tom of all

elevator shafts. Exception: For enclosed, noncombus t ib le elevator shafts which do

not contain combustible hydraulic fluids, the sprinklers at the top and bot tom of the shaft are not required.

4-4.1.7.5.2 When sprinklers are installed at die bot tom of the shaft, they shall be positioned so that the installation does not interfere with the elevator toe guard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee is of the opinion that the main concerns here are with the installation of the sprinklers at the top and bot tom of the shaft more so than other areas. The Commit tee does not believe that fires in the bot tom of an elevator shaft are a major problem and dlat any combustibles in the pit would be so minimal that they could not operate the sprinkler even if it were installed.

W h e n potential fuels (hydraulic fluid) are present in larger quanti t ies which could generate sufficient hea t to operate the sprinkler, the Commit tee is of the opinion that this sprinkler should be installed.

(Log # CP4) 13-69- (44.1.7.5 Exception (b)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise i tem (b) in the exception to read:

(b) The space contains no equ ipmen t such as conveyors or fuel fired heat ing units. SUBSTANTIATION: These revisions are necessary since the concern in those spaces is with cont inuous heat ing ignition sources or equ ipment which may be used to move combustible storage loads th rough such an area. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 139) 13- 70 - (44.1.7.12 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th F. Tomaszewski, Dow Chemical Company RECOMMENDATION: New text:

Exception No. 1: Where generator , t ransformer, or electrical rooms contain only dry-type equ ipmen t having no f lammable liquid, gas, or combustible materials, sprinkler protect ion is no t required. SUBSTANTIATION" After reviewing plans on a new construct ion project, I was shocked to find the electrical substation room and the room containing automat ic transfer equ ipmen t both sprinklered. At that t ime I was told it was required per NFPA 13. After reviewing NFPA 13, a long with all of the formal interpretat ions to NFPA 13, 1 find very little per ta ining to electrical, o ther than Section 4-4.1.7.12 "Electrical Equipment ," which discusses the installation of noncombustible hoods or shields to protect impor tan t electrical equ ipmen t f rom sprinkler discharge. Also quest ionable is the first word - - "When." Jus t when is sprinkler protect ion provided in these areas?

With 23 years experience in the electrical distribution field of designing electrical installations, and serving 20 years on a volunteer fire depar tment , currently as deputy chief, I find this practice to be very hazardous. I base my opinion on a n u m b e r of facts as listed below:

1. Inspectors mus t be made aware of the differences between oil filled electrical equ ipmen t and dry-type electrical equipment . Oil filled equ ipmen t can fail and burn, causing damage to the structural integrity of a building. Sprinklers in this case, used to protect the structure yet still allow Section 4-4.1.7.12 to apply the use of shields or hoods to keep direct discharge off tile electrical equipment , only makes sense. If the electrical room contains only dry-type electrical equipment , having no f lammable liquid, gas, or combustible materials to damage the structural integrity of the room, sprinklers are of no asset, but ra ther a liability. The National Electrical Code (NEC) requires g round fault protect ion in areas where personnel could come in contact with electrical circuits near wet or d am p locations, suggest ing that electricity and water don ' t mix. The majority of these locations contain low voltage circuits, less than 300 volts. Electrical rooms most often contain m e d i u m voltage circuits, 15 to 50 KV, which increases the risks significantly, yet there are no g r o u n d fault protection systems to protect personnel in these rooms when water or sprinklers are present.

2. The enclosure "A Fire Fighters' Guide for Emergencies Involving Electricity" publ ished by the Philadelphia Electric Company contains high voltage grid readings, a long with additional information on electrical fires. These readings indicate what cur ren t flow would be found for the scenario listed. Also a t tached to this information is 'Table 3, 60 Hz Alternat ing Cur ren t Values Affecting H u m a n Beings," f rom the Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operat ions - - National Safety Council.

When I cross reference this informat ion and see how little cur ren t it takes to kill a person and weigh dais against the advantages of installing sprinklers in noncombust ib le electrical rooms, I cannot justify the installation of sprinklers in these rooms.

The introduct ion of water would only increase the risk of death or injury to personnel working or passing th rough the area in the event of an electrical fault. Water would also cause additional damage to the electrical equipment . ANSI C2-1990, National Electrical Safety Code, Section 11, unde r Rooms and Spaces B, 4 indicates electrical rooms should be kept dry. Section 15, paragrapb 152,B,2, indicates dry-type electrical equ ipment may be installed in buildings without the need for a f i reproof enclosure.

It is the suggestion of the Dow Chemical Company and its Safety and Loss Preventing Depa rnnen t that sprinkler systems riot be installed in electrical rooms that do not warrant the need for sprinklers.

475

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee is not aware of any negative experience with sprinklers in the areas described. NFPA 13, paragraph 4-1.1, i tem (a) requires sprinklers in those areas. In too many cases, these areas become used for overflow storage of combustible materials and sprinkler protection is just as important as it is in any other portion of the building. F.I. 83-10 specifically addresses this issue.

NOTE: A Task Group will be assigned to review this issue further during the public comment period,

(Log # 92) 13- 71 - (4-4.1.7.17): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion. RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

4-4.1.7.17 Rack Storage. Sprinkler systems for rack storage, which is not miscellaneous storage, shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials. SUBSTANTIATION: TIA 91-1 at tempted to clarify the intent of this section in this manner. See also our proposal on Chapter 4, 5, and 6 dealing with in-rack sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete finis paragraph in its entirety. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Chapter 1 has now specifically segregated the issues dealing with miscellaneous and other than miscellaneous storage. Chapters 1, 4, and 5 will now have specific guidance on miscellaneous rack storage and Chapter 1 will direct the user to NFPA 231C for other than miscellaneous storage.

(Log # CP21 ) 13- 72 - (4-4.1.7.21.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Conmlittee on Automatic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise the fourth line to read as follows:

"...branch line fitting to supply a new sprinkler of the same nominal orifice size as the sprinklers being removed." Add a new exception: Exception No. 1: When special sprinklers are used, hydraulic

calculations shall be made to verify that the design flow rate will be achieved.

The current exception to dais paragraph will become Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the nature of some specially listed sprinklers, relatively high flow rates are expected - in some cases up to 80 gpm. These changes will recognize the potential problems with these devices when being applied to existing pipe conditions and will require design verification of same. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 93) 13- 73 - (Table 4-4.2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion. RECOMMENDATION: Change the last line of Table 4-4.2.4 to read:

"Greater than 8 ft 6 in. 14 in." SUBSTANTIATION: As currendy written, this table would allow a full floor to ceiling partition to divide a room 12 ft deep with sidewall sprinklers only on one side of the partition as long as it was nine feet away from the sprinkler. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept.

Editorially change to 8 ft 6 in. or greater than ... 14 in.

(Log # 135) 13-74- (44.5.1, 44.5.4.2, 5-3.5.1, 5-3.5.2, Table A-5-3.5): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise as follows:

4-4.5.1 Spacing. The distance between branch lines and between sprinklers on branch lines shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 in.) nor less than g ft (2.4 m) for buildings higher than 30 ft (9.1 m) up to 40 ft (12.2 m), and not more than 12 ft (3.7 m) nor less than 8 ft (2.4 m) for building up to 30 ft (9.1 m) high. 4-4.5.4.2, Exception: Exception'. When ESFR sprinklers, are. installed in buildings higher

than 30 ff up to 40 ft, obstructions 14 m. wide shall be located at least I ft horizontally from the centerline of the sprinklers and obstructions wider than 4 in. shall be located at least 2 ft horizontally from the centerline of the sprinklers.

2. Revise 5-3.5.1 and 5-3.5.2 as follows: 5-3.5.1 ESFR sprinkles are suitable for use with tile hazards listed in

Table A-5-3.5 and may be used in other specific hazard classifications and configurations only when proven by large-scale or other suitable fire testing. ESFR sprinklers listed for use in buildings up to 30 ft high shall be used only in buildings up to 30 ft high. ESFR sprinkles listed for use in buildings up 40 ft high shall be used when building height exceeds 30 ft to a maximum of 40 ft.

5-3.5.2 ESFR sprinkler systems shall be designed such that the minimum operating pressure is not less than that indicated in Table A-5-3.5 for type of storage, commodity, storage height and building height involved. SUBSTANTIATION: Successful full-scale fire testing shows that ESFR sprinklers can be used in 40 ft high buildings as indicated by PcrOposal.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Do not accept the proposed exception to 44.5.4.2. Accept the

other recommendat ions shown. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Action taken on Proposal 13-59 (Log #134) already addresses the issue discussed in this proposed exception.

Table A-5-3.5

T~pe of Storage

Single-, Double-, and multiple-row and portable rack storage (no open-top comb- bustible containers), solid-piled and palletized storage

Commodity

Cartoned unexpanded plastic, cartoned expanded plastic, uncar toned unexpanded plastic, and Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 commodities, all ei ther encapsulated or unencapsulated

Maximum Ht Maximum (NOTE 2) Sprinkler Design of Storage /ft} Buildin~ Ht/ft / Pressure qpsi}

25 30 50

Cartoned unexpanded Plastic, and Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 commodities, all either encapsulated or unencapsulated

35 40 (NOTE 1) 75

Roll paper on end, Heavy weight or 20 30 50 open / s t anda rd or medium weight closed array, banded or unbanded

Aerosol Storage See NFPA 303

NOTE 1:. Only ESFR sprinklers specificaly listed for 40 ft high building shall be used ill building higher than 30 ft up to 40 ft. NOTE 2: Maximum building height is to be measured to the underside of the roof deck or ceiling.

476

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

(Log # 137) 13- 75 - (4-4.5.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add "pendent" to start of first sentence.

2. Add second sentence, "Upright sprinklers shall be posit ioned so that the centerl ine of the thermal fusible e l ement is 4 to 6 in. below the ceiling." SUBSTANTIATION: At present , S tandard 13 does not provide for upr ight ESFR spririklers. Approval specific application sprinklers could be recognized as ESFR sprinklers if appropria te changes are made to s tandard.

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The device described is no t considered as being an ESFR :sprinkler which only comes in p e n d e n t styles. Recognit ion of a specific application device as an ESFR sprinkler would have to be coordinated with the listing and approval agencies. Also, see the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13-153 (Log #136).

(Log # 94) 13- 76 - (44.5.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Replace all of 4-4.5.4 with the following:

4-4.5.4 Obstruct ions to Discharge. 44.5.4.1 Obstruct ions at or near the ceiling. Sprinklers shall be

posi t ioned with respect to horizontal obstructions at or near the ceiling inc luding beams, girders, ducts and f luorescent l ighting fixtures so that the distance between the deflector and the bot tom of the obstruct ion does not exceed the values in Table 44.1.3.1.2.

4-4.5.4.2 Obstruct ions Below Sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be installed u n d e r obstructions which are more than 24 in. wide and located completely below sprinklers if the distance between the deflector and the sprinkler exceeds the values in Table 4-4.1.3.1.2. Such sprinklers shall be included in the water demand . SUBSTANTIATION: To bring the requi rements of NFPA 13 in line with FM Data Sheet 2-2 since both were established f rom the same test program. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The FM Data Sheet treats these two condit ions as separate and distinct. The submit ter is a t tempt ing to combine t hem into one rule. Also, it is no t necessarily the in tent of the Commit tee to strictly

follow the F.M. Data Sheet in all cases.

(Log # 95) 13- 77 - (4-4.6 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new sections as follows:

4-4.6 In-rack sprinklers. 4-4.6.1 System Size. The area protected by a single system of

sprinklers in racks shall no t exceed 40,000 sq ft of floor area occupied by the racks, including aisles, regardless of the n u m b e r of levels of in-rack sprinklers.

4-4.6.2 Control Valves. W hen sprinklers are installed in racks, separate indicating control valves and drains shall be provided for ceiling sprinklers and sprinklers in racks.

Exception No. 1: In-rack installations of 20 or less sprinklers. Exception No. 2: The separate indicating valves shall be permit ted

to be a r ranged as sectional control valves when the racks occupy only a port ion of the area protected by ceiling sprinklers.

4-4.6.3 Type of Sprinklers. In-rack sprinklers shall be ordinary tempera ture 1/2 or 17/32-in. sprinklers.

4-4.6.4 Location of in-rack sprinklers. 4-4.6.4.1 A m i n i m u m 6-in. vertical clear space shall be main ta ined

between the sprinkler deflector and the top tier of storage. 4-4.6.4.2 The m a x i m u m spacing between sprinklers shall be 10 ft. 4-4.6.4.3 Sprinklers shall be located in transverse flue spaces.

SUBSTANTIATION: The TIA 91-1 added requi rements for in-rack sprinkler systems to be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, yet no guidance is given in this d o c u m e n t with respect to in-rack design considerations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept the r ecommenda t ion as shown, except do no t include the

proposed 4-4.6.I or 4~1.6.2. Add a new 4-4.6.2.4 to read: "In rack sprinklers shall be located at the first tier level at or above

one-half of the storage height"

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee notes that o ther port ions of NFPA 13 specify the area limitations for rack systems. Supplementa l control valves are no t d e e m e d to be necessary since this section will only apply to relatively small scale rack storage. The guidance on relative posi t ioning of the inrack sprinklers is necessary to r ound out this section.

(Log # 25) 13- 78 - (4-5.1.1.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gary R Long, East Whi te land Township RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

4-5.1.1.4 W h e n control valves are installed overhead, they shall be posi t ioned so that the indicator is visible f rom the floor below.

R e n u m b e r following sections. SUBSTANTIATION: When newer butterfly type valves are installed overhead, they are often posi t ioned with the small indicating pointer on the top, making it impossible to de te rmine if the ,iralve is open without using a ladder or o ther elevating means. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: 4-5.1.1.4 W h e n control valves are installed overhead, they shall be

~ osit ioned so that the indicating feature is visible f rom the floor elow. R e n u m b e r the other sections.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes the term "indicating feature" is more appropriate.

(Log # 8) 13- 79 - (4-5.1.1.7): Reject SUBMITTER:James A. Carlson, CNA Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"In a city connect ion serving as one source of supply, listed indicating valves or indicator post valves shall be installed on both sides of the check valve required in 4-5.1.1.4." SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 25 now requires the owner to have all check valves internally inspected at 5 year intervals. This necessitates isolation of the check valve f rom the city water supply. This required rout ine inspection should no t d e p e n d on a valve that is no t unde r the owner 's control. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee does not believe that it is unreasonable to have a city valve closed once every 5 years in order to conduct rout ine main tenance . This would also benefit the water purveyor as it would give them a chance to make sure they know the location of their valves and it would give t hem a chance to exercise their valves.

(Log # 55) 13- 80 - (Table 4-5.2.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 4-5.2.2.1 as follows:

Add hanger snacin~ for PB. v

Table 4-5.2.2.1 Hanger Spacing for Polybutylene Pipe

Pipe Size M a x i m u m Hanger Spacing

3/4" 36" I" 40"

1 1/4" 47" 1 1/2" 53"

2" 65"

SUBSTANTIATION: Adopt ion of this proposal will make the s tandards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requi rements of NFPA 13. COMMYFFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Table 4-5.2.2.1 already covers this information.

Editorially add the following to this table: CTS - Copper Tube Size IPS - Iron Pipe Size

477

N F P A 13 1 F 9 3 T C R

(Log # 34) 13- 81 - (4-5.2.3.3 Exception No. 2 and A4-5.2.3.3 Exception No. 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gus Olson, Grinnell Fire Protection RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change the last sen tence of Exception No. 2 so that it reads: "The hanger closest to the sprinkler shall be ofa. typ,e so installed as to prevent the upward m o v e m e n t of the ptpmg.

2. Add Figure 1 to the appendix Figure (A-4-5.2.3.3 Exception No. 2) as acceptable hangers .

N Adj. . , . , . ~ C l e v i s

Clevis Hanger

Pipe "D" size Dim.

1" 1/8" 11-" 1/8"

4

13" 1/8" 2" 1/4"

2~" 1/4"

Adjustable Swivel Loop Hanger

SUBSTANTIATION: Hangers o ther than those that clamp a round the pipe can be installed in an acceptable m a n n e r to prevent the upper m o v e m e n t of the piping.

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: "The hanger closest to the sprinkler shall be of a type that prevents Ooward m o v e m e n t of the piping." Add the figures as suggested.

MMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes fl/at the revised language is more to the point on this issue.

( L o g # 123) 13- 82 - (4-5.3.4.3 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ Gregory W. Haley, CIGNA Loss Contro |Services RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 4-5.3.4.3 as follows:

Exception: For those drains serving pressure reducing valves, the drain, drain connect ion and all o ther downstream drain piping shall be sized to permi t a flow of at least the greatest system d e m a n d (sprinkler and hose) supplied by the pressure reducing valve. SUBSTANTIATION: In keeping with the intent of NFPA 14-F92TCR paragraph 5-11 (see TCR page 353) and 8-5.5 (see TCR page 354), test facilities mus t also be provided for sprinkler systems that will permit acceptance and annual testing of pressure reducing valves

(PRV). As the greatest d e m a n d flow of a sprinkler system will vary, a specific drain size will need to be selected on a case by case basis. In any event, it is impor tan t to provide the necessary drain facilities that will permi t testing of each PRY at its greatest d e m a n d flow rate, COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: Exception: For those drains serving pressure reducing valves, the

drain, drain connect ion and all o ther downstream drain piping shall be sized to permi t a flow of at least the greatest system d e m a n d supplied by the pressure reducing valve. C O M M I I T E E STATEMENT: NFPA 13 provisions should only relate t o p r o p e r testing of sprinkler system flow th rough the pressure reducing valve. The change has clarified this position.

(Log # 9) 13- 83 - (4-5.3.5.2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER:James A. Carlson, CNA Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

"Auxiliary drains shall no t be located above suspended ceilings or in o ther concealed spaces unless all of the following requi rements are met:

(a) Regardless of the capacity of t rapped piping, the drains shall be valved.

(b) The drains shall be accessible. (c) The identification signs required in 2-7.3 shall be located in the

occupied space, directing the occupants to the location of the concealed drain." SUBSTANTIATION: Conceal ing drains is at best a quest ionable practice f rom the s tandpoint of prevent ing water damage. Since the s tandard does not prohibit this practice, m i n i m u m requi rements are needed to curtail some of the more serious abuses. COMMI'VrEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: The submit ter has not provided any specific condit ions or the extent to which problems have occurred with utilizing the cur rent drainage provisions of die standard.

(Log # 62) 13-84- (4-5.3.5.2.2, 4-5.3.5.2.3, 4-5.3.5.3.1, 4-5.4.2.2, 4-5.4.3.2, 4-5.4.3.4, 4-6.4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: L G Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited RECOMMENDATION: 1. In 4-5.3.5.2.2 add (19 mm) after 3 / 4 in.

2. In 4-5.3.5.2.3 change 25.4 to 25 m m 3. In 4-5.3.5.3.1 change 25 m m to 25 m m and 51 m m by 305 m m to

5- m m by 3-5 m m 4. In 4-5.4.2.2 change 2-3 m m to 200 m m 5. In 4-5.4.3.2 change 89 m m to 90 m m 6. In 4-5.4.3.4 change 89 m m to 90 m m and 51 mrn to 50 m m and

102 m m to 100 m m 7. In 4-6.4.2 change 22 m m to 25 m m

SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial - to show die appropriate metric nomina l pipe diameters. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 74) 13- 85 - (4-5.3.6.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Jeffrey Cisney, Wash ing ton , , DC RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text to Section 4-5.3.6.1:

"When drains are piped to an interior sump, the sum p shall be designed to accommoda te the flow from a test unde r normal system

~ ressure." UBSTANTIATION: The Code should make it clear d/at drains

mus t be des igned to discharge water f rom flow tests at interior control valves. Some engineers believe that drains are only for dra ining the system when it is shu t down. Sump pumps will be undersized if no t des igned for the flow unde r system pressure, which could lead to flooding. COMMIT] 'EE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: Paragraphs 4-5.3.4.1 and 4-6.4.1 already require systems to be properly drained. Fur ther language in this section is no t required.

478

N F P A 13 ~ F 9 3 T C R

(Log # 96) 13- 86 - (4-5.4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEl~ Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate NFPA 13 earthquake protection requirements with the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. (NEHRP). provisions, f rom the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), including the use of the standardized velocity- related peak acceleration map. (See maps below and on following page.,e.) SLrBSTANTIATION: The BSSC/NEHRP provisions are being accepted by the model building codes. There needs to be coordina- tion with NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Include the map shown by the subrnitter in the appendix and a similar map from the Uniform Building Code. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee has elected to show two example maps in the Appendix. This will give users of the standard fur ther information on what types of maps are utilized to establish seismic criteria.

(Log # 97) 13-87-(4-5.4.3.2(c) Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add exception to part (c) as follows:

Exception: Flexible pipe couplings are not required when clearance around the pipe is provided in accordance with Section 4-5.4.3.4. SUBSTANTIATION: Both clearance and flexible couplings aren ' t necessary. Section 4-5.4.3.4 allows couplings to substitute for clearance, but Section 4-5.4.3.2 doesn ' t do the reverse. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 43) 13- 88 - (4-5.4.3.2(e) (f)): Accept SUBMITTER: John J. Walsh, United Association RECOMMENDATION: In each instance change: "within 24 in. of the ceilinln_l~ )_l ~ a t the to of. drops", to "within 24 in. of the top of dro ps." SUBSTANTIATION: Piping is not in all instances at the ceiling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

AL/mKA

° .

,\

.SEISMIC ZONE MAP OF THE UNITED STATES

479

N F P A 13 - - F93 T C R

MAP OF SEISMIC ZONES AND EFFECTIVE PEAK VELOCITY-RELATED ACCLERATION (Av) CONTIGUOUS 48 STATES

Linear interpolation between contours is acceptable

¢',,m ,-

~s d N 0.15" I \ x ¢5 n I ~ . - ~ ,

0.10

0.05

0.10 - -

0.20

0.40 ~41

0.40 0.20

qU: ! I - t

! t I

F . . . . . . . 4 ( ' - - 4 •

g

I •

0 . 1 5 " x / ] . " : ~ ' ; : _ 1 , _ 1 . _ _ ~ " . ' , ." I ' . ' , ' . , . ~ : | - " : ' ~ : .

" / . . . " t , .--~

0.10

LEGEND 3 o /

x Seismic Zone ~ o x.xx Ellective Peak Velocity- ~ o ¢::::; ~ . o o

Related Acceleration (Av) o o ,:5 Av> 0.40

• Represenls the maximum value Jn the center of the zone

! !

- J

M')

O O

-.:'.:.' ',. " < ~ ' - ~ ' ~ 0.10 , ' : ~. " "-<z , . ~ . . ~ . .... ~4- , ~ , .

• t , ~-.-0-fi0"----,

L • , • , •

k . . ( ' "

0.15"

0.05

0.05

0.05

.10

(Log # CP14) 13- 89 - (4-5.4.3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise to read:

4-5.4.3.4 Glearance shall be provided around all piping 2 1/2 in. and larger extending through walls, floors, platforms, foundations and beams including...

(a) ... less than 1 in. (25 ram) for pipes 2 i / 2 in. through 3 1/2 in. and...

Exception No. 1: When clearance is provided by a pipe sleeve, a nominal diameter 2 in. (51 ram) larger than the nominal diameter of the pipe is acceptable for pipe sizes 2 1 /2 in. through 3 1/2 in., and the clearance provided by a pipe sleeve..."

Make item (a) of this section, paragraph 4-5.4.3.4.1. make item (b) of this Section 4-5.4.3.4.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The clearance provisions should be reserved for use of pipes with diameters of 2 1/2 in. and larger. Pipes smaller than this should have enough inherent flexibility to allow them to avoid stress. These changes will recognize such conditions. Other elements associated with this change are editorial in nature. Although there is no intent to apply the provision to pipe passing through successive f leer joists, beams are considered primary structural members, movement of which could damage piping which

asses throufah them. OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 98) 13- 90 - (4-5.4.3.4 Exception No. 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise Exception No. 3 as follows:

"No clearance is necessary if flexible couplings or swing joints are located within 1 ft of each side of a wall, floor, platform or foundation. SUBSTANTIATION: A flexible coupling or swing joint will provide the necessary f reedom of movement regardless of the orientation of the item beingpenet ra ted . COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: "No clearance is necessary if flexible couplings are located within 1

ft of each side of a wall, platform, beam or foundation." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This modification will agree with the action taken on Committee Proposal 13- concerning Exception No. 3 of this paragraph.

(Log # CP17) 13- 91 - (4-5.4.3.5 and 4-5.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise 4-5.4.3.5 and 4-5.4.3.5.1 as follows:

4-5.4.3.5 Sway Bracing• 4-5.4.3.5.1 The system piping shall be supported to resist both

lateral and longitudinal horizontal loads. 4-5.4.3.5.2 The assigned loads for both lateral and longitudinal

sway bracing shall be determined using Table 4-5.4.3.5.2, based on a horizontal force of F = 0 5 Wp where F is file horizontal force

• P , • , p

factor and Wp is the weight of the water-filled piping.

480

N F P A 13 - - F 9 3 T C R

Exception No. 1: In lieu of using Table 4-5.4.3.5.1 (a), horizontal loads for braces shall be permitted to be determined by analysis. Sway braces shall be designed to withstand a force in tension or compression equivalent to not less than half the weight of water- filledpiping. For lateral braces, the load shall include all branch lines and mains within the zone of influence of the brace. For longitudinal braces, the load shall include all mains within the zone of influence of the brace.

Exception no. 2: When the use of other horizontal force factors is required or permitted by the AHJ, the loads of Table 4-5.4.3.5.2(a) or determined in accordance with Exception No. I shall be adjusted by the following multipliers

Horizontal Force Factor Fp Multiplying Factor 0.2 Wp 0.4 0.4 Wp 0.8 0.6 Wp 1.2 0.8 Wp 1.6 1.0 Wp 2.O 1.2 Wp 2.4

4-5.4.3.5.3 Sway bracing shall be tight and concentric. All parts and fittings of a brace shall lie in a straight line to avoid eccentric loadings on fittings and fasteners. For longitudinal braces only, the brace shall be permitted to be connected to a tab welded to the pipe in conformance with 2-5,2. For individual braces, the slenderness ratio, l/r, shall not exceed 300 where I is the length of the brace and r is the least radius of gyration. The loads on braces'determined in 4-5.4.3.5.2 shall not exceed the maximum allowable loads provided in Table 4-5.4.3.5.3.

Exception: Other pipe schedules and materials not specifically included in Table 4-5.4.3.5.3 are acceptable for use if certified by a registered professional engineer to support the loads determined in accordance with the above criteria. Calculations shall be submitted when required by the AHJ.

4-5.4.3.5.4 For individual fasteners, the loads determined in 4-5.4.3.5.2 shall not exceed the allowable loads provided in Table 4-5.4.3.5.4.

: renumber tables and appendix sections accordingly. In the Table 4-5.4.3.5.1 (b) (new Table 4-5.4.3.5.3) change three

right-hand column headings to "3044 ° angle from vertical", "45-59 ° angle from vertical", and "60-90 ° angle from vertical". Expand the table to show values for I / r = 100 and l / r = 300 for pipe and rods.

* Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.1 (a) - Delete "No bracing" Section A-4-5.4.3.5.1 (c) (2) - Delete "... and the first 15 ft of branch

line piping." SUBSTANTIATION: Recognizing the use of horizontal force factors other than one-half the weight of the piping allows use of NFPA 13 protection provisions in accordance with model building code provisions. Allowing a maximum slenderness ratio of 300 is acceptable if maximum loads are reduced appropriately to prevent buckling. The use of alternative materials for braces, such as schedule 5 pipe and channel, should be permitted when justified by strength ofmateria/calculations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Table 4-5.4.3.5.3

Least Maximum Radius of Length for

Shape and Size Gyration

Maximum Horizontal Load (lb)

$0 ° 45 ° 60 ° from from from Vertical Vertical Vertical

Pipe (Schedule40) I/r = 100

1" .42 Y6" 1 1/4" .54 4'6" 1 1/2" .623 5'2" 2" .787 6'6"

7O68 9996 12242 9567 13530 16570 11441 16181 19817 15377 21746 26634

Pipe (Schedule 10) I /r = 100

1" .43 3'7" 1 1/4" .55 4'7" 1 1/2" .634 5'3" 2" .802 6'8"

5910 8359 10237 7600 10749 13164 8777 12412 15202 11105 15705 19235

Rods i / r = 100

3/8" .094 0'9" 1580 2234 2737 1/2" .125 1'0" 2809 3972 4865 5/8" .156 1'3" 4390 6209 7605 3/4" .188 1'6" 6322 8941 10951 7/8" .219 1'9" 86-5 12169 14904

Pipe (Schedule40) l / r = 300

1 .42 10'6" 1 1/2" .54 13'6" 1 1/2" .623 15'7" 2" .787 19'8"

786 1111 1360 1063 1503 1841 1272 1798 2202 1666 2355 2885

Pipe (Schedule 10) l / r = 300

1" .43 10'9" 1 1/4" .55 13'9" 1 1/2" .634 15'10" 2" .802 20'0"

656 928 1137 844 1194 1463 975 1379 1194 1234 1745 2137

Rods l /r = 300

3/8" .094 2'4" 176 248 304 1/2" .125 3'1" 312 441 540 5/8" .156 3'11" 488 690 845 3/4" .188 4'8" 702 993 1217 7/8" .219 5'6" 956 1352 1656

481

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

(Log # 99) 13-92- (4-5.4.3.5.2 Exception Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc.

I RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 to read the same as the four exceptions to Section 4-5.4.3.5.4. SUBSTANTIATION: The exceptions to lateral bracing should also aapplyto ~ g l y to lon itudinal bracing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Add a version of Exception No. 1 only.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he Commit tee is of the opinion that tbe s t rength afforded by the 6 inch rods is all that could be expected to minimize the longitudinal movemen t of the pipe. The other e lements would allow for excessive m o v e m e n t which could result in breakage of the pipe.

(Log # CP15) 13- 93 - (4-5.4.3.5.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise the 3rd sentence to read:

... the load shall include all branch lines and mains (unless the branch lines are provided with longitudinal bracing) within the zone of influence." SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 13 now requires certain types of branch lines to be braced. The revised exception will now recognize this benefit and allow tile branch lines to be excluded from the zone of influence calculations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # CP12) 13-94- (4-5.4.3.5.9): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 4-5.4.3.5.9 and r e n u m b e r current 4-5.4.3.5.9 and 4-5.4.3.5.10.

4-5.4.3.5.9 Sprigs exceeding 8 ft in length shall be restrained against lateral movement . SUBSTANTIATION: Upright sprigs of the lengd~s no ted can be rotated quite easily f rom their vertical position dur ing a seismic event. Steps should be taken to reduce the impact of the m o m e n t forces on mose s n s. COMMITrEE A ~ ' ~ ; N : Accept.

(Log # CP10) 13- 95 - (4-5.4.3.5.11 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section as follows:

4-5.4.3.5.11 Powder driven fasteners shall no t be used to attach braces to tile building structure.

Exception: Powder driven fasteners shall be permi t ted to be used when they are specifically listed for this service. SUBSTANTIATION: The fastener loads table (Table 4-5.4.3.5.1 (c)) does not show any load values for powder driven fasteners. The position of NFPA 13 has been to not allow this fastener type for a t t achment of sway bracing. This new section will h ighl ight that restriction while at the same time allowing the opportuni ty to permit the use of powder driven fasteners when they are listed for sway brace at tachments . If the devices are tested for specific seismic loads and forces, they could be used at some point in the future. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 129) 13- 96 - (4-6.1.1.3 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, AGF corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception as follows:

"Exception: The alarm test connect ion can be made to die system side of an alarm valve to test the operat ion of both the alarm device and the valve." SUBSTANTIATION: Allowing die test connect ion to be made downstream of an alarm waive would perrrfit the valve and alarm device to be tested in the same m a n n e r as by open ing the inspector 's test connection. Cur ren t wording does no t permi t a complete check of the wet system alarm funct ion at the riser. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the exception to read: Exception: The alarm test connect ion at the riser shall be

permit ted to be made on the system side of an alarm valve. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he language as revised by the Commit tee is more permissive in na ture over that proposed.

(Log # CP22) 13- 97 - (4-6.2.1 Exception No. 1, Exception No. 2 and Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Revise the exceptions to read:

Exception No. 1: Building located in remote areas which are inaccessible for fire depa r tmen t support .

Exception No. 2; Large capacity deluge system exceeding the p u m p i n g capacity of the fire depar tment .

Exception No. 3: Single story buildings no t exceeding 2000 ft 2 in area. SUBSTANTIATION: In lieu of cont inuing with the arbitrary reasons for not installing a fire depa r tmen t connection, tile Commit tee bas provided 3 specific cases where a fire depa r tmen t connect ion would be of little or no benefit` This will take the guesswork out of when the connect ion is no t needed and will relieve tile authori W having jurisdict ion f rom having tO make such determinat ions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 20) 13-98- (4-6.2.3.2): Reject SUBMITTEl~ Gary R Long, East Whi te land Township RECOMMENDATION: Delete the exception:

"Connect ion of the fire depa r tmen t connect ion to u n d e r g r o u n d

~ iping is acceptable." UBSTANTIATION: Since one of the main causes of sprinkler

system failure is a closed (or partially closed) control valve, the fire depa r tmen t mus t be able to by-pass any closed valve. By permit t ing installation of the Fire Depar tment connect ion ups t ream f rom the control valve, we are el iminat ing our only way of pressurizing tile system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on proposal 13-100 ( L o g # 21).

(Log # 24) 13- 99 - (4-6.2.3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: MichaelJ DiMattio, Sanford O. Hess & Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"On wet-pipe systems with a single riser the connect ion shall be made on the system side of approved indicating check, and alarm valves to the riser, unless the system is suppl ied by a Fire Depar tment p u m p e r connect ion in tile yard, or suppfied with a reduced pressure backtlow oreventer. SUBSTANTIATION: Reduced pressure backflow preventers are now required by the State of Connect icut (cross connect ion regulations July 21, 1989 Public Health Code Section 19-13-B38).

If die Fire Dept. connect ion is valid for a dry-pipe system on the supply side, why not on a wet-pipe system. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The in tent of tile submit ter is unclear with respect to his in tended change. The Commit tee is of the opinion that NFPA 13, 1991paragraphs 4-5.1.1, 4-6.2.3 and associated appendix i tems adequately address the various arrangements.

(Log # 21 ) 13- 100 - (4-6.2.3.2 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Gary R Long, East Whi te land Township RECOMMENDATION: Change the exception to read:

" 'Connection of the fire depa r tmen t to u n d e r g r o u n d piping may be permit ted if approved by the authori ty having jurisdiction." SUBSTANTIATION: This change is submit ted in the event that my proposal to delete the exception is rejected.

Since one of the main causes of sprinkler system failure is a closed (or partially closed vale) file fire depa r tmen t mus t be able to by-pass any closed valve. By permit t ing installation of the fire depa r tmen l connect ion ups t ream f rom a control valve, we are el iminat ing our only way of pressurizing the system. The authori ty having jurisdiction should have control over where the connect ion is made. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The des igner mus t have some leeway in locating the fire depa r tmen t connect ion. Locating the connection at some distance f rom the bui lding may be advantageous from an exposure fire perspective. In addition, if the connect ion is located away from the building, this may put it closer to a fire hydran t

482

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

In addition, when the design involves multiple risers in a bui lding or multiple buildings f rom a c o m m o n supply main, the fire depa r tmen t connect ion in the u n d e r g r o u n d is the most desirable option.

NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems will now require regular inspections of these water supply control valves to insure that they are open.

(Log # 122) 13-101 - (4-6.2.3.4): Reject SUBMITTEd: Gregory W. Haley, CIGNA Loss Control Services RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence to the end of this paragraph:

"A sign shall also indicate the pressure required at the inlets to deliver t heg rea t e s t system demand . " SUBSTANTIATION: This additional data at the fire depa r tmen t connect ion (FDC) will provide impor tan t guidance to the fire depa r tmen t as to the m i n i m u m pressure that should be main ta ined at the FDC to mee t the greatest system design d e m a n d supplied by the FDC. This proposed change to NFPA 13 is in keeping with a similar proposal in the F92 TCR for NFPA 14. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Most fire depar tments currently use a 150 psi rule for p u m p i n g into fire depa r tmen t connections. This pressure is nearly always adequate to suppor t most sprinkler systems. In addition, NFPA 13E, Recommenda t ions for Fire Depar tmen t Operat ions in Properties Protected by Sprinkler and Standpipe Systems currently r e c o m m e n d s the 150 psi provision.

(Log # 71) 13-102 - (4-6.3.1): Reject SUBMITTEI~ Jeffrey Cisney, Wash ing ton , , DC RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence to read:

"A pressure gauge with a connect ion not smaller than 1 /4 in. (6.4 mm) shall be installed at waterflow test connec t ions /d ra ins and on the inlet and outlet side of each pressure reducing valve." SUBSTANTIATION: This section currently refers to drains only. This reinforces the belief of some engineers that flow tests are only pe r fo rmed at the system main drain where the water supply enters the building, and only drainage capability is required at control valves. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes the current language is more precise than what is being proposed.

(Log # 72) 13-103- (4-6.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:Jeffrey Cisney, Dept. of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add the following paragraph to Section 4-6.4:

"Test connect ions shall be sized in accordance with Table 4-5.3.4.2." SUBSTANTIATION: The Code should make it clear that test connect ions mus t be of :sufficient size to provide an adequate flow test. Currently, the only table specifying the m i n i m u m sizes is identified as a table for drains. It should be clear that test connections are of the same size. The wording "see 4-5.3.4 and 4-5.3.6" in parenthesis at the end of the paragraph does no t make it clear exactly what in those sections is important . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: 4-6.4 System Connect ions. 4-6.4.1 Main Drain Test Connect ions. Main drain test connect ions

shall be provided at locations tha t WIU permi t flow tests of water supplies and connect ions. They shall be so installed that the valve can be opened wide for a sufficient t ime to assure a proper test without causing water damage. Main drain connect ions shall be sized in accordance with Sections 4-5.3.4 and 4-5.3.6. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee has taken action to distinguish between connect ions which are used to conduct main drain tests and those used to conduct water flow alarm tests. See the Commit tee Proposal 13105 (CP-5).

(Log # 73) 13- 104- (4-6.4.1): Reject SUBMITTEd: Jeffrey Cisney, Dept. of Veteran Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence to read as follows:

"Waterflow test connect ions shall be provided for all sectional control valves or check valves that will permi t flow tests of water supplies and connections." SUBSTANTIATION: The cur rent reference to "at locations" is too vague. Some engineers believe that a main drain flow test is only required at the indicating valve where the water supply enters the building to verify that water is supplied to the system. In large buildings with multiple risers a n d / o r sectional control valves, adequate means to discharge the flow from tests mus t be provided. The Automatic Snrinkler Svsterns Handbook discusses drains and test connect ions [nterchangeably, and points out the need to per form flow tests at all control valves. The Code itself should make this as clear as possible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the in tent of this s tandard to only conduct a main drain test where the water supply enters the bui lding at the base of the riser. In addition, the connect ions described in 4- 6.4.2, 4-6.4.3 and 4-6.4.4 are only in tended to flow enough water to test the alarm devices. See action Proposal 13- .

(Log # CP5) 13- 105 - (4-6.4.2): Accept SUBMITTERa Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: At the beg inn ing of paragraph 4-6.4.2, change "A test connection.. ." to "An alarm test connection.. ."

In 4-6.4.3 change to: "A trip test connection.. ."

SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of these connect ions is to merely check the operational aspect of the alarm device (pressure switch or vane type flow switch), or to verify operat ion of the drypie valve. It is no t in tended to verify delivery of water at the system flow rate th rough the system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 63) 13-106 - (4-6.4.2, 4-6.4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ L G Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited RECOMMENDATION: Change the beginnings of the first sentences of 4-6.4.2 and 4-6.4.3 to read:

"A test connect ion no t less than 1 in. (25 ram) in diameter for steel pipe and 3 / 4 in. (19 mm) in d iameter for copper tubing or nonmetal l ic piping listed for fire sprinkler service, terminating.. ." SUBSTANTIATION: Since copper systems are allowed to utilize 3 /4 in. pipe, it is appropria te to size the system test connect ion similarly. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Exception: For systems utilizing copper tube or non-metall ic pipe, m i n i m u m pipe size shall be permit ted to be reduced to 3 / 4 incb (19 ram). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee revised tile exception to insure that like material is used for the inspectors test as was used for the system installation.

(Lo g # 100) 13-107 - (Chapters 5 and 6): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Replace all references to "Area/Densi ty Method" with "Number of Sprinklers Opera t ing /Dens i ty Method."

2. Replace all references to "Area/Densi ty Curves" with "Design Density Curves."

3. Replace the y-axis label on Figure 5-2.3 with "Sprinkler Constant (A)." SUBSTANTIATION: The end result of using Figure 5-2.3 to hydraulically calculate a sprinkler system is not an area. It is a de terminat ion of the n u m b e r of sprinklers which may be open in any given fire scenario, ff the procedures of 64 .4 are followed, tile design area may be less than the area chosen off Figure 5-2.3. Too many AHJ's require additional sprinklers added to the design area to make up for th i sperce ived problem. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

483

N F P A 13 ~ F 9 3 T C R

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee does not feel that a change in terminology is necessary. The intent of the Committee with respect to this design approach has intended for this area of operation to be an actual geometric area of operation. Proper design would be to utilize Table 5-2.3 and for tim selected area to be proven in the hydraulic calculations.

(Log# 101) 13- 108 - (5-2.3.2.2 Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Quick response sprinklers shall not be permitted for use with curves 4 and5 (Extra Hazard)." SUBSTANTIATION: Quick Response sprinklers have not been sufficiently tested with flammable liquids. Present wording might be construed to imply that Quick Response sprinklers can only be used with the area/density method, which is not true. They have also been permitted for use, since their development, with the room design method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept the change to the exception as proposed. Add the

following item to the Appendix: A-5-2.3.2.2 It is not tile intent of dais exception to restrict tile use of

quick response sprinklers in extra hazard occupancies, but raffler to indicate that the areas and densities shown in Figure 5-2.3 may not be appropriate for use with quick response sprinklers in those environments due to a concern with water supplies. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee added the appendix language to note that it may be possible to utilize listed quick- response sprinklers in extra hazard environments. Additional or special design criteria will likely be necessa W in order to achieve dais level of protection.

(Log # CP7) 13- 109 - (5-3.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Teclmical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add new sentence to read:

"Calculations shall be provided to verify die single (1) operating sprinkler criteria and the multiple (4) operating sprinkler criteria." SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of this paragraph has been to prove that the single operating sprinkler demand as well as the multiple operating sprinkler demand criteria can be satisfied when residential sprinklers are installed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept-

(Log # 64) 13- 110 - (5-3.5.4): Accept SUBMITTER: L G Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-3.5.4. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph conflicts with other NFPA standards. Since ESFR sprinklers are for the protection storage of Class I through IV commodities, plastics, roll, paper, aerosols, etc., the requirements for manual inside protection and hose stream allowances should be found in the appropriate standards: NFPA 231, NFPA 231 C, NFPA 231D, NFPA 30B, etc. Please note that while most of these standards do mandate small hose stations, NFPA 30B contains an exception whereby subject to the approval of the authority having jurisdiction, hose stations need not be installed in storage areas. Also please note that NFPA 231, NFPA 231C and NFPA 30B all require a minimum of 250 gpm to be added to the sprinkler demand for combined large and small hose streams. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 17) 13- 111 - (5-3.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Lewis H Zimmermann, W Conshohocken, PA RECOMMENDATION: Delete the 3rd and 4th sentences mad revise as follows:

"If the water curtain sprinklers fall widfin the design area of a hydraulically calculatedsystem, the water supply to the water curtain shall be added to the water demand of the hydraulic calculations, and shall be balanced to the calculated area demand. If the water curtain is outside of the design area, it shall be calculated as a separate area.

If the water curtain sprinklers are part of a pipe schedule system, tire water supply demand to these sprinklers shall be added to the water supply determined in accordance with Table 5-2.2." SUBSTANTIATION: As presently written, the section addresses both calculated, and pipe schedule system, and does not clearly differentiate between them. l f the water curtain sprinklers are 1000 feet away from the hydraulically calculated area, there should be no need to add that demand to tile design area demand. The last sentence now requires balancing the water demands in a pipe schedule system, which is a contradiction of terms. In Table 5-2.2. does the water curtain demand get added to the minimum flaw, ~r maxinmm flow, or ?. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the 3rd and 4th sentences as suggested. Add a new 3rd sentence to the paragraph as follows:

"If a single fire can be expected to operate sprinklers within the water curtain and within the design area of a hydraulically calculated system, the water supply to the water curtain shall be added to the v~,ater demand of the hydraulic calculations and shall be balanced 1~, tile col culated area demand." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee is of the opinion tha~ consideration should be given to operation of sprinklers in the water curtain in conjunction with sprinklers in the hydraulically remote area, when the water curtain sprinklers fall widfin the remote area sprinklers.

(Log # 102) 13- 112- (5-4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERa Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new sections as follows:

5-4 In-rack Sprinklers. 54.1 In-rack sprinklers shall operate at a minimum of 15 psi. 54.2 Water demand. 5-4.2.1 When one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed, water

demand shall be based on simultaneous operation of tile most demanding 8 adjacent sprinklers.

54.2.2 When more than one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed, w~ter demand shall be based on simultaneous operation of the mos~ demanding 14 sprinklers. The most demanding 7 adjacent sprinklers shall be calculated on the hydranlically most remote two levels of in-rack sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: TIA 91-1 added requirements for in-rack sprinklers to be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, but provided no guidance. See also our proposals for Chapters 4 and 6, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise proposal as follows: 5-4 In-rack sprinklers. 5-4.1 In-rack sprinklers shall operate at a ininimmn of 15 psi. 5-4.2 Water demand. 5-4.2.1 When one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed, ~'ater

demand shall be based on simultaneous operation of tim hydraulically most demanding 4 adjacent sprinklers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee notes that 'Fable 1- 4.7.4.2 will never require more than one level of in-rack sprinklers thus the criteria has been limited to single level conditions.

Tim proposed number of in-rack design sprinklers was reduced Io four. Fullscale tests involving rack storage design criteria which ~*~s developed for NFPA 231C indicated that 4 or fewer in rack sprinklers operated. The Committee believes dais number can s,'ffely be used in the NFPA 13 rack criteria since the rack storage will be on a smaller scale.

(Log # 103) 13- 113 - (64.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Pv formula to be correct ,as follows:

Pv = 0.001123 O ̀2 D 4

SUBSTANTIATION: This is the correct formula, somehow it was changed and the incorrect formula carried through to the 1991 edition. COMMrVFEE ACTION: Accept*

484

N F P A 13 ~ F 9 3 T C R

(Log # 3) 13-114- (6-4.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Carson Davis, E&L Engineering Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

Is now: Pv = 0.001123Q2D 4

Should be: Pv = 0.00f 122Q 2D-4 * SG

SG = specific gravity referred to water at 60°F

SUBSTANTIATION: Pv should be equivalent to V 2 2gc

(Cameron shows 0.00259 Q2 = V2 0.00259x62.4= 0.001122 O~ 2gc 144

V 2 is in units fLlbf 2gc Ibm

62.4 is density of water at 60°F in l ~ 144 is conversion to in 2 to get psi.) ft" COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 13-113 (Log #103).

(Log # 69) 13- 115 - (6-4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: William I;'~ Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add equivalent pipe length chart for special listed CPVC sprinkler pipe.

Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe.

Table 6-4.3.1.1 Listed CPVC Pipe (C=150) Equivalent Pipe Length

Allowance for Friction Loss in Fittings (Equivalent Feet of Pipe)

Tee Branch 3 5 6 8 10 12 15 Tee Run 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Elbow 90 ° 7 7 8 9 11 12 13 Elbow 450 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 Coupling 1 1 t 1 1 2 2

SUBSTANTIATION: Since special listed non-metallic piping must be hydraulically calculated per Section 6-5.1 and with "C" Factor published in Table 6-4A.5, adoption of this proposal will assure proper hydraulic calculations which may result in down-sizing, thus lowering overall installed cost. The values published in Table 6-4.3.1 are not appropriate for special listed CPVC pipe based on the manufacturers and listing agency's test data. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See paragraph 2-4.2 and A-2-4.2. These paragraphs provide that listed fittings not in Table 2-4.1 shall be ... installed in accordance with listing limitations, including the manufacturers installati on and instructions.

(Log # 117) 13-116 - (6-4.3.3 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: BillJ. Harm, King County Fire Marshal's Office RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph 6-4.3.3 as follows:

6-4.3.3 When calculating friction loss for above ground piping, Table 6-4.3.1 shall be used for Schedule 40 pipe only. For above ground piping with other inside diameters die equivalent footage's given in Table 6-4.3.2 shall be modified using the following formula:

~Sc Actual inside diameter "~4.87 = Equivalent footage from Table 64.3.1 hedule 40 inside diameter_]

The values obtained ahove shall be modified as required by Table 6A.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: It is my understanding that the equivalent footage's shown in Table 6-4.3.1 are based upon empirical test data and the values represented in dais table werepro jec ted for schedule 40 pipe. At the time this table was formulated, schedule 40 pipe was the sprinkler industry standard. There are now numerous manufac-

turers of piping with "thin wall" pipe that is approved for use in sprinkler systems, with the same fittings that have been utilized on schedule 40 piping in the past. As the proliferation of pipe with wall thickness less than schedule 40 increases, the potential to introduce a substantial error in the total required pressure of a given sprinkler system also increases. For example, a section of wet 3 in. schedule 40 black steel piping with three standard elbows and one tee flowing 600 GPM would lose 13.6 psi due to fittings (36 equivalent feet times .378 psi/ft) , if this section of piping were 3 in. with an internal diameter of 3.352 in. the loss calculated through those same fittings would be 8.84 psi due to fittings (36 equivalent feet times .245 p s i / ft). The loss through the same fittings with the same flow should be the same regardless of the internal diameter. This has long been recognized for piping with different "C" factors. By applying the conversion factor noted above the 36 equivalent feet would be converted to 5.4 feet of 3 in. "thin wall" pipe and the total loss through the fittings would be 13.6 psi. This conversion would not be difficult to employ for computer generated calculation programs, in fact, there is at least one hydraulic calculation program that makes a similar conversion at the present time. On large systems and systems with high velocities in the piping, substantial amounts of pressure loss may go unaccounted for, with the likely result that new systems may be inadvertently installed with built in water design deficiencies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add sentence to 6-4.3.1: "For internal pipe diameters different from Schedule 40 steel pipe,

the equivalent feet shown in Table 6-4.3.1 shall be multiplied by a factor derived from the following formula:

~ S Actual inside diameter ~ 4.87 = Factor chedule 40 steel pipe inside d i a J

The Factor thus obtained shall be fur ther modified as required by Table 6-4.3.2.

This Table shall apply to other types of pipe listed in Table 6-4.5 only when modified by factors from paragraphs 6-4.3.1 and 6-4.3.2.

Change Table 6-4.3.1 -Title of table to read: Equivalent Schedule 40 Steel Pipe Length Chart.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee revised other portions of Chapter 6 which are impacted by the equivalent pipe length chart. This should satisfy the intent of the submitter.

(Log # 104) 13- 117 - (64.3.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. lsman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph as follows:

6-4.3.4 Specific friction loss values or equivalentpipe lengths for specially listed fittings (Section 2-4.2) shall be u sed i n hydraulic calculations when these losses are greater than those calculated using Table 6-4.3.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Due to differences in internal diameter and manufacturing specifications, specially listed fittings may have greater friction losses than standard Schedule 40 pipe which was used to generate Table 6-4.3.1. This additional loss needs to be accounted for. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

6-4.3.4 (New) to read: "Specific friction loss values or equivalent pipe lengths for listed

fittings not in Table 2-4.1 (see paragraph 2-4.2) shall be used in hydraulic calculations when these losses or equivalent pipe lengths are different from those shown in Table 6-4.3.1." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Saddle-type fittings are already covered in paragraph 6-4.3.1, but this addition clarifies that any listed fitting which has different characteristics should be considered in the calculations.

(Log # 23) 13-118 - (6-4.4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: DaleJolley, Stone Mountain, GA RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"The density shall be calculated on the basis of floor area of sprinkler operation. The area covered by any sprinkler for use in Hydraulic design and calculations shall be the horizontal distances measured between the heads and branch lines in accordance with 4-2.2.1 ." SUBSTANTIATION: The referenced section as it's written could be mis-interpreted so as to provide an area of application (as per 5-2.3.1), measured along file slope of a steeply pitched roof as opposed to the area of application being the projected area of the floor.

485

N F P A 13 - - F 9 3 T C R

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 64.4.3 to read: "The density shall be calculated on the basis of floor area of

sprinkler operation. The area covered by any sprinkler used in hydraulic design and calculations shall be the horizontal distances measured between the sprinklers on die branch line and between the branch lines in accordance with paragraph 4-2.2.1." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee editorially changed the recommendat ion . No change to the substance of the proposal.

(Log # 75) 13- 119- (6-4.4.6 Exception No. 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:James Golinveaux, Central Sprinkler Company RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "light hazard." SUBSTANTIATION: Extended coverage sprinklers are not limited to light hazard occupancies. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 6-4.4.6, Exception No. 2: Exception No. 2: Extended coverage sprinklers with a different

orifice size shall be acceptable for par t of the protection area when installed in accordance with their listing. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee is of the opinion that the use of the sprinklers should be limited to its particular listing. This is best handled in the exception.

( L o g # 105) 13- 120- (6-4.4.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read:

6-4.4.7 W h e n calculating the flow f rom an orifice, the total pressure at that orifice (PT) shall be used.

Exception: The velocity pressure me t hod (where the velocity pressure is subtracted f rom the total pressure to obtain a normal pressure in order to calculate flow from an orifice) shall be permitted. Where the velocity pressure m e t h o d is used, it shall be used on all branch lines and cross mains where applicable. SUBSTANTIATION: Current section is misleading. When utilizing the Velocity Pressure Method, the velocit 3, pressures are not used to calculate flow, They are subtracted away to obtain a normal pressure. See appendix for correct procedure. See also our PcrOposal for the appendix.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Disagree that cur ren t wording is misleading. It does not say that velocity pressures are, or are not, used to calculated the flow; it says that velocity pressure may, or may not be included in the calculations.

(Log # 12) 13- 121 - (6-5.2.3 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dennis G. Wilson, Blackhawk Auto. Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

Exception: Separate branch lines of sprinklers installed above or below ceilings suppl ied by a c o m m o n cross main shall be sized as shown in Table 6-5.2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: My interpretat ion of this rule is very clear, except that I can no t convince my designers this. They th ink Detail A is righL where I known tha t it is wrong and pipe sizing should be shown in Detail B. Therefore, I th ink an exception, detail, or revision should be made. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add Exception to 6-5.2.3 (New) and add Exception to 6-5.3.3 (New) to read: 6-5.2.3 Exception: Branch lines and cross mains supplying

sprinklers installed endrely above, or entirely below ceilings shall be sized in accordance with "Fable 6-5.2.2.

6-5.3.3 Exception: Branch lines and cross mains supplying sprinklers installed entirely above, or entirely below, ceilings shall be sized in accordance with Tables 6-5.3.2(a) or (b). COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee ex tended the rule to include ordinary hazard pipe schedule as well as light hazard pipe schedules. This should satisfy the in tent of the submitter.

........... ) I I e

%

lil I il . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ O ~ 4 4

(Log # 106) 13-122 - (6-6 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add sections as follows:

6-6 In-rack Sprinklers. 6-6.1 Pipes to in-rack sprinklers shall be sized by hydraulic

calculations. 6-6.2 Water d e m a n d of sprinklers installed in-racks shall be added

to ceiling sprinkler water d e m a n d over the same protected area at the point of connection. The d e m a n d shall be balanced to the h igher pressure. SUBSTANTIATION: TIA 91-1 added requi rements for in-rack sprinklers without any guidance. See also our proposal for Chapter 4 and 5. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accep t

(Log # 107) 13-123 - (7-2.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER; Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7-2.2.2 as follows:

"When a fire p u m p constitutes the sole sprinkler supply..." SUBSTANTIATION: Multiple p u m p installations need supervisiot~ as well. This would br ing the r equ i r emen t in line with Sections 7-4.7 and 94.3 in NFPA 20. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

486

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

(Log # 119) 13-124- (Figure 8-1 (a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gregory W. Haley, CIGNA Loss Control Services RECOMMENDATION: Revise this contractor 's test certificate for aboveground piping as shown following.

Insert after the "Deluge & Preaction Valves" section of the form on page 2.

Location Make & Settin~ Static & Floor Model Inlet (psi) Outlet (psi) Inlet (psi)

Flowint~ Outlet (psi) Flow (l~pm)

All pressure reducing wdves on system operated properly _ _ Yes _ _ NO If No, explain

Figure 8-1(a)

SUBSTANTIATION: In a separate proposal, we have r e c o m m e n d e d that each new pressure reducing valve be acceptance tested in a m a n n e r similar to tha t described in NFPA 14- F92 TCR paragraph 8-5.5 (see TCR page 35,I). In this proposal, we r e c o m m e n d that the contractor 's test certificate for aboveground piping be revised to include the appropriate chart to record tile r e c o m m e n d e d acceptance flow test data. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise Figure 8-1 (a) to insert after "Deluge and Preaction Valves" an addit ion to the Table to be called "PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE TEST" as shown. Coordinate with NFPA 14 Committee.

Insert after the "Deluge & Preaction Valves" section of the form on page 2.

Pressure Reducing Valve Test

Location Make & Setdn~ & Floor Model

Static Pressure Inlet /psi) Outlet /psi)

Residual Pressure ~Flowing) Inlet (psi) Outlet tpsi)

Flow Rate Flow (gpm)

All pressure reducing valves on system operated properly _ _ Yes _ _ NO If No, explain

Figure 8-1(a)

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposal has been slightly modif ied to accomodate the format used in NFPA 13. This should satisfy the in tent of the submitter.

487

N F P A 13 1 F93 T C R

(Log # 44) 13- 125 - (Figure 8-1 (a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John J. Walsh, Uni ted Association RECOMMENDATION: Add between pipe and fittings and alarm valve or flow indicator the following:

Powder-Driven Studs Power driven studs installed in concrete __yes n o Concrete tested for ability to hold require load I y e s n o

I N / A

SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See action on Proposal 13-127 (CP-9).

(Log # 48) 13- 126 - (Figure 8-1 (a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th Faulstich, Washington, DC RECOMMENDATION: Revise the title of "Drain Test" to "Waterflow Connect ion Test" unde r the section on Tests in the Figure. SUBSTANTIATION: T h e p r o p e r terminology is waterflow test connect ion and not main drain test. More and more sprinkler systems have multiple risers requir ing several waterflow test connections. Very few sprinkler systems have only one system riser with a single waterflow test connect ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: "Drain test" in Table unde r "Tests" correlates to Section 8-2.4.4, If multiple risers exist each supply line to the riser will be flow tested. The Commit tee does not agree that a change in terminology is warranted.

(Log # CP9) 13- 127 - (Figure 8-1 (a)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Figure 8-1 (a), Test Section - Add a new line to read:

"If powder driven fasteners are used in concrete, has reprsentative sample testing been satisfactorily completed?"

[] Yes [] No If "No," explain

SUBSTANTIATION: These special devices are des igned for use in various s t rengths and types of concrete. The concrete mus t be tested to insure that these fasteners will remain in place for normal vertical suppor t of the pipe as well as dur ing any seismic activity that the structure may encounter . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 50) 13-128- (8-2.4.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th Faulstich, Washington, DC RECOMMENDATION: Revise title and the first sen tence of this section to reflect waterflow test connect ion(s) in lieu of main drain. Slmuld read as follows:

"Waterflow Test Connect ion(s) . The waterflow test connect ion(s) shall be opened and remain open until tile system pressure stabilizes. SUBSTANTIATION: The actual test is of a waterflow test connection whicb is required at locations by Para. 4-6.4.1 to verify the water supply characteristics and whether valves are open. Figure 4-6.4.1 shows a test connect ion which also happens to be a drain. Histori- cally, the 2 in. main drain on a riser of a single system was considered as and used as the required waterflow test connection. This terminology of "main drain" was used and is still used today, often incorrectly. Many systems today have n u m e r o u s risers. The proper terminology to use her is waterflow test connection." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Change in terminology is no t warranted. The term "main drain" has been used in its present context for a long time.

(Log # 121) 13- 129- (8-2.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gregory W. Haley, CIGNA Loss Control Services RECOMMENDATION: Revise dais paragraph to read as follows:

8-2.5 Each pressure reducing valve shall be tested u p o n complet ion of installation to insure proper operation unde r flow and no-flow conditions. Test ing shall verify that the device properly regulates outlet pressure at both m a x i m u m and normal inlet pressure condit ions at all flow rates. Also, a flow test shall be conducted using a flow rate equal to or exceed the greatest system demand. The residual outlet pressure dur ing this test shall mee t or exceed the required residual pressure needed to mee t the greatest system demand. The results of the flow test of each pressure reducing valve shall be recorded on the contractor 's test certificate. The result shall include the static and residual inlet pressures, static and residual outlet pressures, and the flow rate. SUBSTANTIATION: In keeping with NFPA 14 - F92 TCR paragraph 8-5.5 (see TCR page 354), the acceptance testing of pressure reducing valves (PRV's) serving sprinklers is also needed, and the acceptance test results for the PRV's serving sprinklers should also be recorded on the contractor 's test certificate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise as follows: 8-2.5 Each pressure reducing valve shall be tested upon complet ion

of installation to insure p roper operation unde r flow and no flow conditions. Test ing shall verify that the device properly regulates outlet pressure at both m a x i m u m and normal inlet pressure conditions. The results of the flow test of each pressure reducing valve shall be recorded on file contractors test certificate. The result shall include the static and residual inlet pressures, static and residual outlet pressures and the flow rate. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The wording meets the submit ter ' s in tent with the changes shown. Documenta t ion to require af low test at a flow rate equal to system d e m a n d is no t necessary. See Proposal 13-124 (Log #119).

(Log # 108) 13- 130 - (8-4.1(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. lsman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Change to NFPA 25 and change reference in Aboveground Piping Certificate f rom NFPA 13A to NFPA 25. SUBSTANTIATION: This new s tandard was in tended as a replace- men t for NFPA 13A. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 120) 13- 131 - (8-5): Reject SUBMITTER: Gregory W. Haley, CIGNA Loss Control Services RECOMMENDATION: Revise the section as follows:

8-5 Hydraulic Design Informat ion Sign. 8-5.1 (Reads the same as the cur rent 8-5 including sub-items (a),

(b), (c) and (d).) 8-5.2 Where pressure reducing valves are used, tile installing

contractor shall provide a pe rmanent ly marked weatherproof metal or rigid plastic sign secured with corrosion resistant wire, chain, or o ther approved means. Sucb signs shall be placed at the pressure reducing valve. The sign shall include tile following information:

(a) Location of the most d e m a n d i n g design area served by the pressure reducing valve.

(b) Discharge density and tile design area of the greatest d e m a n d served by the pressure reducing valve.

(c) Required flow ( including hose streams if any) and residual pressure of the greatest d e m a n d at the pressure reducing valve.

(d) Acceptance test data for the pressure reducing valve which includes the static and residual inlet pressure, tile static and residual outlet pressure, and the flow.

(e) The make, model and set t ing of the pressure reducing valve installed. SUBSTANTIATION: In a separate proposal, we have r e c o m m e n d e d that each new pressure reducing valve (PRV) be acceptance tested in a m a n n e r similar to that described in NFPA 14 - F92 TCR paragraph 8-5.5 (see TCR page 354). In this proposal, we r e c o m m e n d that this acceptance test data be recorded on a placard for future reference dur ing annua l testing as required in NFPA 25 paragraph 9-5.1.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee is not of the opinion that this type of sign is needed. The Commit tee believes that the material test and certificate provides the requested information.

488

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

(Log # 10) 13- 132 - (8-5(e) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Dale H. Koliscb, Kemper National Insurance RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the existing text:

(e) Temperature rating, orifice size and K-factor of sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: With the recent proliferation of new and unique sprinklers (i.e. ESFR, quick response and special application sprinklers) it is difficult to quickly and easily with reliability determine from floor level the type of sprinklers used on an installed system. In addition, many times the design (working) plans a n d / o r spare sprinklers are not available. With this additional information on the sprinkler system nameplate, analysis of an existing system by other parties (i.e. fire marshal, building official, insurance company representative, etc.) would be easier and more reliable. COMMITTEE ACTION'. Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee does not believe that this information is of benefit. The contractors material and test certificate already requires such information.

(Log # 109) 13- 133 - (Chapter 9): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Replace all of Chapter 9 with the following section:

9-1 Sprinkler systems s]hall be maintained in accordance with NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water Based Fire Protection Systems. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 25 is a standard and sbould be referenced as such. After a system is installed it is imperative that it be kept in working order. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 45) 13- 134 - (Chapter 9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:John J. Walsh, United Association RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise 9-1.1 as follows:

"A sprinkler system inslalled in accordance with this Standard shall be properly maintained in accordance with NFPA 25 standard for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of water-based fire protection systems to provide at least the same level of performance and protection as designed. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining the system and keeping the system in good operating condition."

2. Delete remainder of Chapter. 3. Retain A-9-1.1.

SUBSTANTIATION" With the introduction of NFPA Standard 25 Chapter 9 exceeds the scope of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 1.9,-133 (Log #109).

(Log# 110) 13- 136 - (10-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add the following NFPA documents to the list:

NFPA 13D 1 & 2 Family NFPA 13R Residential Occ. NFPA 33 Spray Applications NFPA 34 Dipping & Coating NFPA 35 Mfg. Org. Coating NFPA 40E Pyroxyin Plastic NFPA 43B Organic Peroxide NFPA 51 Welding NFPA 51A Acetylene NFPA 64B Grain Elevators NFPA 75 Computers NFPA 82 Incinerators NFPA 86 Ovens NFPA 86 Ind. Furn. NFPA 87 Piers NFPA 88B Repair Gar. NFPA 99 Health Care NFPA 99B Hypobaric NFPA 120 Coal NFPA 122 F&C in Mines NFPA 123 Coal Mines NFPA 130 Fixed Guide Transit NFPA 150 Racetrack Stables NFPA 318 Clean Rooms NFPA 1231 Water Supplies NFPA 850 Fossil Fuel NFPA 851 Hydroelectric

SUBSTANTIATION: Each of these NFPA documents contains specific design criteria which either varies from NFPA 13 or limits the selection options of NFPA 13. Section 5-2.3.1.1 Exception No. 1 of NFPA 13 defers to these other documents. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 56) 13- 137- (10-1.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM D3309 and ASTM F442 to Referenced Publications as follows: ASTM D3309-1989, Standard Specification for Polybutylene (PB)

Plastic Hot and Cold Water Distribution Systems ASTM F442-1989, Standard Specification for Chlorinated

Poly(VinylChloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR) SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 49) 13- 135 - (9-3.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth Faulstich, Washington, DC RECOMMENDATION: Change "main drain" to "waterflow test connection(s)" so the sentence reads:

"The waterflow test connection(s) shall be tested quarterly." SUBSTANTIATION: The actual test is of the waterflow connection and not the main drain. The main drain can be used as the watefflow test connection and has been historically, especially when the sprinkler system only had one riser. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13-128 (Log # 50). In addition, action taken on Proposal 13-133 (Log # 109) has deleted the referenced paragraph.

(Log # 67) 13- 138- (10-I.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM F443, 437, 438, 439 and D/3309 to 10-1.3.2 ASTM Publications. ASTM F442-1982 Standard Specification for Chlorinated Poly(vin>t

chloride CPVC) plastic Pipe (SDR-PR). ASTM D/3309-1989 Standard Specification for Polybutylene (PB)

Plastic Hot and Code Water Distribution Systems. ASTM F437-1982 Standard Specification for Threaded Chlorinated

Poly(Vinyl Chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fitting, Sch. 80. ASTM F438-1982 Standard Specification for Socket-Type Chlori-

nated Poly(Vinyl Chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings Sch. 40. ASTM F439-1982 Standard Specification for Socket-Type Chlori-

nated Poly(Vinyl Chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings, Sch. 80. SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

489

N F P A 13 ~ F93 T C R

(Log # 14) 13- 139- (A-1-4.6(b) (i)): Reject SUBMITTER: Bruce Howard, Sweet's Joists, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2nd sentence to add the under l ined words as follows:

"Wood trus-shaped members , which consist of wood top and bot tom chord members no t exceeding 4 in. (102 ram) in depth or width with steel tube or bar webs, are also def ined as bar joists. SUBSTANTIATION: Most of the wood bar joists have chords with width of 3 1 /2 in. + and some of the joists have chords wider than 4 in. There is also talk of future products that will have chords 5 1 /2 in. wide or more for very heavy loads or long spans.

For the reason(s) that there is a limit on max. chord depth, there should also be a limit on max. chord width. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The cur rent provisions of Chapter 4 provide explicit guidance on obstruction to discharge regardless of the particular configurat ion of a structural member .

(Log # 15) 13- 140 - (Figure A-1-4.6(b) (i)1 ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Bruce Howard, Sweet's Joists, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure A-1-4.6(b) (i) 1 as follows:

SUBSTANTIATION: The wood bar jois t shown is a TJH which has double 2x6's for top and bot tom chords (chord dep th = 5 1 /2 in.). The wording in paragraph (i) indicates "wood top and bot tom chord members not exceeding 4 in. (102 rnm) in depth."

Figure and wording do not agree. The above detail is for a wood bar joist with a 2x4 (fiat) chord top

and bottom. This is the most commonly used wood bar joist for floor and roof construct ion and does qualify unde r wording of paragraph (i). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Retain the existing figure but relabel it as "Figure A-l-4.6(b) V, Wood Truss Construction". Add a note to this figure stating:

"Greater than 4 Inches" Place the new figure as shown and add a note: "4 Inches or Less."

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submit ter ' s figure is more indicative of bar joist construct ion with wood top and bot tom chords. The cur rent figure shown is, by definition, a variation of wood truss construct ion and will be relabeled as such. Since tile feature which delineates these two construction types is the d imens ion of the chord members , a note will be added to each one to point this out.

(Log # 60) 13- 141 - (A-2-2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: L G Keeping, Mississauga, Ontario RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to A-2-2.3:

"When an occupancy hazard normally may be expected to produce a fast-developing fire or a rapid rate of heat release, die use of sprinklers of high tempera ture classification, as a means of limiting the total n u m b e r of sprinklers that migh t open in a fire, is recommended . Since the n u m b e r of sprinklers that might be expected to open will be reduced where the water pressure effective in first operat ing sprinklers is at least 75 psi (5.2 bars) without the disadvan- tage of a potential increase in fire damage, this alternative should be given first consideration.

NOTE: Fire tests have shown that the n u m b e r of sprinklers that might be expected to open, particularly u n d e r conditions where fast- developing fires may be expected, can be limited by the use of sprinklers of High Tempera tu re Classification. This may be of advantage in reducing the n u m b e r of sprinklers that would otherwise open outside the area directly involved in a fire and decrease the overall water demand . However, some increase in fire damage and fire tempera tures may be expected when sprinklers of Intermediate or High Tempera tu re Classification are used. Some occupancies employ h igh- tempera ture fumigat ion processes

requir ing considerat ion in the selection of sprinkler temperature ratings." SUBSTANTIATION: These paragraphs were previously included in the 1989 edition of NFPA 13 but were d ropped f rom the 1991 version without explanation. This text contains useful information and should therefore be reinserted in the next edition. COMMJTrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The informat ion described is acceptable for fires involving most conventional, combustible materials. Guidance is provided in select s tandards such as NFPA 231 and NFPA 231C which integrates the design parameters (i.e. area of operation) to the tempera ture rating of the sprinkler. Full scale tests have shown these relationships to work. Other rapidly developing fires, such as f lammable liquids fires, may actually grow larger if this same concept were applied.

The Commit tee believes it is better to keep dais information in the special occupancy standards, which have been proven by full scale tests, rather than to have blanket s ta tements in the Appendix of NFPA 13.

(Log # 61) 13- 142- (A-2-2.7 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: L G Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to Appendix A:

A-2-2.7 For equ ipmen t aboard vessels or in isolated locations, a greater n u m b e r of sprinklers should be provided to permi t equ ipmen t to be put back into service prompt ly after a fire. When a great n u m b e r of sprinklers are likely to be opened by a flash fire, a greater n u m b e r of sprinklers should be provided. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph was previously included in the 1989 edition of NFPA 13 but was d ropped f rom tile 1991 version without explanation. This text contains useful information and should therefore be reinserted in the nex t edition. COMM]"I"rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submit ter ' s concern is addressed by the first sentence of 2-2.7.1.

490

N F P A 13 - - F93 T C R

(Log # 52) 13- 143 - (Table A-2-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise table to add d imens ions for PB & CPVC:

(See Table below.) SUBSTANTIATION: Adopt ion of this proposal will make the s tandards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requ i rements of NFPA lB. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t appropriate for NFPA 13 to list characteristics of all special listed products.

( L o g # 111) 13- 144 - (A-3-2.3.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

A-3-2.3.1 It should be no ted that no t ime limit is imposed on dry-

~ ipe systems with capacities of 750 gallons (2839L) or less. UBSTANTIATION: Although the s tandard does not imply or h in t

at a t ime limit for systems of 750 gallons or less, many enforcers appear to apply the 60-second rule to all dry-pipe systems. Given the additional requi rements imposed on dry-pipe system (30 percen t increase in area of operation, more conservative "C" factors, quick openingdevices) a longer water delivery t ime is considered acceptable for systems of 750 gallons capacity or less. An appendix note to this effect would clarify this point. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to the following: A-3-2.3.1 The 60 second limit does not apply to dry pipe systems

with capacities of 750 gallons or less. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee editorially modif ied the submit ter ' s r ecommenda t ion .

(Log # CP6) 13- 146- (A-44.1.7.7.2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add new section:

A-4-4.1.7.7.2 Portable wardrobe units, such as those typically used in nurs ing homes and m o u n t e d to the wall, do not require sprinklers to be installed in them. Al though these may be at tached to the f inished structure, the s tandard views those units as pieces of furni ture ra ther than a part of the structure, thus sprinklers are not required. SUBSTANTIATION: These units are of ten subject to the same requi rements as closets. Al though they can become a semi- p e r m a n e n t part of the structure, they are still considered movable and should therefore be treated as furni ture rather than structure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 28) 13- 147 - (A-4-5.4.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:John Curry, U.S. Army C.O.E. RECOMMENDATION: Replace Figure A~t-5.4.3.1, Map of Earthquake Zones with one such as Figure 3-1 of TM 5-809-10 or Figure of the U.B.C. If the map is no t revised, t hen at least delete it as an example. SUBSTANTIATION: The example of ear thquake zones map causes confusion and comments f rom contractors regarding the need or r equ i r emen t for seismic suppor t in some areas of the country which are rated as minor zones in s tandards such as TM 5-809-10 but rated as not required in Figure A-4-5.4.3.1 o f NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 1 3-86 (Log # 96).

(Log # 125) 13- 145 - (A-4-3.6.1): Reject SUBMITTER: James Re1~loff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change "control" to "fire restraint."

2. Change"p reven t " to "delay." SUBSTANTIATION: Tests for the listing of residential sprinklers would permi t def ined unsafe condit ions and flashover to occur after a 10 minute per iod of t ime f rom start of fire. This is described in ULI Standard 1626 unde r Test Method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13-52 ( L o g # 124).

Table A-2-3.2 Non-Metallic Pipe Dimensions

Nominal Polybutylene CPVC Pipe Outside Inside Wall Outside Inside Wall Size Diameter Diameter Thickness Diameter Diameter Thickness In. In. In. In. In. In. In.

3 / 4 0.875 0.715 0.080 1.050 0.884 0.078

1 1.125 0.921 0.102 1.315 1.109 0.097

1 1 /4 1.375 1.125 0.125 1.660 1.400 0.123

1 1 /2 1.625 1.329 0.148 1.900 1.602 0.141

491

N F P A 13 - - F93 T C R

(Log # 42) 13- 148 - (A~t-5.4.3.5.8(a), (b), (c), and (d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: | o h n ] . Walsh, United Association RECOMMENI~ATION: Remove all references to vertical hanger wire. SUBSTANTIATION: Hanger wire is not permit ted by NFPA 13. Its description in the Figures is confusing to the user. COMI~qTrEE ACTI~ON: Accept in Principle.

Revise the figures as shown below. COMMITI'EI~ STATEMENT: The Committee has modified some of the figures and deleted some others. These changes should satisfy the intent of the submitter.

S +tr+ If o J t ,

4 Tight T u r n ~

J ~ Splayed Seismic Bracing Wire

Structural Shape

(A) At Steel Beams

Note: See Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(a), Detail B.

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(b) Detail A

Insulation Over Steel Deck \

/ ' ~ L--2-#8X1/2in. " ""i "~ f f J I Seit-Tapping

+ + + + Y I ++ Steel Straps " J 3 In. Wide X 4 in+ Long X 12 Ca. - ~ j

(G) At Steel Root Deck

Note: If self-tapping screws are used with concrete fill, set screws be/ore placing concrete+

Acceptable Details-Wire Connections To Steel Framing

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(b) Detail C

+

~ . ~ Web Members

ymT

/ L_ Splayed Seismic Bracing Wire

See Note 2

(B) At Open-Web Steel Joist

Note 1: Splay wires parallel to joist. Splay wires cannot be perpendicular to joist.

Note 2: See Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(a), Details (A) and (B).

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(b) Detail B

Non-Structural Concrete Fill

l ,- .~;...-?~':o: .: = : , ~ ~ ". ~;%-~.~ ~ ~..~...~

- - _ / / / \ \ Steel Deck

/ / #3 Rebar X Length . . . . . . . . . -'~ / Req'd To Cover ~ \ ~ ; ; to~t;u, • ._ + / • __ . _ _ _ J MIn. OfFourHigh / Support Detail c;orrugauons /

/

Splayed Seismic Wire

(A) At Steel Deck With Insulating Fill

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(c) Detail A

492

N F P A 1 3 - - F 9 3 T C R

Structural Concrete Fill ~

. . . . ° " " " " ? " ~5 " . . [ ~ ' o . o . . o ~ ,, o .o .o1

• • O ° °

Deck Wire "Pigtail" See Note

(B) At Steel Deck With Concrete Fill

Note: See Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(a), Detail (B).

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(c) Detail B

Structural Concrete Fill - ~

See N o t e - - J ~ Bracinlte~i~ eck

(D) At Steel Deck With Concrete Fill

Note: See Figure A--4-5,4.3.5.8(a), Detail (A)

Figu~ A-4-5.4.3.5.8(c) Detail C

3-1 1/2 In. X 9 Ga. Staples Or

~ -- -StrOrlghold 'J" Nai ls At Each W,m Loop

g~an~J Wire - - ~

I *n Mln

T

£___ r • JOtS~ O f Rat te r

(A) Wood JOl~! Or Ratter

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(d) Detail A

1/4 in. Dia. Screw Eye With Full Thread Embedment (1 1/4 in. Min.)

Top .a,,__t

Joist Or Ratter - - - - - - ~ ~ Bracing Wire -" -,>.

(B) At Wood Joist Or Ratter Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(d) Detail B

Web Member ....

Bottom Chord . _ . _ _ _ ~ ~ , ~ V i f ( / " Saddle Tie See (G)

~ BmcJN:J Wire

(E) Bracing Wire Parallel To Wood Truss Figure A-4-5.4.3.5,8(d) Detail E

L - ~ Dimension r "-] 1 1/2 in..-= ~ Greater f

Than 1/2 in.

T ~ BracingWires 4 Tight Turns

(G) Typ. Saddle Tie

Figure A-4-5.4.3.5.8(d) Detail G

493

N F P A 13 m F93 T C R

Nole: Do Not Insofl Scow Eyes Pa~fllel To I.~ninmlons (See F') (DelaU May Also Be Used At Top Chord)

1/4 in. Dla. Screw Eye WNh 1 1/4 in. Min. Penetration

Bmdng Wke

I

1 In. Min.

(H) Mlcro-Lam Lower Range

lrtgure A-4-S.4.3.$.8(d) Detail H

(Log # GP16) 13- 149 - (A-4-5.4.3.8 Exception No. 3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix item as follows:

Exception No. 3: The splayed seismic wire should be provided as close as possible to the hanger. SUBSTANTIATION: The seismic wire should be, ideally, within 2 ft of the hanger. Since the seismic brace wire works in conjunction with the hanger, it should be as close as possible to it. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept

(Log # 18) 13-150- (A-4-6.1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Gary R Long, East Whiteland Township RECOMMENDATION: Change the wording on the sign from "When the bell rings call Fire Deparlment or Police" to "When the bell rings call the Fire Department." SUBSTANTIATION: A major cause of loss from fire (or water) damage is a delayed alarm. We have enough trouble trying to get people to call us when they want to report a fire - - without adve-rtising that calling police is a viable option. I have yet to see a sign on a bank burglar alarm that says "Call the police or Fire Department." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject COMMITTEE S T A R T : The Committee does not see a problem with the current wording of the sign. Some areas may actually require emergency calls to be made to the police dispatcher who in turn would notifythe fire department

pressures from 50 to 75 psi) the maximum storage heights can be increased to 35 ft in a 40-ft building. SUBSTANTIATION: Full-scale fire research at FM has indicated that this is a viable design. There are currently listed devices on the market which can be used to protect this configuration. COMMITrF.~ ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Action taken on Proposal 15-74 (Log #135) has already incorporated this information.

(Log # 136) 13- 153 - (Table A-5-3.5): Reject SUBMITTER:James Retzloff, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change title of table to:

"Very ExU-a Large Orifice ESFRSprinkler Dam." 2. Add new table "Extra Large onfice ESFR Sprinkler Data" as

follows:

Type of Storage: Single double and multiple-row and portable rack storage and solid-piled or pailetized storage.

Commodity:. Cartoned unexpanded plastics. Class I through IV commodities. Cartoned polyurethane foamed-in-place packaging.

Max. storage height: 20 Ft (6.1 m). Maintain a minimum of 36"

(914 ram) between deflector and top of storage.

Max. building height: 25 Feet (7.6 m).

SUBSTANTIATION: At present, Standard 13 does not provide for ESFR. sprinklers of other orifice sizes, approved specific, application. sprinklers could be recognized as ESFR sprinklers ff appropriate changes are made to standard. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee notes that ESFR sprinklers are currently recognized as K= 14.0 devices. ESFR criteria is a performance criteria based upon behavior of the sprinkler in test fire conditions. Changes as to what defines an ESFR sprinkler must be discussed with those agencies that develop the listing and approval criteria for this type of sprinkler.

(Log# 114) 13-154 - (A-6-4.4.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isrnan, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise first paragraph as follows:

"A-g4.4.7 When the velocity pressure method is used in the calculations, the following assumptions should be used:..." SUBSTANTIATION: Straightens out how the velocity pressure method works. See also our proposal on Section 6-4.4.7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Disagree that "velocity pressure" is a "method". It is a factor that may, or may not, be included in the calculations.

(Log# 112) 13-151 - (A-5-2.3.1.3(b) Exception No. 2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section as follows: A-5-2.3.1.3(b) Exception No. 2: Composite wood joists are not

considered solid wood joists for the purposes of this section. Their web members are too thin and easily penetrated to adequately compartment a fire in an unsprinklered space. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the web member of a composite wood joist is solid from top to bottom, some consider it adequate protection to utilize Exception No. 2 and go with a 1500 sq ft design area. This was never the intent of the Committee. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept

(Log# 113) 13- 152- (Table A-5-3.5 Note 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. lsman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. I RECOMMENDATION: Add an additional note to Table A-5-3.5 as follows: Note 2: Under certain conditions (including increasing minimum

(Log # 115) 13- 155 - (A-7-1.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add an appendix note as follows: A-7-1.1 Domestic Demand. When using residential sprinklers for a

single connection for both the sprinkler supply and the domestic supply into a building and when the domestic demand represents a significant portion of the sprinkler demand, the domestic demand should be added to the sprinkler demand unless provisions are made to shut off the domestic usage during fire situations. SUBSTANTIATION: Provisions for consideration of simultaneous domestic demand robbing water for the sprinkler system used to be in Appendix B, but were dropped in the 1991 edition. It is important to put them back since lower flow sprinklers (residential) could be used and many people taking showers (like in a hotel) could take water from the sprinkler system when it is needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise existing appendix paragraph A-7-~.l by adding the following sentence at the e n d o f the paragraph.

"In special situations where the domestic water demand could significantly reduce the sprinkler water supply an increase in the size o f the pipe supplying both the domestic and sprinkler water may be justified.

494

N F P A 13 - - F93 T C R

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he above proposed revision is consistent with the informat ion included m Appendix I tem B-2-3.1 (second sentence) of NFPA 15.1989 and should he lp correct the apparen t oversight at t r ibuted to the rewrite of the 1989 NFPA 13 s tandard as identif ied by the submitter .

(Log # 116) 15.156 - (A-7-2.3.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Put "For pipe schedule systems" before the first paragraph. Delete the first sen tence of the last paragraph (before the example) . Revise this paragraph to read: "For hydraulically calculated systems the followinl~ formula should be used to de te rmine the tank pressure a n d rauo of air to water." SUBSTANTIATION: To correct an error created du r ing the reorganization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: T he cur rent wording of Appendix Item A-7-9.3.3 has served the needs of the s t a n d a r d l 3 users since the t ime of its first appearance in the 1973 issue. To our knowledge there was no transposit ion error involved in the recent s tandard reorganization process.

(Log # 35 ) 15.158 - (Appendix B): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen R Hoover, Kemper National Insurance Co. RECOMMENDATION: Reinstate the following i tems f rom Appendix B of 1989 edit ion (B-7, B-7-1, B-7-1.1, B-7-1.2, B-7-1.5, B-7-1.4, B-7-1.5) to the appendix of the nex t edit ion to be published. They would become 17-6, B-6-1, B-6-1.1, B-6-1.2, B-6-1.3, B-6-1.4, B-6-1.5. SUB.S~rANTIATION: These i tems fall u n d e r the jur lsd ic t ion of the Chapter 6 Subcommit tee (formerly Chapter 7). T h e r e was never any retent ion on the par t of the Subcommit tee to remove these i tems dur ing the recent reorganizat ion of the standard. These i tems should be re tu rned to the append ix so the s tandard offers the most complete informat ion possible. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept.

( L o g # 11) 15. 157 - (Figure A-8-5): Reject SUBMITTER: Dale H. Kolisch, Kemper National Insurance RECOMMENDATION: Replace exis t ingFigure A-8-5 "Sample Nameplate," with the revised Figure A-8-5 below. The revision coordinates with the proposed revision to Sec t ion /Paragraph 8-5. SUBSTANTIATION: See proposed revision to Sec t ion /Paragraph 8-5. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'F_.E STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 15-152 (Log #10).

This system as shown on ........................................................................................................................ company

print no .......................................................................................................... da ted ..............................................

f o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

at ............................................................................................................... contract no .........................................

is des igned to discharge at a rate of .............................................................................................................. g p m

(L/ ra in) per sq ft of floor area over a m a x i m u m areas of ........................................ sq ft (m2) when suppl ied

with water at a rate of ..................................................................................................................... g p m (L /min )

at ...................................................................................................................... psi (bars) at the base of the riser.

Hose su-eam allowance of .....................................................................................................................................

g p m ( L / m i n ) is incuded in the above.

Sprinklers are .............................................................................................. °F (°C) .............................. in. (ram)

orifice with a K-factor of ........................................................................................................................................

495

N F P A 1 3 A / 1 3 D - - F 9 3 T C R

PART II

(Log # CP1) 13A- 1 - (Entire Document ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers, RECOMMENDATION: Withdraw the 1987 Edition of NFPA 13A f rom the NFPA Standards System. SUBSTANTIATION: Since 1939, NFPA 13A has served as a guide for the proper ma in tenance of automat ic sprinkler systems. Building owners and others who voluntarily adopted this d o c u m e n t and followed its instructions could be conf ident that their systems would operate as in tended.

In 1988, a new project was unde r t aken by NFPA to establish a separate and distinct s tandard which would deal exclusively with the inspection, testing and ma in tenance of water based fire protection systems. This new document , NFPA 25 was approved at NFPA's Fall Meet ing in 1991 and was issued in February of 1992.

Chapter 2 of NFPA 25 contains the necessary informat ion to conduct periodic inspection, testing and ma in tenance on sprinkler systems. NFPA 13A was used as the basis of this chapter. Given the availability of NFPA 25, there is no longer a need to mainta in NFPA 13A within the Standards Making System and it is therefore appropriate to have it removed at this time. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

PART III

(Log # 29) 13D- 1 - (Entire Document) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change all references f rom "mobile homes" to "manufac tured homes."

2. Establish new NFPA 13M Sprinkler Standard for Manufac tured Homes us ing the following modif ied TIA Log-381 as applicable.

NFPA 13D-1991 Sprinkler systems in O n e - a n d Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile

Homes Reference: 1-3, 3-5.1, 3-6, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-1.4.1, 4-2, 4-6 1. Add the following definitions: Limited Water Supply. Provides a m i n i m u m of 10 gpm at a

m i n i m u m flowing pressure of 25 psi for at least 10 minutes . Limited Water Supply Sprinkler. Special listed residential sprinkler

designed for single sprinkler activation to protect areas no t exceeding 10 f t x 10 ft at a flow rate of 10 gpm.

Limited Water Supply Sprinkler System. Special residential sprinkler system and limited water supply des igned for a single sprinkler activation and fire suppression. It is i n t ended for use in mobile homes, fabricated housing, and existing one- and two-family dwellings having flat horizontal ceilings not exceeding a he ight of 8 ft.

2. Add the following exception to 3-5.1: Exception No. 3: Listed l imited water supply sprinklers shall be

used in a l imited water supply sprinkler system. 3. Add the following phrase to the beg inn ing of 3-6 Exception: Exception: For o ther than l imited water supply systems... 4. Add a new 3-6.1: 3-6.1 The local water alarm shall be located outside of the

dwelling. 5. Add the following exception to 4-1.2: Exception: The n u m b e r of design sprinklers in a l imited water

supply sprinkler system is one. 6. Add the following exception to 4-1.3: Exception: The water d e m a n d for a l imited water supply sprinkler

system is 10 g p m at a flowing pressure of 25 psi. 7. Add the following exceptions to 4-1.4.1: Exception No. 1 : The area protected by a limited water supply

sprinkler shall no t exceed 64 sq ft in a compa r t men t with more than one sprinkler.

Exception No. 2: A single l imited water supply sprinkler may be used to protect a c o m p a r t m e n t not exceeding 100 sq ft.

8. Add the following exception to 4-1.4.2: Exception: For l imited water supply sprinklers, the m a x i m u m

perpendicular distance to a wall or part i t ion shall no t exceed 5 ft, and the m i n i m u m distance between sprinklers shall not be less than 8ft .

9. Add the following exception to 4-4.2: Exception No. 2: The m i n i m u m size of copper and special listed

non-metall ic pipe shall be 1 /2 in. in a l imited water supply sprinkler system.

10. Add the following phrase to the beg inn ing of 4-6, Exceptions No. 1 and 5:

Exception No. 1: For o ther than limited water supplyspr inkler systems...

Exception No. 5: For o ther t han l imited water supplyspr inkler systems...

11. Add a new A-4-1.4.1: Examples of limited water supply sprinkler area coverage are: In a 10 f t x 10 ft a r ea - one sprinkler In a 10 f t x 12 ft area - two sprinklers In a 12 ft x 12 ft area - four sprinklers In a 16 ft x 16 ft area - four sprinklers In a 16 ft x 20 ft area - six sprinklers In a 20 ft x 20 ft area - n ine sprinklers

SUBSTANTIATION: The impact of NFPA 13D established in 1974 on the manufac tu red h o m e fire problem has been negligible due to system cost and water problems.

Additional submit ter ' s reasons included the following: 1. The limited water supply system should provide residential fire

sprinkler protect ion for dwellings no t currently protected by NFPA 13D residential sprinkler systems. Lives will be saved and residential fire damage will be reduced with the installation of limited water supply (LWS) residential sprinkler systems in mobile homes.

2. NFPA 13D requires a m i n i m u m of 26 gpm for sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings and mobile homes. This water supply r equ i r emen t is no t available for mos t or for new and existing mobile homes.

3. The results of the two major USFA programs with UL and with FM have provided data suppor t ing the practicality and effectiveness of a l imited water supply sprinkler system with a flow of 10 g]?m for a ten minu te dura t ion using an LWS residential sprinkler(s).

4. Data provided f rom over 200 actual NFPA 13D residential sprinkler systems fire scenarios showed single sprinkler activation controlled or ext inguished the fire in over 9 0 % o f the cases. The percentage for single sprinkler activation with LWS residential sprinkler(s) should be higher. 5. Factory Mutual test results using the LWS sprinkle with 10 g p m

for 10 minutes showed there was a life safety env i ronment for a m i n i m u m of 15 minu tes even without fire ext inguishment . How- ever, fire ex t ingu i shment would be expected in the vast majority of actual residential fire scenarios.

6. The test results of the USFA sponsored Underwriters Laboratory program showed control in a 10 ft x 10 ft room could be attained with less than 10 g p m using listed residential sprinklers. However, in rooms requir ing more than one sprinkler, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th

rinklers activated in one to two minutes after sprinkle activation. concluded this was due to an ineffective water distribution

[ of listed special residential sprinklers when only 10 g p m or ss is flowing.

7. The LWS sprinkler des igned and tested by Factory Mutual as a part of a second USFA sponsored p rogram has solved this problem with the deve lopment o f a n LWS sprinkler having the following characteristics:

1. Water flow of l0 g p m 2. K factor of 2.0 3. Distribution pat tern per FM specification 4. Drop size per FM specification 5. RTI = 60 (ft x second) to 1 /2 power 6. Tempera tu re rat ing

155 ° Glass Bulb 165 ° Fusible Link.

8. Bathrooms, foyers, and hallways will require sprinkler protection to reduce the potential for a second sprinkler activation.

9. The limited water supply system may encourage HUD to p romote and adopt sprinkler fire protect ion for mobile homes and manufac tu red housing.

10. Factory Mutual residential sprinkler tests us ing 30 gpm for 3 minutes did not provide 10 minutes life safety. This was due to a rekindling of the fire. The rekindl ing took place about 3 minutes after water supply stopped. These tests were the basis for using a lower gpm for a longer time.

11. Dr. Kung of Factory Mutual Research and Bill Carey of Underwri ter 's Laboratories, Project Managers for the USFA sponsored programs believe the LWS residential sprinkler system

496

N F P A 13D - - F93 T C R

proposed by this TIA is not only a practical, effective sprinkler system, but is also an advancemen t in the state of the art with the potential for lower cost residential sprinkler fire protection.

12. A successful test at Factory Mutual demons t ra t ing single sprinkler activation providing life safety env i ronment was witnessed by Russ Fleming, NFSA; Olin Greene, USFA;Jim Coyle, USFA;John O'Neill, Gage Babcock Associates; and Harry Shaw, Harry Shaw and Associates. Th i s was one of the many tests conduc ted by Factory Mutual for the USFAprogram.

13. Many other residential sprinkler test p rograms have suppor t ing data that indicates the practicality of an LWS sprinkler system providing life safety e n h a n c e m e n t in mobile homes. These test p rograms conduc ted in 1979-1980 included the LA Insurance Program, sponsored by the insurance industry, the USFA/NFPA LA Residential Sprinkler Program, the USFA/Char lot te Mobile Home Program and the Scottsdale Program.

14. USFA is currently sponsor ing a research program with UL to develop a self-contained 100 gallon l imited water supply system capable of delivering 10 g p m to a l imited water supply residential c o m p o n e n t for LWS residential sprinkler systems.

15. In many communi t i es the cost of an NFPA 13D system is significandy increased because the 26 g p m requ i r emen t of NFPA 13D needs a water meter larger than the s tandard 5/8- inch meter. For example, in several cormnunit ies in West Palm Beach County the meter size require the water authori t ies was increased to 1 in. This r equ i r emen t increased the cost to the occupant f rom $10.00 per m o n t h to approximately $30.00 per m o n t h for an annual increase of abou t $240.00. The LWSS system could funct ion with the smaller 5/8-water meter.

16. The 10 gpm requ i remen t for the LWSS provides the possibility for hydraulically des igned systems u s i n g l / 2 - i n , piping.

17. The 10 gpm requ i remen t for theLWSS may also make it ssible to integrate domest ic water systems and the LWSS system. e integrated system would require special t r ea tment for the

external alarm but should no t require a backflow preventer. 18. All LWS system sprinklers will be functionally interchangeable.

When the mass market develops, this will impact favorably on costs. 19. Mobile homes are rapidly becoming an answer to affordable

hosing. A recent Washington Post article stated that, according to industry sources, mobile homes accoun ted for 26% of all homes sold nationwide in 1990.

20. Recent UL test of LWSSS in a manufac tu red home demon- strated single sprinkler activation and fire control with (4) four residential fire tests. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Include the concept in NFPA 13D as a Manufac tured H o m e Sprinkler System. Revise the proposal as follows:

1. Add a definit ion for Manufac tured H o m e in 1-3 to read: Manufac tured Home. A structure, t ransportable in one or more

sections, that in the traveling mode, is 8 body feet (2.4 m) or more in width and 40 body feet (12 m) or more in length or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet (28 m2), and that is built on a p e r m a n e n t chassis and des igned to be used as a dwelling with or without a p e r m a n e n t founda t ion when connec ted to the required utilities, and includes the p lumbing , heating, air condit ioning, and electrical systems conta ined therein.

Note: Manufac tured homes were formally referred to as "mobile homes" or "trailer coaches".

2. Add the following definit ion to 1-3: Manufac tured H o m e Sprinkler. A specially listed residential

sprinkler for use in manufac tu red h o m e sprinkler systems. (See Chapter 5).

3. Add the following to 9-4: See Chapter 5 for an alternative design approach for manufac tu red

homes. 4. Add a new Chapter 5 as follows:

Chapter 5 Manufac tured H o m e Sprinkler Systems 5-1" General. This chapter is only applicable to manufac tu red

homes that do no t exceed 2000 ft2 in area and which are 1 story in he igh t with flat, smooth horizontal ceilings with a he igh t not exceeding 8 ft.. This is a special residential sprinkler system and shall only be used in manufac tu red homes. All o ther requi rements of NFPA 13D apply except as modif ied by this chapter.

5-2 Water Supply. The water supply for a manufac tu red h o m e sprinkler system shall be capable of suppor t ing the system d e m a n d for 10 minutes as de t e rmined by 5-4.1 and 7 minutes as de te rmined by 5-4.2.

5-2.1 A listed strainer shall be provided in risers or feedmains which supply manufac tu red h o m e sprinkler systems.

5-3 System Components . 5-3.1 Sprinklers. Sprinklers for use in this type of system shall be

specifically listed for use in manufac tu red homes. Each sprinkler in a c o m p a r t m e n t shall be f rom the same manufac tu re r a n d shall be the same make and mode l number .

5-3.2 Alarms. Local water flow alarms with all facilities for flow testing such alarm devices shall be provided on all manufac tu red home sprinkler systems. These alarms shall be located within the manufac tu red h o m e and shall be of sufficient intensity to be clearly audible in all bedrooms over background noise levels with all in tervening doors closed..

5-4 System Design. 5-4.1 The water d e m a n d for a manufac tu red h o m e sprinkler

system shall he not less than 10 g p m at flowing pressure of 25 psi at the sprinkler when only one sprinkler is installed in a compar tment .

5-4.2 The water d e m a n d for a manufac tu red h o m e spdnMer system shall be no t less than 6.5 g p m to each of two sprinklers at a flowing pressure of 11 psi at the sprinkler when two or more sprinklers are installed in a compar tment . The single sprinkler d e m a n d p o i n t as described in 5-4.1 shall also be verified.

5-4.3* The area of coverage for manufac tu red h o m e sprinklers shall no t exceed 64 square feet per sprinkler.

Exception: For compar tments not exceeding 100 square feet and having no d imens ion exceeding 10 feet, a single manufac tu red h o m e sprinkler shall be permi t ted to cover this area.

5-4.4 The m a x i m u m perpendicular distance to a wall or partition shall no t exceed 5 feet a n d t h e m i n i m u m distance between sprinklers shall no t be less than 8 f ee l

5-4.5 The definit ion of c o m p a r u n e n t as used in 5-4.1, 5-4.2 and 5-4.3 is a space that is completely enclosed by walls and a ceiling. The c o m p a r t m e n t enclosure can have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a m i n i m u m lintel dep th of 2 inches (51 ram) from the ceiling and where the open ings do not exceed 20 square feet f rom each compar tment .

5-5* Location of Sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be installed in all a r e a s .

Exception No. 1: Sprinklers are no t requi red in clothes closets, l inen closets and pantries where the area of the space does no t exceed 24 sq ft and the least d imens ion does not exceed 3 ft an d the walls and ceilings are surfaced with noncombust ib le or l imited combustible materials as def ined by NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction.

Exception No. 2: Sprinklers may be omit ted f rom garages, open at tached porches, carports, and similar structures.

Exception No. 3: Sprinklers may he omit ted f rom attics, crawl spaces, and other concealed spaces that are not used or in t ended for living purposes or storage.

A-5-1 The concept of the manufac tu red h o m e sprinkler system is the result of testing conduc ted for the USFA. The goals of this testing were in tended to de te rmine i f a smaller quant i ty of water could be used to protect manufac tu red homes than what would typically be required to protect a single family dwelling. This system is in tended to fur ther improve the economies of the system design and improve the chances for having residential sprinkler systems installed in manufac tu red homes.

Design items in this chapter assume tha t egress t imes f rom a manufac tu red h o m e are minimal since the units are single story at grade level and tha t occupants would be made aware of a fire in the uni t a lmost immediately. This approach is considered in allowing the reduct ion of the water supply in some instances to 7 minutes .

A-5-3.1 The criteria used to list a residential sprinkler should include but no t be l imited to:

-k factor: nomina l 2.0 -RTI: nomina l 60 (ft-s) 1/2 -Tempera ture Rating: 155°F- 165°F -Droplet size -Distribution Patterns -Areas of coverage -Flow rates -Operat ing pressures A-5-4.3 Sample areas of coverage for listed manufac tu red h o m e

sprinklers include the following:

COMPARTMENT SIZE (FT) NUMBER OF SPRINKLERS

10 x 10 one 10 x 12 two 12 x 12 four 16 x 16 four 16 x 20 six

A-5-5 Unlike NFPA 13D, paragraph 4-6, this chapter only allows sprinklers to be omit ted f rom 3 areas. Foyers mus t be sprinklered since these areas are usually at the only en t r ance / ex i t for the manufac tu red home. Fires at this point could block the only available exit and could operate sprinklers in the adjoining spaces thereby taxing the available water supply.

Ba throoms are required to be spr inklered since they are typically in the pa th of exit travel f rom bedrooms as well f rom other living spaces. Fires originating in the ba th room and which would no t be controlled if sprinklers were omitted, would likely operate sprinklers

497

N F P A 13D - - F93 T C R

in the adjoining compar tments , the result being operat ion of more than the n u m b e r of design sprinklers and deplet ion of the water suoolv. c O M M I T T E E STATEMENT: After reviewing the informat ion made available to the Commit tee , it was decided to incorporate this concept into NFPA 13D in lieu of developing a separate standard. The Commit tee established a new Chapter 5 to primarily describe this concept and related design criteria.

A two poin t sprinkler design criteria has been established to allow for total s to redwater capacities to no t exceed 100 gallons. This will be based on a single sprinkler design of 10 g p m for 10 minutes and a two sprinkler design of 13 g p m (6.5 g p m to each of two sprinklers) for approximately 7 minutes .

By referr ing to this as a "manufac tured h o m e sprinkler system", the scope of such a system will be limited for use in manufac tu red homes. Essentially all port ions of NFPA 13D will still be applicable except as identified by the new Chapter 5.

(Log # 28) 13D- 2 - (Title): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change "mobile homes" to manufactured homes."

2. Delete definit ion for mobile h o m e s and add definition for manufac tu red home. SUBSTANTIATION: The product is called "manufac tu red hous ing (homes)" by federal regulat ions and by the industry. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the title of NFPA 1313 as r ecommended . Replace the te rm "mobile home" with "manufac tu red home" t h r o u g h o u t the standard. Adef in i t ion was added in Proposal 13D-1 (Log#29) for the te rm Manufac tured Home. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The terminology was changed as r e c o m m e n d e d by the submitter . Action taken in 13D-1 (Log #20) added the definit ion for Manufac tu red H o m e as f ound in NFPA 501A.

(Log # 23) 13D- 3 - (1-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add definit ion "Residential Single Activa- tion Sprinkler". A residential special purpose sprinkler specifically listed for single sprinkler activation and fire control. SUBSTANTIATION: To identify a new class of special purpose residential sprinklers required in conjunct ion with proposed change to 4-1.2. COMMITI 'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMI'I"rEE STATEMENT: A term was added to Section 1-3 which will define a "manufac tured h o m e sprinkler". See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13D- 1 (Log#29) .

(Log # 2) 13D- 4 - (1-3, 3-5.1, 3-6, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-1.4.1, 4-1.4.2, and 4-6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

NFPA 13D-1991 Sprinkler systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile

Homes Reference: 1-3, 3-5.1, 3-6, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-1.4.1, 4-2, 4-6 1. Add the following definitions: Limited Water Supply. Provides a m i n i m u m of 10 gpm at a

m i n i m u m flowing pressure of 25 psi for at least 10 minutes . Limited Water Supply Sprinkler. Special listed residential sprinkler

des igned for single sprinkler activation to protect areas no t exceeding 10 f t x 10 ft at a flow rate of 10 gpm.

Limited Water Supply Sprinkler System. Special residential sprinkler system and limited water supply des igned for a single sprinkler activation and fire suppression. It is i n t ended for use in mobile homes, fabricated housing, and existing o n e - a n d two-family dwellings having flat horizontal ceilings not exceeding a he igh t of 8 fL

2. Add the following exception to 3-5.1: Exception. . No. .3-. Listed l imited water supply sprinklers shall be

used in a limited water supply sprinkler system. 3. Add the following phrase to the beg inn ing of 3-6 Exception: Exception: For o ther than limited water supply systems... 4. Add a new 3-6.1:

3-6.1 The local water alarm shall be located outside of the dwelling.

5. Add the following exception to 4-1.2: Exception: The n u m b e r of design sprinklers in a limited water

supply sprinkler system is one. 6. Add the following exception to 4-1.3: Exception: The water d e m a n d for a l imited water supply sprinkler

system is 10 g p m at a flowing pressure of 25 psi. 7. Add the following exceptions to 4-1.4.1: Exception No. 1: The area protected bya l imited water supply

sprinkler shall not exceed 64 sq ft in a compar tmen t with more than one sprinkler.

Exception No. 2: A single limited water supply sprinkler may be used to protect a compa r tmen t not exceeding 100 sq ft.

8. Add the following exception to 4-1.4.2: Exception: For limited water supply sprinklers, the m a x i m u m

perpendicular distance to a wall or partition shall no t exceed 5 ft, and the m i n i m u m distance between sprinklers shall not be less than 8f t .

9. Add the following exception to 4-4.2: Exception No. 2: The m i n i m u m size of copper and special listed

non-metall ic pipe shall be 1 /2 in. in a l imited water supply sprinkler system.

10. Add the following phrase to the beginning of 4-6, Exceptions No. 1 and 5:



11. Add a new A-4-1.4.1: Examples of l imited water supply sprinkler area coverage are: In a 10 ft x 10 ft area - one sprinkler In a 10 f t x 12 ft area - two sprinklers In a 12 ft x 12 ft area - four sprinklers In a 16 f t x 16 ft a r ea - four sprinklers In a 16 f t x 20 ft area - six sprinklers In a 20 ft x 20 ft area - n ine sprinklers

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The limited water supply system should provide residential fire sprinkler protection for dwellings not currently protected by NFPA 13D residential sprinkler systems. Lives will be saved and residential fire damage will be reduced with the installation of limited water supply (LWS) residential sprinkler systems in mobile homes and existing dwelling.

2. NFPA 13D requires a m i n i m u m of 26 gpm for sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings and mobile homes. This water supply r equ i r emen t is no t available for most existing one-and two- family homes or for new and existing mobile homes.

3. The results of the two major USFA programs with UL and with FM have provided data suppor t ing the practicality and effectiveness of a limited water supply sprinkler system with a flow of 10 g p m for a ten minu te dura t ion using an LWS residential sprinkler(s).

4. Data provided f rom over 200 actual NFPA 13D residential sprinkler systems fire scenarios showed single sprinkler activation controlled or ext inguished the fire in over 9 0 % o f the cases. The percentage for single sprinkler activation with LWS residential sprinkler(s) should b e h i g h e r .

5. Factory Mutual test results us ing the LWS sprinkle with 10 g p m for 10 minutes showed there was a life safety env i ronment for a m i n i m u m of 15 minutes even without fire ext inguishment . How- ever, fire ex t ingu i shment would be expected in the vast majority of actual residential fire scenarios.

6. The test results of the USFA sponsored Underwri ters Laboratory program showed control in a 10 ft x 10 ft room could be attained with less than 10 g p m using listed residential sprinklers. However, in rooms requir ing more than one sprinkler, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sprinklers activated in one to two minutes after sprinkle activation. UL concluded this was due to an ineffective water distribution pat tern of listed special residential sprinklers when only 10 g p m or less is flowing.

7. The LWS sprinkler des igned and tested by Factory Mutual as a part of a second USFA sponsored program has solved this problem with the deve lopment of an LWS sprinkler having the following characteristics:

1. Water flow of 10 g p m 2. K factor of 2.0 3. Distribution pattern per FM specification 4. Drop size per FM specification 5. RTI = 60 (ft x second) to 1 /2 power

8. Bathrooms, foyers, and hallways will require sprinkler protection to reduce the potential for a second sprinkler activation.

9. The limited water supply system may encourage HUD to promote and adopt sprinkler fire protection for mobile homes and manufac tu red housing.

10. Factory Mutual residential sprinkler tests using 30 g~m for 3 minutes did no t provide 10 minutes life safety. This was clue to a

498

N F P A 13D - - F93 T C R

rekindl ing of the fire. The rekindl ing took place about 3 minutes after water supply stopped. These tests were the basis for us ing a lower g p m for a longer time.

11. Dr. Kung of FactoD~ Mutual Research and Bill Carey of Underwri ter ' s Laboratories, Project Managers for the USFA sponsored programs believe the LWS residential sprinkler system proposed by this TIA is not only a practical, effective sprinkler system, but is also an advancemen t in the state of the art with the potential for lower cost residential sprinkler fire protection.

12. Asuccessful test at Factory Mutual demons t ra t ing single sprinkler activation providing life safety env i ronmen t was witnessed by Russ Fleming, NFSA; Olin Greene, USFA; J im Coyle, USFA;John O'Neill, Gage Babcock Associates; and Harry Shaw, Harry Shaw and Associates. T h i s was one of the many tests conduc ted by Factory Mutual for the USFAprogram.

13. Many o ther residential sprinkler test p rograms have suppor t ing data that indicates the practicality of an LWS sprinkler system

oviding life safety enh~mcement in dwellings and in mobile homes. ese test p rograms conduc ted in 1979-1980 included the LA

Insurance Program, sponsored by the insurance industry, the USFA/ NFPA LA Residential Sprinkler Program, the USFA/Charlot te Mobile Home Program 2aad the Scottsdale Program.

14. USFA is cur rendy sponsor ing a research program with UL to develop a serf-contained 100 gallon l imited water supply system capable of delivering 10 g p m to a l imited water supply residential c o m p o n e n t for LWS resi'dential sprinkler systems.

15. In many communi t i es the cost of an NFPA 13D system is significantly increased because the 26 gpm requ i remen t of NFPA 13D needs a water meter larger than the s tandard 5 /8- inch meter. For example, in several communi t ies in West Palm Beach County the mete r size require the water authori t ies was increased to 1 in. This r equ i r emen t increased the cost to the occupan t f rom $10.00 per m o n t h to approximately $30.00 per m o n t h for an annual increase of abou t $240.00. The LWSS system could funct ion with the smaller 5 / 8-water meter .

16. The 10 gpm requ i remen t for the LWSS provides the possibility for hydraulically des igned systems u s i n g l / 2 - i n , piping.

17. The 10 gpm requ i r emen t for the LWSS may also make it

~ ssible to integrate domest ic water systems and the LWSS system. le integrated system would require special t r ea tment for the

external alarm but should not require a baclcflow preventer. 18. All LWS system sprinklers will be functionally interchangeable.

W h e n the mass market develops, this will impact favorably on costs. 19. Mobile homes are rapidly becoming an answer to affordable

hosing. A recent Washington Post article stated that, according to industry sources, mobile homes accounted for 26% of all homes sold nationwide in 1990. COMMITTEE ACTION',: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13D-1 (Log #2e,).

(Log # 3) 13D- 5 - (3-1.4 and A-3-1.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James M. Fantauzzi, Amer ican Fire Sprinkler Association Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

3-1.4 Water flow test connect ion shall be provided at locations tha t will permi t flow test ing of water supplies and connect ions. They sha l lbe installed so that the valve may be opened fully and for a sufficient t ime period to assure a proper test without causing water damage. The test connect ion shall be des igned and sized to verify sufficiency of the water supply and alarm mechanisms.

A-3-1.4 The test connec t ion should be in the uppe r story and shou ldpre fe rab ly be piped from the end of the most remote branch line. The discharge should be at a point where it can be readily observed. In locations where it is no t practical to te rminate the test connect ion outside the building, the test connect ion may terminate into a drain capable of accept ing full flow u n d e r system pressure. In this event, the test connect ion should be made using an approved sight test connect ion conta in ing a smoo th bore corrosion-resistant orifice giving a flow equivalent to one sprinkler s imulat ing the least flow f rom an individual sprinkler in the system. The test valve should be located at an accessible poin t and preferably not over 7 feet (2.1 m) above the floor. The control valve on the test connec- t ion shou ld be located at a po in t no t exposed to freezing.

A main drain valve at the i ncomingwa te r supply shall be installed in connect ion with the above described test connect ion in order to demons t ra te full system water d e m a n d at the main drain.

Prehwldoly From End " 4 P " ~ ' - " ~ ~ " 1 Of Remo~'e 6ronch Line

Test Voh~ In

.LI. I I c o . ~ o n , . . * r a n t I J oum, t a i r , r e Flow ] ] s a u i ~ . m To On* ~ ,i8" Ell

E L E V A T I O N

For SI Units: I ft = 03.048 m.

NOTE: Not less than 4 ft (1.2 m) of exposed test pipe in warm room beyond valve when pipe extends th rough wall to outside.

Figure A-3-1.4 System test connection on wet pipe system.

SUBSTANTIATION: The lack of an inspector 's test station has created an u n d u e risk of alarm and system failure that does not warrant its omission because of addit ion installation cost.

The el iminat ion of those funct ional items, such as the inspector 's test and a main drain of sufficient size to verify water supply, have d iminished the ability of the owner, the authori ty having jurisdiction, and ma in tenance and inspection personnel to verify that these systems properly function.

This situation will cont inue to worsen with t ime as e q u i p m e n t begins to fail. There is a lack of ma in tenance devices to verify the operational adequacy. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the proposal as follows: 3-1.4 W h e n water flow alarms are provided, water flow test

connect ions shall be iinstalled at locations that will permi t flow testing of water supplies, connect ions and alarm mechanisms.

A-3-L4 These connect ions should be installed so that the valve may be opened fully and for a sufficient t ime per iod to assure a proper test without causing water damage. The test connect ion s h o u l d b e des igned and sized-to verify sufficiency of the water supply and alarm mechanisms.

Do no t include any of the additional informat ion shown in the oposal.

MMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee does not believe that the addit ional detail is necessary in this s tandard. The other provisions proposed come directly f rom NFPA 13 which the des igner and installer mus t refer to for other types of guidance. Requir ing a means to test any installed alarms should satisfy the in tent of the submitter.

(Log # 1) 13D- 6 - (3-3.1 and 3-3.2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: W. Clark Gey, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

3-3.1 Pipe or tube used for u n d e r g r o u n d in sprinkler systems shall be of materials in Table 1-5.1.

3-3.2.1 Other types of pipe or tube may be used for unde rg round , but only those listed for this service. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA 13D s tandard does not address u n d e r g r o u n d material. At the present t ime all u n d e r g r o u n d is to be in accordance with NFPA 24. NFPA 24 does not recognize any pipe material, s tandard or listing for pipe diameters less than 4 in. in size. Therefore, we are required-to instkll 4 in. u n d e r g r o u n d feeding 1 in. and 1 1 / 4 in. risers on 13D sprinkler systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: ReJ~ect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The installation criteria for file u n d e r g r o u n d pipe materials are outside the scope of this standard. NFPA 13D anticipates the water supply for the system to be in compliance with the governing p lumbing code for the jurisdiction. Materials considered acceptable for use in the u n d e r g r o u n d for one and two family dwellings are acceptable to supply NFPA 13D type sprinkler systems. This would include pipe types and diameters.

499

N F P A 13D ~ F93 T C R

(Log # 10) 13D- 7- (Table 3-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Proposed additions to Table:

"Huxes for soldering applications of Copper and Copper Alloy Tube ........... ASTM B813" SUBSTANTIATION: This specification was developed to give guidance to flux manufacturers producing solder fluxes for applications, such as fire sprinkler systems, where aggressiveness, corrosivity, flushability andso lde r spread are of importance.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log# 11) 13D- 8 - (Table 3-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change: Brazing Filler Metal (Classification BCuP-3 or BCuP~t) ....... AWS A5.8

Proposed: Brazing Filler Metal (BCuP, copper-phosphorus or copper-phosphorus-silver brazing filler metal).....AWS A5.8 SUBSTANTIATION: The existing restriction to BCuP-3 or BCuP-4 brazing filler metals ignores other available BCuP brazing filler metals commonly used that exhibit die sanwjoin t strength properties and can be used without flux on copper to copper joints. They also have a melting temperature above 1000°F.

NOTE: Supporting materialis available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Also see the Committee Action on Proposal 13D-7 (Log #10).

(Log # 12) 13D-9- (Table 3-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER; A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change: Solder metal, 95-5 .....

Proposed: Solder metal (alloy grades containing less than 0.2% lead as identified in ASTM B32, Table 5, Section 1 and have a solidus temperature that exceeds 400°F) SUBSTANTIATION: The current table does not take into consideration the existing lead free solders listed in ASTM B32. These alloy grades have similar melting characteristics to the listed 95-5, tin- antimony. These solders all contain high percentages of tin along with other alloying elements that will overcome some of the perceived difficulties associated with 95-5, fin-anfimony.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee wishes to point out that this material is considered as being acceptable for use in NFPA 13D systems but not in those systems designed under NFPA 13R or NFPA 13. Since its development in 1975, NFPA laD has in tended to permit the use of materials that would normally be acceptable for use in domestic plumbing systems.

(Log# 17) 13D- 11 - (Table %3.1 and A-3-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, Cleveland, OH RECOMMENDATION: 1. Revise Table 3-3.1 to include special listed non-metallic sprinkler pipe.

Non-Metallic Piping

spec. for special listed chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe ASTM F442

spec. for special listed polybutylene (PB) pipe ASTM D/3309

2. Add to Appendix A-3-3.1. Not all pipe or tube made to ASTM F442 and D/3309 as described in Section 5-1.2.2 is listed for fire sprinkler service. Listed pipe is identified by the logo of the listing agency. SUBSTANTIATION: Listing agencies require that special listed pipe be labeled with the specification to which the pipe is produced. Similar (unlisted) pipe produced to less stringent requirements cannot be labeled with the same specification as listed pipe. Adoption of this proposal will further enable the AHJ to recognize and verify file use of only listed piping materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept item 1 only and modify as follows: Add a "t" symbol beside these standards in file table and add: "'1-"

In addition to satisfying these minimum standards, specially listed pipe can be used when it complies with the provisions of paragraph %3.2. Add a new appendix item as follows: A-%3.2 These specially listed pipes are identified by the presence

of the logo from die listing agency. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The footnote to the table will remind the user that special pipe products must conform to the appropriate standard in die table and be specifically listed for use in sprinkler systems.

(Log # 6) 13D- 12- (Table 3-3.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM D3309 and ASTM F442 to Table 3-3.5:

Table 3-3.5

Materials and Dimensions Standard

Spec. for Polybutylene (PB) Systems ASTM D3309 Spec. for Chlorinated Poly(VinylGhloride) (CPVC) Pipe ASTM F442

SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make die standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13D-11 (Log #17).

(Log # 5) 13D- 10 - (Table 3-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM D3309 and ASTM F442 to Table 3-3.1

Table 3-3.1

Materials and Dimensions Standard

Spec. for Polybutylene (PB) Systems ASTM D3309 Spec. for Chlorinated Poly(VinyIChloride) (CPVC) Pipe ASTM F442

SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13D-11 (Log # 17).

(Log # 1 S) 13D- 13- (Table %3.5 and A-2-4.2.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add CPVC fittings to Table 3-3.5 chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) spec. for sch. 80 GPVC threaded fittings, ASTM F437 spec. for sch. 40 CPVC socket-type fittings ASTM F438 spec. for sch. 80 CPVG socket-type fittings ASTM F439 2. Add new appendix section A-2-4.2.1. Not all fittings made to

ASTM 437, 438, and 439 are listed for fire sprinkler service. Listed fittings are identified by the logo of the listing agency. SUBSTANTIATION: Listing agencies require that special listed fittings be labeled with the specification to which the fittings are produced. Similar (unlisted) fittings produced to less stringent requirements cannot be labeled with the same specification as listed fittings. Adoption of this proposal will further enable the AHJ to recognize and verify the use of only listed fitting materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept item 1 only and modify as follows: Add ~t" symbol beside these standards in the table and add: "t" In

addition to satisfying these minimum standards, specially listed pipe fittings can be usedwhen tbey comply with the provisions of - - paragraph 3-3.7.

500

N F P A 1 3 D - - F 9 3 T C R

Add a new appendix item as follows: ] A-3-3.7 These specially listed fittings are identified by the presence

I of the logo flom the listing agency. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The footnote to the table will remind the user that specialpipe fitting products must conform to the approl~riate standard in the table and be specifically listed for use in sprinkler systems.

(Log # 13) 13D- 14- (3-3.6 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Ass'n. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to "95-5 solder metal." SUBSTANTIATION: This reference does not take into account existing lead free solders, with similar melting and joining characteristics, as listed in Afi;TM B32, Table 5, Section 1.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

(Log # 25) 13D- 15 - (4-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"The Number of Design Sprinklers. The number of design sprinklers shall be two where two or more sprinklers are in a compartment. The number of design s~rinlders shall be one where only one sprinkler is in a compartment. ' SUBSTANTIATION: The present language is confusing. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Retain the text of the current 4-1.2. Add the following new sentence:

"For compartments containing two or more sprinklers, calculations shall be provided to verify the single operating sprinkler criteria and the multiple (2) operating sprinkler criteria." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The intent of this paragraph has been to prove that the single operating sprinkler demand as well as the multiple opening sprinkler design criteria can be satisfied when two or more sprinklers are installed in the compartment,

(Log # CPI) 1BD- 16 - (4-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

" ... maximum of two sprinklers under a flat, smooth, horizontal ceiling." Add new A-4-1.2 to read:

BUCKET TEST "PUT THE WATER IN THE BUCKET"

For 13R Systems Option A

"Residential sprinklers are currently listed for use under flat, smooth, horizontal ceilings only. Sloped, beamed and pitched ceilings may require special design approaches such as larger flow or design for three or more sprinklers to operate in the compartment." SUBSTANTIATION: The revision will be a reminder to the user that listed residential sprinklers do have some limitations with respect to the types of ceiling construction configurations that they can be used under. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 24) 1313- 17 - (4-1.2 Exception No. 1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTEI~ Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 1:

"The number of design sprinklers shall be one when the sprinkler has been listed as a special purpose sprinkler demonstrating single sprinkler activation and fire control ."

Exceptions No. 1 and 2 of 4-6 do not apply to single activation special purpose sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: We have had NFPA 13D since 1975. Its use is minimal because of cost and water supply problems. This proposal will have a favorable impact on cost and the water supply problem. Also 90 percent of residential sprinkler system activations have been one sprinkler activations. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: There is no technical support for dais concept currently. The Committee believes that a single design dPoint sprinkler concept would require substantial research and

evelopment to verify such a device.

(Log # 4) 13D- 18- (4-1.3.1 andA-4-1.B.l (New)): Reject SUBM1TTER:James M. Fantauzzi, American Fire Sprinkler Assodation Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

4-1.3.1 The required water demand determined by section 4-1 shall be field tested by an appropriate test method acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The installing contractor shall identify the hydraulically designed sprinkler system with a permanently marked weatherproof metal or rigid plastic sign secured with corrosion resistant wire, chain or other approved means. Such signs shall be placed at the incoming water supply. The sign shall include the following information:

a_ System design criteria. b. All pertinent sprinkler head information c. Required and tested flows and residual pressure at all test

locations d. Additional water demand

~emluxo Ga~e ~tel $Ade

Test ga~'t ~o ' I

~ ' ~ m ~ Premsurs ~.au~ tnmtmctor,. SI, Nt t a ' ~ S i ~ t ~ ' 5 "7 Sul~2y StCto ~ ' ~ . . . ~ C o n t r o t v , | v t t~, ,,j

Tm, t Qauqe S

see rtg~-e a-2-3.2 (a) (b) (c)

Components: 1. Quality stop-watch. 2. 2-4 orifice(s) of designed sprinkler. 3. Nipples and 1 /4 turn valves. (full port) 4. Plastic full flow splash pipes. 5. 2-4 graduated one gallon opaque containers. 6. Quality gauge.

A-4-1.B.1 Testing of the system performance characteristic by the physical flowing of water will verify that the incoming water service is adequate, the interior piping design was not violatedand the system will perform adequately. The test mechanism is to be such that reference test pressure can he established so that future main drain or inspector's test flow can be comparted to initial established readings (See Figures A-2-1.B.3(a), A-2-1.3.3(b) and A-2-1.3.3(c)).

501

NFPA 13D -- F93 TCR

~ 1 / ' 1 ~ O, ~" Pl/tE JPdrlN~.~d~

t~" ~..a~n¢ P/p , f

~ O P l ~ (,I$" ¢ONTA/N['~

~ T ~ / ~ ",4 "'

1. Attach test orifices to remote operat ing sprinkler outlets. 2. Attach pressure gauges at 3rd a n d / o r 5th remote sprinkler outlet. Use y o u r j h d g e m e n t while consider ing the system design to decide the most effective pressure reading position. 3. Flush lines of f lapped air, - - 4. Empty water receiving containers. 5. Using a stop watch, flow the mo t remote sprinkler for 30 seconds into the receiving container. 6. Measure the volume of water in the receiving container, convert to gallons or liter mult iple by 2 to obtain gallons per minu te (GPM) or liters per minu te (L/ra in) record GPM obtained. 7. Compare the GPM and pressures obtained to the calculated flow and pres-sure specified in tile manufac ture rs installation design criteria. 8. Repeat operat ion 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for total n u m b e r of sprinklers in the complete remote oprat ing area. 9. Record all per t inen{irfformation on the Inspector 's Test and Hydraulic Performance Placard.

Ftgure A-4-1.3.1 (a)

FULL FLOW DRAIN

OF~rION (b)

Comnonents : 1. TEst orifice(s) with Kvalue equal to one a n d / o r the s u m to all operat ing sprinklers. 2. Test gauges at location A, B, C and D. 3. Pitot tube and gauge to measure flow f rom test orifice.

procedure (Initial Test) *1. Hydraulic design to include a theoretical reference poin t T so as to compare the remote operat ing area to the physical reference point L 2. Hydraulic des ign of Inspector 's test to minimize friction loss while main ta in ing m a x i m u m velocity at 16 feet /sec. 3. Place initial test orifice in the end of the Inspector 's test station, which is equal to a single operat ing sprinkler. 4. O p e n Inspector 's valve gradually until full flow of one sprinkler is achieved (measured by Pitot tube gauge) . Record pressure gauge reading at test locations A, B, C and D. 5. Replace the test orifice in the end of the Inspector 's Test Station with orifice(s) with a total K value equal to the summ at io n ofai l operat ing sprinklers K values. 6. O p e n Inspector 's valve gradually until full flow of all operat ing sprinklers is achieved (measured by Pitot tube gauge) . Record

~ ressure gauge readings at test locations A, B, C and D. • Record all test informat ion on Hydraulic Placard, which shall be

pe rmanen t ly placed on the incoming water supply riser. (See Figure A-2-1.3.3(c)). 8. Close Inspector 's Test Valve and re turn the system to service. 9. Conduc t a main drain test at the riser. Record pressure reading on Test and Hydraulic Placard for future reference.

Service Test 1. Place proper orifice in the end of the Inspector 's Test• 2. O p e n test valve until pressure as recorded f rom initial test at test gau~.e A is achieved. T h e n mainta in this flow. Record pressure readings at locations B and D. 3. Close the Inspector 's Test Valve and Return the system to service. 4. Verify the pressure gauge readings at locations B an d D with the original recorded data. 5. Perform a main drain test and compare the reading with the initial main drain test reading.

Figure A-4-1.3.1(b) Acceptance Test

Also, see Figure A-t-1.3.1 (c) on the following page.

TEST

T u ~ o r ~ '

Teat ~nuqe B l~oes~u~e G4uqe pet~n~ent ~ System Side

G,auqe "&=' \'"" ® "D"

° _k l~pe~-~or,n Test Valve n DraXn

t , 1~11 p o x 1~11 valve or equal. I I Size for Pull Flo~J ~ ~ J

veZve

.,,.'4U&. ~ ~ P r o e e u r s Ge.uqo Test Gauqe,~c A Resor..mSPRK 1 ~ 2 Supply Slcto ~ ~ n ~ o l V a l v e

Test Cr't,,:Ltics operattnq s p r t ~ l e r K V a l v e - $ - I o f F l o v l n q Sprln.~ler K

See r lq~e A-2-3.2 (a) (b) (c) valve represented by test beinq

oondu~ce¢l.

502

N F P A 13D - - F 9 3 TCR

INSPECTOR'S TEST & HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE PLACARD

SYSTEM DESIGN

SPRINKLER MANUFACTURER HEAD SPACING

K Value

Calc PSI @ Ref T

Calc flow @ Ref T

Design Flow Rate

Min Oper PSI of 1st Hd

2nd HD

4th HD

GPM @ PSI at the base or riser

INITIAL TEST READING

Gauge A (Inspector's Test)

Gauge B (Ref Pt T)

Gauge C (Remote Sprinkler)

Gauge D (Riser Gauge)

PSI

PSI

MAIN DRAIN TEST (Initial)

Static Residual PSi

Figure A-4-1.3.1 (c)

503

N F P A 13D - - F93 T C R

SUBSTANTIATION: The installation of dais type of system is expected to be high per formance and are suppress ion in design while having very small, ff any, safety margins. Failure of these systems to mee t the des igned criteria as established by this tandard can be disastrous, result ing in u n d u e risk to the life and safety of those to whom the system is in tended to protect.

It is imperative that we develop the means to test and verify system per formance upon complet ion of its installation an ddur ing its complete service life.

The quantity of water to satisfy the system design is such that it is practical to demons t ra te full water flow d e m a n d t h r o u g h a test mechan i sm utilizing temporary or p e r m a n e n t test equ ipmen t so as to establish p r m a n e n t test data that can be referred to dur ing periodic a n d rout ine servicing and inspections. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee is of the opinion that this level of detail is beyond what should be requi red or even r e c o m m e n d e d in NFPA 13D. N m n e r o u s other me thods exist for de te rmin ing the available supply and pressure for systems. The s tandard currently relies on designers who will conduct the needed flow tests to de te rmine what available flows and pressures exist for a given scenario and proceed accordingly.

Tbe system water flow can also be adequately tested us ing the test and drain connect ion which is required by Paragraph 3-1.2. Fur thermore , NFPA 13D is no t in tended to be a design guide for water supply testing.

(Log # 22) 13D- 19 - (4-2.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new section as follows:

"Sprinklers shall be posit ioned in basements with respect to ceiling construction anticipating future installation of a f inished ceiling." SUBSTANTIATION: A cur ren t conflict between 13D requir ing a basement to be sprinklered with residential sprinklers in accordance with their listin~ and UL requir ing a flat smooth ceiling which most basements don t have. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the proposal as follows: "When a ceiling is no t installed in a basement , sprinklers shall be

permit ted to be posi t ioned anticipating future installation of a f inished ceiling. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee revised the wording to provide some guidance concern ing the posit ion of the deflector unde r the structural member . This will insure that some control over the deflector position is maintained.

(Log # 16) 13D- 20 - (4-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 4-4-2 M i n i m u m Pipe Size to include CPVC and PB Piping.

"Min imum pipe size including copper, listed chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) and polybutylene (PB) piping, shall be 3 / 4 in. (19 mm) ." SUBSTANTIATION: Adopt ion of this proposal will alert the user of the s tandard that 3 / 4 in. special listed non-metall ic piping materials may be used. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee wishes to point out that the present exception will be main ta ined in this paragraph.

(Log # 21 ) 13D- 22 - (44.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- t ion RECOMMENDATION: Revise first sentence to read:

"To size piping for systems connec ted to a city water supply with at least 4-in. mains, the following approximate m e t h o d is acceptable."

Last two sentences remain as is. SUBSTANTIATION: This approximat ion m e t h o d assumes that the static pressure will be similar to the residual pressure because of the low flows involved. This assumpt ion is only good when the flows are coming f rom large pipe. The smaller the supply mains, the worse this assumpt ion gets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the 2nd and 3rd sentences of 44.3. Add a new 4-4.5 to read: 44 .5 Hydraulic calculation procedures in accordance with NFPA

13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, shall be used for grid type systems, looped type systems and systems connec ted to city water mains of less than 4 inches (100 ram) in diameter. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee feels that additional guidance is necessary to provide the user with direction when water main sizes are less than 4 inches in diameter. The s tandard will now require such systems to be hydraulically calculated. Clarification has also been made to require grid and loop systems to be calculated as well.

(Log # 20) 13D- 23 - (Table 44.3(c) and Table 4-4.3(d)): Reject SUBMITTER: L G Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 44.3(c) and 44.3(d) to read as shown on the following page. SUBSTANTIATION: These tables should be revised to conform with the values shown in Table 6-4.3.1 of NFPA 13 and Table A-7- 2(g) of NFPA 15. An elbow is an elbow and a tee is a tee, whether those devices are included in a calculation for an NFPA 13 sprinkler system, a water spray system, a 13D system or a 13R system, so the tables should show comparable values. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee wishes to retain the cur rent tables as shown. The equivalent loss tables in NFPA 13D are based u p o n values d e t e r m i n e d b y Crane Technical Paper 410 while those found in NFPA 13 are derived f rom exper imental data f rom Hazen and Williams. It should also be poin ted out that the NFPA 13D tables contain informat ion on select i tems such as flow th rough a tee which may be ignored by NFPA 13 designs. Such variations are necessary since NFPA 13D designs have very little design safety factor.

(Log # 8) 13D- 24- (Table 4-4.3(e) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add Table 4-4.3(e) for non-metall ic pipe. Table 4-4.3(e) is shown on the following page. SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the s tandards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requi rements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on 13[)-26 (Log#15) .

(Log # 27) 13D- 21 - (4-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:

"When us ing non-metall ic pipe the m i n i m u m pipe size shall be at least 1 /2 in. ID pipe." SUBSTANTIATION: There is no contamina t ion build-up caused by water on polybutylene and CPVC pipe. This is not true for metallic pipe. This change could reduce the cost of non metallic pipe

rinkler systems. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMI'I"rEE STATEMENT: The friction loss result ing from the use of such small d iameter pipe would be in the range of .8 to .9 ps i / ft of pipe at relatively low flows (10 gpm) . The Commit tee does not see a measurable material cost savings between 1 /2 inch and 3 / 4 inch pipe.

(Lo g # 14) 13D- 25 - (Table 4-4.3(f) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add equivalent pipe length chart for special listed sprinkler pipe.

Table 44.3(f) is shown on the following page. SUBSTANTIATION: Special listed non-metallic piping mus t be hydraulically calculated per Chapter 6 of NFPA 13. Adopt ion of this proposal will assist in proper hydraulic calculations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Proposal 13D-26 (Log #15).

504

N F P A 13D ~ F93 T C R

Table 4-4.3(c) Equivalent Length of Pipe in Feet fi~r Steel Fittings and Valves

Fittings and Valves Expressed in Equivalent Feet of Pipe

Elbows Valves

Tee or Cross Globe Fitting/Valve 45 90 Long (Flow Turned "Y"

Diameter (in.) Degrees Degrees Radius 90 ° ) Gate Angle (;lobe Pattern Cock Check

1 1 2 2 5 12 28 15 4 5 1 1 /4 1 3 2 6 15 35 18 5 7 1 1 /2 2 4 2 8 18 43 22 6 9 2 2 5 3 10 1 24 57 28 7 11

For S1Uniu: 15~=0 .3048m.

Use with Hazen and Williams' C = 120 only. For other values of C, the figures in Fable 4-4.3(c) should be multiplied by the factors

indicated below: Value of C 100 120 130 140 150

Multiplying factor 0.713 1.00 1.16 1.33 1.51

(This is based upon the friction loss through the fitting being indcpending o[" the C factor applicable to the piping.)

Table 4-4.3(d) Equivalent Length of Pipe in Feet fi~r Copper Fitlin~ and V;dves

Elbows

Fitting/Valve 45 90

Diameter (in.) Degrees Degrees

Fittings and Valves Expressed in Equivalent Feet of Pipe

Valves

Tee or Cross (;lobe l .ong (Flow Turned "Y"

Radius 90 ° ) (;ate Angle Globe Pattern Cock Check

3/4 1.5 3 1 1,5 3 1 1 /4 1,5 4.5 1 1 / 2 5; 6 2 3 7.5

1.5 4.5 15 32 17 4.5 4.5

3 7.5 18 42 23 6.0 7.5

3 9 23 53 27 7.5 II 3 12 27 65 33 9 14

4.5 15 1.5 36 86 42 11 17

For SI Units: 1 ft = 0.3(148 m.

Use with Hazen and Williams' C = 150 only.

Tubing Size In. 10 12 14

3/4" .1655 .2319 .3084

1" .0475 .0666 .0886

1 1/4" .0180 .0253 .0336

1 1/2" .0080 .0112 .0149

2" .0022 .0030 .0040

Table 4-4.3(e) Pressure Losses (psi/ft) Polybutylene Pipe

Flow Rate - GPM 16 18 20 25 30 35

.3948 .4909 .5966 .9014 1.2630 1.6799

.1134 .1410 .1714 .2590 .3629 .4826

.0430 .0535 .0650 .0982 .1375 .1829

.0191 .0237 .0288 .0436 .0611 .0812

.0051 .0064 .0078 .0118 .0165 .0219

40

2.1506

.6179

.2342

.1040

.0281

45

.7683

.2912

.1293

.0349

50

.9336

.3539

.1571

.0424

505

N F P A 13D I F93 T C R

Table 4-4.3(0 Listed CPVC (C--dS0) Equivalent Pipe Lentgh

Allowance for Friction Loss in Fittings (Equivalent Feet of Pipe)

3 /4" 1" 1 1/4" 1 1/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3"

Tee Branch 3 5 6 8 10 12 15 Tee Run 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Elbow 90 ° 7 7 8 9 11 12 13 Elbow 45 ° 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 Coupling 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

(Log # 15) 13D- 26 - (Table 4-4.3(g) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add pressure loss chart for special listed CPVC pipe. CPVC sprinklerpipe. Table 4-4.3(g) is shown on the following page.

SUBSTANTIATION: Special listed non-metallic piping must be hydraulically calculated per Chapter 6 of NFPA 13. Adoption of this proposal will assist the user in making proper hydraulic calculations. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is a specially listed product of which there are at least four ty~es available for use in NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. The Comrmttee notes that this type of informa- taon is included in the installation and listing instructions. NFPA 13D, Paragraphs 3-3.2 and 3-3.7 already require compliance with such listing information thus the Committee does not believe that any further information is necessary for inclusion in the standard.

(Log # 7) 13D- 27 - (Table 4-4.3(h) (New) and Table 4-4.30) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add equivalent length tables for PB and CPVC as follows:

Table 4-4.3(h) Equivalent Length of Pipe in Feet for Heat Fusion PB Fittings

Elbows Tees Fitting Size 45 90

In. Degree Degree Branch Run

3/4" NA 3 4 1 1 1" NA 3 5 1 1

1 1/4" NA 4 7 1 1 1 1/2" NA 5 8 2 1

2" NA 6 10 2 1

Coupling

Table 4-4.30) Equivalent Length of Pipe in Feet for Heat Fusion CPVC Fitdngs

Elbows Tees Fitting Size 45 90

In. Degree Degree Branch Run

3/4" 1 1 3 1 1 1" 1 7 5 1 1

1 1/4" 2 8 6 1 1 1 1/2" 2 9 8 1 1 2" 2 11 10 2 2

1 1/2" 3 12 12 3 2 3" 4 13 15 2 2

SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 1313-26 (Log #15).

Coupling

(Log # 26) 13I)- 28 - (4-6 Exception No. 3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Rockville,, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 3:

"Sprinklers are not required in basements having obstructed beam ceiling." SUBSTANTIATION: No residential sprinklers are listed for this condition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13D-19 (Log #22).

(Log # 19) 13D- 29 - (5-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM F442, 437, 438, 439 and D/3809 to 5-1.2.2 ASTM Publications.

"ASTM F442-1982 Standard Specification for Chlorinated Poly(vinyl chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR) ASTM D/3309-1989 Standard S~ecification Polybutylene (PB)

Plastic Hot and Cold Water Distribution Systems ASTM F437-1982 Standard Specification for Threaded Chlorinated

Poly(vinyl chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings, Sch. 80 ASTM F438-1982 Standard Specification for Socket-Type Chlori-

nated Poly(vinyl chloride PCVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings Sch. 40 ASTM F439-1982 Standard Specification for Socket-Type Chlori-

nated Poly(vinyl chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fitting, Sch. 80." SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal would make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

Editorial Note: At the time of publication of NFPA 13D, 1994 Edition, the current editions of the referenced standards will be made.

(Log # 9) 13D- 30 - (5-1.2.2): Accept $UBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM D3309 and ASTM F442 to referenced Publications.

"5-1.2.2 ASTM Publications... ASTM D3309 - 1989, Standard Specification for Polybutylene (PB)

Plastic Hot and Cod Water Distribution Systems ASTM F442 - 1989, Standard Specification for Chlorinated

Poly(VinylChloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR)" SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make tile standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # CP2) 13D- 31 - (Table A-1-2(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, RECOMMENDATION: Revise the information in Table A-1-2(b) to reflect the most current data. Figures for the period 1986-1990 are as shown on page 508. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA Fire Analysis Division has supplied updated information on area of origin of fires in 1 and 2 family dwellings. This update will allow NFPA 13D to contain the most current information. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

506

Table 4--4.3(g) Pressure Loss (psi/ft) Listed CPVC Pipe C-150

Pipe Size " ~ ~ o 1 on.j i0 14 18 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

3 /4 .0550 .0770 .1024 .1312 .1631 .1982 .2995 .4196 .5580 .7144

.0182 .0255 .0340 .0435 .0541 .0657 .0993 .1391 .1850 .2368 .2944 .3578

' ,4

1 1/4

1 1/2

2 1/2

.0059 .0082 .0109 .0140

.0030 .0043 .0057 .0072

.0010 .0014 .0019 .0024

.0004 .0006 .0008 .0010

.o174 .o211 .o319 .0447 .0595 .o761 .0947 .115o

.0090 .OllO .o166 .0232 .0308 .0395 .o491 .0597

.0030 .0037 .0056 .0078 .OLO4 .o133 .o165 .O2Ol

.oo12 .oo15 .0022 .oo31 .oo41 .0053 .0065 .0080

Z

I

,-1

N F P A 1 3 D / 1 3 R - - F93 T C R

Fires and Associated Deaths and Injuries in Dwellings, Duplexes and Manufactured Homes, by Area of Origin - - Annual Average of 1986-90 Structure Fires Reported to US . Fire Departments

Civilian Civilian Area of Origin Deaths Pct Fires Pct Injuries

Living room, family room or den 1,330 37.1% 42,600 10.5% 2,546 Bedroom 919 25.6% 50,200 12.4% 3,250 Kitchen 541 15.1% 92,670 22.9% 3,987 Dining room 83 2.3% 3,780 0.9% 189 Heating equ ipmen t room or area 62 1.7% 15,130 3.7% 374 Hallway or corridor 48 1.3% 3,690 0.9% 155 Laundry room or area 47 1.3% 15,370 3.8% 363 Garage or carport* 45 1.2% 14,580 3.6% 524 Bathroom 44 1.2% 8,040 2.0% 271 Unclassified structural area 43 1.2% 4,530 1.1% 104 Crawl space or substructure space 41 1.2% 11,200 2.8% 317 Multiple areas 41 1.1% 3,350 0.8% 96 Ceil ing/f loor assembly or concealed

space 32 0.9% 3,470 0.9% 64 Wall assembly or concealed space 27 0.8% 7,090 1.8% 93 Closet 23 0.6% 5,020 1.2% 186 Exterior balcony or open porch 22 0.6% 5,570 1.4% 121 Exterior wall surface 22 0.6% 14,620 3.6% 118 1 lnclassified area 21 0.6% 2,590 0.6% 87 Attic or ce i l ing / roof assembly or

concealed space 21 0.6% 10,740 2.7% 98 Tool room or o ther supply storage room

or area 20 0.5% 4,160 1.0% 133 Lobby or en t rance way 17 0.5% 1,410 0.3% 44 Interior stairway 17 0.5% 1,100 0.3%, 41 ( ' h imnev 17 0.5% 60,530 14.9% 75 Unclassified funct ion area 17 0.5 % 1,090 0.3 % 43 Unclassified storage area 14 0.4% 2,460 0.6% 80 Area not applicable 11 0.3% 1,180 0.3% 22 Exterior stairway 8 0.2% 1,090 0.3% 25 Lawn or field 7 0.2% 1,670 0.4% 24

Trash room or area 5 0.1% 1,140 0.3% 14 Product storage area 5 0.1% 780 0.2% 23 Unclassified means of egress 5 0.1% 610 0.2% 15 Unclassified service or e q u i p m e n t

area 4 0.1% 380 0.1% 12 Library 3 0.1% 180 0.0% 11 Other known area 26 0.7% 12,880 3.2% 195

Total 3,589 100.0% 404,900 100.0% 13,69l

*Does not include dwelling garages coded as a separate property, which averaged 19 deaths, 259 injuries, and 21,170 fires per year.

NOTE: Fires are est imated to the nearest ten, civilian deaths and injuries to the nearest one.

SOURCE: 1986-1990 NFIRS and NFPA Survey.

Pet

18.6~ 23.7% 29.1%

1.4% 2.7%, 1.1% 2.7%, 3.8% 2.0% 0.8% 2.3% 0 .7 ~

0.5% 0.7% 1.4% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

o.7%

1.o% 0.3% o.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

o.1% 0.2%, 0.1%,

0.1%, 0.0%, 1.4%

100.0%

PART 1V

(Log # 13) 13R- 1 - (1-5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 1-5.1 to include special listed non-metallic sprinkler pipe.

Non-Metallic Piping. spec. for special listed chlorinated Polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe

ASTM F442 spec. for speciM listed polybutylene (PB) pipe ASTM D/3309 Add to Appendix A-I.5.1. Not all pipe or tube made to ASTM F

442 and D/3309 as described in 3-1.2.2 is listed for fire sprinkler service. Listed pipe is identified by the logo of the listing agency. SUBSTANTIATION: Listing agencies require that special listed pipe be labeled with the specification to which the pipe is produced. Similar (unlisted) pipe p roduced to less s t r ingent requ i rements can not be labeled with the same specification as listed pipe. Adopt ion of this proposal will flzrther enable the authori ty having jurisdict ion to recognize and verify the use of only listed piping materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept i tem 1 only and modify as follows: Add a "t" symbol beside these s tandards in the table and add: "t"

in addit ion to satisfying these m i n i m u m standards, specially listed pipe can be used when it complies with the provisions of paragrapb 1-5.2.

Add a new appendix i tem as follows: A-1-5.2 These specially listed pipes are identified by the presence

of the logo f rom the listing agency. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The footnote to the table will remind the user that specialty pipe products mus t conform to the appropriate s tandard in the table and be specifically listed for use in sprinkler system.

(Log # 3) 13R-2 - (1-5.1 and 1-5.2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTERa W. Clark Gey, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows:

1-5.1 Pipe or tube used for u n d e r g r o u n d in sprinkler systems shall be of materials in Table 1-5.1.

1-5.2.1 Other types of pipe or tube may be used for unde rg round , but only those listed for this service. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA 13R standard does not address u n d e r g r o u n d material. At the present t ime all u n d e r g r o u n d is to be in accordance with NFPA 24. NFPA 24 does not recognize any pipe material, s tandard or listing for pipe diameters less than 4 in. in size. Therefore, we are r equ i r ed to install 4 in. u n d e r g r o u n d feeding 1 1 /2 in. and 2 in. risers on 13R sprinkler systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

508

N F P A 13R ~ F93 T C R

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The installation criteria for the underground pipe materials are outside the scope of this standard. NFPA 13R anticipates the water supply for the system to be in compliance with the governing plumbing code for the jurisdiction. Materials considered acceptable for use in the underground for multi-family dwellings are acceptable to supply NFPA 13R type sprinkler systems. This would include pipe types and diameters.

(Log # 10) 13R-3- (Table i-5.1): Reject SUBMITI'ER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Assn. Inc. RECOMMENDATION',: Change "Brazing Filler Metal (Classification BGuP-3 or BCuP-4) . . . AWS AS" to read as follows:

"Brazin~ Filler Metal (BCuP. conner-phosphorus or conner- nhosohorus-silver brazin~ filler naetal)~ . . A'WS A5.8." "" SUB~ITANTIATION: The existing restriction to BCuP-3 or BCuP-4 brazing filler metals ignores other available BCuP brazing filler metals commonly used that exhibit the same jo in t strength

~ lhoperties and can be used without flux on copper to copper joints. ey also have melting temperature above 1000°F.

NOTE: "Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee requires that the submitter provide to the Committee additional support ing docu- mentat ion showing the comparative characteristics of the proposed filler metals to the materials currently approved for sprinkler system installations.

(Log# 11) 13R- 4 - (Table 1-5.1): Reject SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Assn Inc. RECOMMENDATION:: Change "Solder metal, 95-5. . ." to read as follows:

"Solder metal (alloy ~q'ades containing less than 0.2 percent lead as identified in ASTM B32. Table 5. Section 1 and have a solidus temnerature that exceeds 400°F.) SUBSTANTIATION: The current table does not take into consideration the existing lead free solders listed in ASTM B32. These alloy grades have similar melting characteristics to the listed 95-5, tin- antimony. These solders all contain high percentages of tin along with other alloying elements that will overcome some of the perceived difficulties associated with 95-5, tin-antimony.

NOTE: "Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. ' COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13R-6 (Log #9). The Committee wishes to point out that this material is considered as being acceptable for use in NFPA 13D systems but not in those systems designed under NFPA 13R or NFPA 13. Since its development in 1975, NFPA 13D has in tended to permit the use of materials that would normally be acceptable for use in domestic plumbing systems.

(Log # 6) 13R- 5 - (Table 1-5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 1-5.1 to include listed non- metallic pipe and tube.

NON-METALLIC PIP [NG Spec. for Polybutylene (PB) Systems. . . ASTM D3309 Spec. for Chlorinated PolyVinyl Chloride) (CPVC) P ipe . . . ASTM

F442. SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13R-1 (Log#13).

(Log # 9) 13R-6- (Table 1-5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Add the following additions to the Table:

"Fluxes for soldering ant~lications of Copper and Copper Alloy T u b e . . . ASTM B813." SUBSTANTIATION: This specification was developed to give guidance to flux manufacturers producing solder fluxes f~fr applications, such as fire sprinkler systems, where aggressiveness, corrosivity, flushability andso lde r spread are of imp-or" tance. NOTE: "Supporting material is available for review at NFPA

Headquarters. COMI~TTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 15) 13R- 7 - (1-5.5 and A-1-5.5 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add "CPVC fittings" to Table 1-5.5.

Chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) spec. for sch. 80 CPVC threaded fittings, ASTM F437 spec. for sch. 40 CPVC socket-type fittings ASTM F438 spec. for sch. 80 CPVC socket-type fittings ASTM F439 Add new Appendix Section A-1-5.5 to read as follows: "Not all fittings made to ASTM F437, 438, and 439 are listed for fire

sprinkler service. Listed fittings are identified by the logo of the listing agency." SUBSTANTIATION: Listing agencies require that special listed fittings be labeled with the specification to which the fitting are produced. Similar (unlisted) fittings produced to less stringent requirements can no t be labeled with the same specification as listed fittings. Adoption of this proposal will further enable the authority having jurisdiction to recognize and verify the use of only listed fitting materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Acce ,~t item 1 only and modify as follows: Add ' t" symbol beside these standards in the table and add: "j'" in

addition to satisfying these minimum standards, specially listed pipe fittings can be used when they complywith the provisions of paragraph 1-5.5. Add a new appendix item as follows: A-1-5.5 These specially listed fittings are identified by the presence

of the logo from the listing agency. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The footnote to the table will remind the user that specialpipe fitting products must conform to the appropriate s tandard in the table and be specifically listed for use in sprinkler system.

(Log # 7) 13R- 8 - (Table 1-5.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanquard Plastics Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add "PB and CPVG fittings" to Table 1-5.5.

Polybutylene Spec. for Polybutylene (PB) Systems. . . ASTM D3309 Chlorinated Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Spec. for (CPVC) Pipe Fittings, Sch. 80 . . . ASTM F439.

SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which special listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the rec[uirements of NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMI'I'rEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Action on Proposal 13R-7 (Log #15).

(Log # 12) 13R- 9 - (1-5.6): Reject SUBMITTER: A G Kireta, Copper Development Assn Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception as follows:

"Exception: Solder joints (95-5 solder me ta l ) . . . " Delete reference to 95-5 solder metal.

SUBSTANTIATION: This reference does not take into account existing lead free solders, with similar melting and joining characteristics, as listed in ASTM B32, Table 5, Section 1.

NOTE: "Supl~orting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee requests that the submitter provide to the Committee additional support documenta- tion showing the comparative characteristics of the proposed filler metals to the materials currently approved for sprinkler system installation.

509

NFPA 13R -- F93 TCR

(Log # 5) 13R- 10 - (2-1.3.3 and A-2-1.3.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Fantauzzi, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new 2-1.3.3 to read as follows:

2-1.3.3 The required water demand de termined by section 2-5 shall be field tested by an a~.propriate test method acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The installing contractor shall identify the hydraulically design sprinkler system with a permanently marked, weatherproof, metal or rigid plastic sign secured with corrosion resistant wire, chain or other approved means. Such signs shall be placed at the incoming water supply. The sign shall include the following information:

(a) System design criteria (b) All pert inent sprinkler head information (c) Required and tested flows; plus residual pressure at all test

locations. (d) Additional water demand. Add new A-2-1.3.3 to read as follows: "Testing of the system performance characteristic by the physical

flowing of water will verify that the incoming water service is adequate, that the interior piping design was not violated and d~at the system will perform adequately. The test mechanism is to be such that reference test ]pressure can be established so that future main drain or inspector s test flow can be compared to initial, es~blished readings (See Figures A-2-1.3.3(a), A-2-1.3.3(b), and A-2-1.3.3(c)).

"PUT BUCKET TEST

THE WATER IN THE BUCKET" For 13R Systems

Option A

5. 2-4 graduated one gallon opaque containers. 6. Quality gauge.

(See [Yetm7 A)

1. Atlach test orifices to remote operating sprinkler outlets. 2. A t e , pressure gauges at 3rd and/or Btti remote sprinkler outlet. Use yourjuagment while c6nsidering the system design to decide the most effective pressure reading position. 3. Flush lines oftrappedmr. 4. Empty water receiving containers. 5. Usin~ a stop watch, flow the most remote sprinkler for 30 seconds into the receiving container. 6. Measure Uae volume of water in the receiving container, convert to gallon s or liter multiple by 2 to obtain gallons per minute (GPM) or liters ~er minute (L/rain) record GPM obtained.

• Compare the GPM and pressures obtained to the calculated flow and pressure specified in he mahufactures installation designins[ ctiteri~. 8. Repeat operation 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for total number ofsp~aklers in tire complete remote operating are~. 9. Record all pertinent information on the Inspector's Test and Hydraulic Perfox~nance Placard.

F',~a~re A-2-1.3.3(a

~ ~ ' ~ z - ~p~"

~ .(IA'/¢£ 0~" ,~,'P~r .s,Pa /,'v~. 4r" ~ ~S~N~ FO~

J

OP.,~ u E co/v 7"~ytvc~

D E ~:~/., " A "

l~,~mu..~,o G,amuqe Syst~ $£ds

Test ~ p o ~l/o J r / i

See JRlqil.-'-t A - 1 - 3 . 2 (at) (b) (¢ )

1. Quality stop-w'atch. 2. 2-4 orifice(s) of designed sprinkler. 3. Nipples and 1/'4 turn valves. (full port) 4. Plastic full flow splash pipes.

1. Test orifice(s) with Kvalue equal to one and/or the sum to all opei~ting ~ tinkler~

Test gauges at location A, B, C, and D. 3. Pitot tub~ and gauge to measure flow from test orifice.

510

NFPA 13R -- F93 TCR

PROCEDURE (Initial ~fest) 1.* Hydraulic design to include a theoretical reference poin t T so as to compare the remote operat ing area to the physical ret 'erence point 1. 2. Hydraulic design of ]inspector's test to minimize fi'iction loss while main ta in ing m a x i m u m velocity at 16 f t /sec. 3. Place initial test orifice in the end of the Inspector 's test station, which is equal to a single operat ing sprinkler. 4. Open Inspector 's v'Xlve gradually until full flow of one sprinkler is achieved (measured by Pi t r t tube gauge) . Record p res su r~gauge reading at test location A, B, C, and D. - - - 5. Replace the test orifice in the end of the Inspector 's Test Station with orifice(s) with a total K valve equal to the ,summation of all o p eratinr~g_ s p rinklers. K valves . . 6. O p e n Inspector s valve gradually unu l full flow of all operat ing sprinklers is achieved (measured by Pitot tube gauge) . Record pressure gauge readings at test locations A, B, C, arid D. 7. Record air iest informat ion on Hydraulic Placard, which shall be pe rmanent ly placed on the incoming water supply riser. (See figure A-2-1.3.3(c). 8. Close Inspector 's Test Valve and re turn the system to service. 9. Conduc t a main drain test at the riser. Record pressure reading on Test and Hydraulic Placard for future reference. SERVICE TEST 1. Place proper orifice in the end of the Inspector 's Test. 2. Open test valve until pressure as r e c o r d e d f r o m initial test at test gauge A is achieved. T h e n mainta in this flow. Record pressure readings at locations B and D. 3. Close the Inspector 's Test Valve and re turn the system to service. 4. Verify the pressure gauge readings at locations B and D wida the original recorded data. 5. Per form a main drain test and compare the reading with the initial main drain test reading.

FULL FLOW DRAIN TEST

OPTION (b)

(Log # 4) 13R- 11 - (2-2.1.4 and A-2.2.1.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James M. Fantauzzi, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 2-2.1.4 to read as follows:

2-2.1.4 Water flow test connect ion shall be provided at locations that will permit flow testing of water supplies and connections. They shall be installed so that the valve may be opened fully and for a sufficient t ime period to assure a proper test without causing water damage. The test connect ion shall be des igned and sized to verify sufficiency of the water supply and alarm mechanisms.

Add a new A-2-2.1.4 to read as follows: "The test connect ion should be in the upper story and should

preferably be piped f rom the end of the most remot branch line. The discharge shou ld be at a point where it can be readily observed. In locations where it is not practical to terminate the test connect ion outside the building, the test connect ion may terminate into a drain capable of accept ing full flow under system pressure. In dais event, the test connect ion should be made using an approved sight test connect ion conta in ing a smoo th bore corrosion-resistant orifice giving a flow equivalent to one sprinkler s imulat ing the least flow f rom an individual sprinkler in the system. The test valve should be located at an accessible point and preferably not over 7 ft (2.1 m) above the floor. The control valve on the test connect ion should be located at a point no t exposed to freezing.

A main drain valve at the incoming water supply shall be installed in conjunct ion with the above described test connect ion in order to demons t ra te full system water d e m a n d at the main drain."

Teaporary

To-,t: Gauqo S Permanonl:

FUll port: b a l l va lve or e q u a l . | ~K 3 /

Size t o t P u l l Plo~I ~ @ i J , 1 • ~ i t a m

TOOt G&uqe " * ' * ~ c ProsmLre Gauqo ,~t SPRIt i SPRK2

~- Remote Supply Side

Test, O r i £ t c e operat lnq s p r i n k l e r K Valve - Sum ot PLowing Spr ink ler K

V a l v a r e p r e s e n t e d ~ y t o s t b e i n q

o o n d u c t ~ l .

SUBSTANTIATION: The installation of this type of system is expected to be high per fo rmance and are suppress ion in design while having very small, if any, safety margins. Failure of these systems to mee t the des ignedcr i te r ia as es-tablished by this s tandard can be disastrous, resuhang in u n d u e risk to the life and safety of those to whom the system`sis in tended to protect.

It is imperative that we develop the means to test and verify system per formance u.p.on complet ion of its installation and dur in g its complete serwce hfe.

The quanti ty of water to satisfy the system design is such that it is practical to demons t ra te full water flow d e m a n d t h r o u g h a test mechan i sm utilizing temporary or p e r m a n e n t test equ i pmen t so as to establish p e r m a n e n t test data that can be re fe r red to du r ing periodic a n d r o u t i n e servicing and inspections. COMMITTEE ACTION: REject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: The Commit tee is of the opinion that this level of detail is beyond what should be requi red or even r e c o m m e n d e d in NFPA 13R. N u m e r o u s other me thods exist for de te rmin ing the available supply and pressure for systems. The s tandard currently relies on designers who will conduc t the needed flow tests to de te rmine what available flows and pressures exist for a given scenario a n d p r o c e e d accordingly.

The system water flow can also be adequately tested us ing the test and drain connect ion which is required-by paragraph 2~tA.2.

U " " - - - " " F r thermore , NFPA 13R ts not in tended t o b e a design grade for water supply testing.

px, lmstt.re Gattqe

System Side

~ n Dra in

"~ecX ValYO

. ~ C o n t ~ o l Valve

See r iqure A - 2 - ) . 2 (s) (b) (c )

Preferably From Of Memote Branch i.lre

TelR Valve In Readily A r..cslsJble "~ Smooth Bore Lo~tmn ~ Corr0~on Remszant

Outlet G~kng Flow EQuwehmt To One

,48 o Ell E L E V A T I O N

For SI Units: 1 ft = 0.3048 m. NOTE: Not less than 4 f t (1.2 m) of exposed test pipe in warm room beyond valve w h e n p i p e extends th rough wall to outside.

Figure A-2-2.1.4 System test connection on wet pipe system.

511

N F P A 1 3 R I F 9 3 T C R

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The lack of an inspector 's test station has created an undue risk of alarm and system failure that does not warrant its omission because of additional installation cost.

The elimination of those functional items, such as the inspector 's test and a main drain of sufficient size to verify water suppl~¢, have d iminished the ability of the owner, the authori ty having jurisdiction, and main tenance and inspection pe r sonne l t o verify that these systems ro er lyfunct ion • . P P . . . . . .

This s i tuauon will cont inue to worsen with u m e as e q m p m e n t begins to fail. There is a lack of ma in tenance devices to ~erify the

~oe rational adequacy. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the proposal as follows: 2-2.1.4 Water flow test connect ions shall be provided at locations

that will permit flow testing of water supplies, connect ions and alarm mechanisms.

A-2-2.1.4 These connect ions should be installed so that the valve may be opened fully and for a sufficient t ime period to assure a proper test without causing water damage. The test connect ion should be des igned and sized to verify sufficiency of the water supply and alarm mechanisms.

Do not include any of the addit ional information shown in the oposal.

MMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee does no t believe that the additional detail is necessary in this s tandard. The other provisions proposed come directly f rom NFPA 13 which the des igner and installer mus t refer to o ther types of guidance. Requir ing a means to test any installed alarms s'bould satisfy the in tent of the submitter.

( L o g # 1) 13R- 12 - (2-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Gary R Long, East Whi te land Township RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to read as follows:

Exception: Omission of the fire depa r t men t connect ion shall be permit ted when approved by the authori ty having jurisdiction. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : 1. To be consistent with NFPA 13 subsection 4-6.2.1.

2. We recently had construct ion of a protec ted wood f rame motel complex where each suite exited directly outside (no c o m m o n halls). Therefore, each c o m p a r t m e n t had only four to five sprinklers heads. Public water available had a static pressure of 128 psi and residual of 100 psi with 1,278 gpm flowing. Good access to the control valves is provided. I believe, in this instance, a f i re depart- men t connect ion is overkill• The authori ty havingjurisdict iof i should have flexibility in dais area. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reiect, COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee accepted a Proposal 13R- ( C P - ) which will specify two condit ions in wfiich the fire depa r tmen t connect ion w o u l d b e of little or no benefit. This is a more practical approach to the issue rather than permit t ing arbitrary e lements to be used when deciding if the connect ion is of value.

(Log # CP6) 13R- 13 - (2-4.2 Exception No. 1 and Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers, RECOMMENDATION: Delete the cur rent exceptions in 2-4.2 in their entirety.

Add two new exceptions to paragraph 2-4.2 to read as follows: Exception No. 1: Buildings located in remote areas which are

inaccessible for fire deparf fnent support . Exception No. 2: Single story bui |dings no t exceeding 2000 ft2 in

a r e a .

SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee added two specific condit ions in which tlae fire depa r t men t connect ion would be ofli t t ie or no benefit. These exceptions will result in a more uni form use /non -use of fire depa r tmen t connect ions which should be a primary goal of a standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

( L o g # 18) 13R- 14 - (2-4.5.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER:]ames Retzloff, The VikingCorp. RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 2-4.5.5 and the exception. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : Paragrapfi2-4.5.5 contains unsubs tan t ia r :d restrictions not found in paren t d o c u m e n t NFPA s tandard 13D. Fire tests conducted at Underwri ters ' Laboratories us ing a mix of e lements (Solder Links and Glass Bulbs) and Tempera tu re ratings (155°F and 165°F) would tend to indicate restrictions are not necessary.

FMRC repor t OTIN7. RA also illustrates that Residential Sprinklers with widely different RTI'S, "C" fractures and Tempera tu re ratings will r espond very closely in a fire situation because these physical- characteristics mus t balance in order to pass fire and sensitivity test requirements . C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: " ... all sprinklers shall have the same tempera ture classification."

Change the term "rating" to "classification" in the exception for this paragraph for consistency. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee is of the opinion that all sprinklers in the compa r tmen t mus t still posses the same tempera ture classification. This is pointed out in the substantiation for this proposal.

(Lo g # 17) 13R- 15 - (24.5.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

"Standard or Quick Response sprinklers shall be used in areas outside the dwelling unit."

Rename "Exception No. 1" as "Exception." Delete Exception No. 2.

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : To allow the use of QR sprinklers similar to NFPA 13 which should not be less s t r ingent than 13R. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Accept in Principle.

Revise the paragraph as follows: 2-4.5.6 Standard or quick response spray sprinklers shall be used in

areas outside the dwelIing unit. Delete Exception No. 2 in its entirety.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee added the te rm "spray" to dist inguish these sprinklers f rom other types which may be found.

(Log # CP1) 13R- 16-(2-5.1.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers, RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

... m a x i m u m of four sprinklers unde r a flat, smooth, horizontal ceiling." Add a new A-2-5.1.2.1 to read: "Residential sprinklers are currently listed for use un d e r flat,

smooth , horizontal ceilings only. Sloped, beamed and pi tched ceilings may require specl~al design approaches such as larger flows or design for five or more sprinklers to operate in the corn-part- ment ." SUBSTANTIATION: This revision will be a r eminder to the user that listed residential sprinklers do have some limitations with res ect to the es ofcei l in cons t ruc t ion/conf i rations that they ~ P b e used untYdPer, g gu • COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # CP2) 13R- 17- (2-5.1.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers, R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add the following to Paragraph 2-5.1.2.1"

"For compar tments containing two or more sprinklers, calculations shall be provided to verify the single operating-sprinkler criteria and the multiple (2,3 or 4) operat ing sprin]kler criteria." S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : The in tent of this paragraph has been to prove that the. sing.le o)peratin.gp . s rinkler, d e m a n d as. well as the multiple operat ing sprinkler design criteria can be satisfied. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Log # 16) 13R- 18- (3-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: William R" Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Add ASTM F443, 437, 438, 439, and D/3309 to 3-1.2.2 ASTM Publications.

ASTM F442-1982 Standard Specification for Chlorinated Poly (vinyl chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR).

ASTM D/3309-1989 Standard Specification for Polybutylene (PB) Plastic Hot and Cold Water Distribution systems.

ASTM F437-1982 Standard Specification for Threaded Chlorinated Poly (vinyl chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR).

ASTM F438-1982 Standard Specification for Socket-Type Chlori- nated Poly (Vinyl Chloride CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings sch. 40.

ASTM F439-1982 Standard Specification for Socket-Type Chlori- na ted Poly (Vinyl Chloride CP'VC) plastic Pipe Fittings, sch. 80. SUKSTANTIATION: Adopt ion of (his propbsal will ~nake the s tandards to which special l is ted non-metallic pipe and fittings are made part of the requ i rements of NFPA 13. C O M I ~ T r E E ACTIONz Accept.

Editorial Note: At the t ime ot 'publicat ion of NFPA 13R, 1994, the cur rent editions of these standar-ds will be referenced.

(t.og # 8) 13R- 19 - (3-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Daryl Groom, Vanguard Plastics, Inc.

I RECOMMENDATION: Add "ASTM D3309" and "ASTM F442" to Referenced Publications.

3-1.2.2 ASTM Publ ica t ions . . . ASTM D3309 - 1989, Standard Specification for Polybutvlene (PB)

Plastic Hot and Cold Water Distribution systems 512

N F P A 1 3 R ~ F 9 3 T C R

ASTM F442 - 1989, Standard Specification for Chlorinated Poly (VinylChloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe (SDR-PR). SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of this proposal will make the standards to which speci~d listed non-metallic pipe and fittings are m a d e p a r t of the requirements of NFPA 13. COM/~IITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # CP5) 13R- 20 - (Table A-l-2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, RECOMMENDATION: Revise the information in Table A-I-2 to reflect the most current data. Figures for the period 1986-1990 are shown below. SUBSTANTIATION: The information has been updated to reflect the current data and is shown in a slightly expanded format. COMMITTEE ACTION'.: Accept.

(Log # 14) 13R- 21 - (A-1-6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: William R Rebholz, BF Goodrich RECOMMENDATION: Take second sentence of A-I-6.2 and move to end of section.

Move all other sentences up as follows: "Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe and fittings should be protected from

freezing with glycerine only. The use ofdiethylene, ethylene or propylene glycols are specifically prohibited. Laboratory testing shows that glycol based antifreeze solutions present a chemical environment detrimental to CPVC. Listed polybutylene sprinkler pipe and fittings can be protected with glycerine, diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol-or propylene glycol."

SUBSTANTIATION: Section A-1-6.2 is confusing as written. The prohibition against using glycol based anti-freeze solution only applies to listed CPVC sprinkler pipe. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log # 2) 13R- 22 - (A-2-7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: lames A~Parsons, VA Medical Center, NY RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph A-2-7(c) and the applicable portion of Table A-2-7, so that r ecommended / r equ i r ed t e s t i ng frequencies are consistent. SUBSTANTIATION: A person trying to determine how often sprinkler waterflow devices should be tested would be confused by this paragraph. Paragraph A-2-7 is contradictory as to the recommended f requency for testing of watertlow devices. The narrative portion of this paragraph (paragraph c) recommends month ly testing, the table requires annual, and the reference in the Table (NFPA 13A, 4-5.3) recommends quarterly testing. The paragraph should be revised to be consistent.

NOTE: "Sup~,orting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete Table A-2-7 in its entirety. Add the following text to Paragraph 2-7:

"Sprinkler systems, shall be ,,inspected' tested and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25 ....

Revise Figure 2-1.2.1 to require a copy of NFPA 25 in lieu of NFPA 13A. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 25 has, within its scope, the a p propriate, inspection. , test and. maintenance, criteria for. pe r iod ic evaluation of spnnkler systems installed m accordance with NFPA 13R. The Committee believes that it may be misleading to include select items in a Table in NFPA 13R which concern the topic of ongoing maintenance.

Fires and Associated Deaths and Injuries in Apartments, by Area of Origin - Annual Average of 1986-90 Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

Civilian Civilian Area of Origin Deaths Pct Fires Pet Injuries

Bedroom 309 33.9% 17,960 15.8% 1. 714 Living room, family room or den 308 33.8% 10,500 9.3% 1,272

Kitchen 114 12.5 % 46,900 41.4% 1,973 Interior stairway 29 3.2% 1,040 0.9% 91 Hallway or corridor 23 2.6% 3,130 2.8% 165 Exterior balcony or open porch 17 1.8% 1,880 1.7% 69 Dining room 10 1.1 % 800 0.7% 69 Closet 9 1.0% 2,120 1.9% 116 Multiple areas 9 1.0% 780 0.7% 38 Tool room or other supply

storage room or area 8 0.9% 1,250 1.1 % 53 Unclassified area 8 0.9% 480 0.4% 29 Exterior stairway 8 0.8% 870 0.8% 22 Bathroom 7 0.7% 2,510 2.2% 101 Heating equipment room

or area 6 0.6% 2,510 2.2% 75 Exterior wall surface 5 0.5% 2,150 1.9% 26 Laundry room or area 4 0.4% 3,380 3.0% 89 Crawl space or subs t ruc ture

space 4 0.4% 1,490 1.3% 62 Wall assembly or concealed

space 3 0.4% 1,020 0.9% 21 Attic or cei l ing/roof assembly

or concealed-space 3 0.3% 1,100 1.0% 18 Ceiling/floor assembly or

concealed space 3 0.3% 560 0.5% 18 Garage or carport* 3 0.3% 1,290 1.1% 36 Lobby or entrance way 3 0.3% 670 0.6% 31 Unclassified s tructuralarea 3 0.3% 520 0.5 % 32 Unclassified storage area 3 0.3% 430 0.4% 22 Unclassified function area 3 0.3% 250 0.2% 13 Laboratory 2 0.3 % 80 0.1% 3 Elevator or dumb-waiter 1 0.2% 220 0.2% 4 Sales or showroom area 1 0.2% 110 0.1% 3 Exterior roof surface 1 0.1% 1,040 0.9% 15 Unclassified means of egress 1 0.1% 180 0.2% 6 Office 1 0.1% 120 0.1% 4 Chimney 1 0.1% 980 0.9% 2 Personalservice area 1 0.1% 40 0.0% 4 Library 1 0.1% 10 0.0% 0 Other known area 2 0.2% 5,000 4.4% 115

Total 912 100.0% 113,390 100.0% 6,313

NOTE: Fires are estirr~ted to the nearest ten, civilian deaths and injuries to the nearest one. SOURCE: 1986-1990 NFIRS and NFPA Survey

513

Pct

27.2

20.2% 31.2%

1.4% 2.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% o.6%

0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 1.6%

1.2% O.4% 1.4%

1.o%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% O.0% o.1% 0.0% 1.8%

100,0%

report of the committee on gerald r. schultz, schirmer … · 2016-03-28 · report of the...

Documents