Chair - NFPA...ISO 6182-1 limits C to 1.0. 2. Under proposal 13-129 (Log #CP7) you allow area reductions for the use of QR sprinklers. You don't want sprinklers operating slower tlian

Report of the Committee on

Automatic Sprinklers

Chester W. Schirmer, Chair Schirmer Engr, Corp., NC

Stephen R. Hoover, Secreta~ Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., IL

(Nonvoting)

Charles B. Barnett, Badger Fire Protection Inc., OH Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn.

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

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

Rep. American Hotel & Motel Assn. Robert E. Duke, Fire Control Inc., IL Russell P. Fleming, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY

Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. Christopher M. Goddard, Zeneca Inc., DE

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Richard E. Hughey, ISO Commercial Risk Services, NJ Rolf H. Jensen, RolfJensen & Assoc., Inc., IL Andrew Kim, Nat'l Researcli Council of Canada, Ontario, Canada Kenneth W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers, CT

Rep. Industrial Risk Insurers B.J. Lukes, Grinnell Fire Protection System Co. Lad, Canada Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn.

Darnel iadrzykowski, U.S. Nat'l InsL of S~tndards & Tedmology, MD Wayne M. Martin, Los Angeles City Fire Dept., CA M. L. "Larry" Maraskin, U.S. Fire Administration, MD

(Vote Lad to 13D, 13R) Francis.]. Mikloucich, Eastm,'m Kodak, Co., NY Gerald R. Myers, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., PA

Rep. The AlliarJce of Americ,an Insurers Joseph G. Novak, S. Pasadena Fire Dept., FL

Rep. Fire Marshals Assn. of North America John G. O'Neill, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc., VA Thomas L. Siegfried, Altmnonte Springs Fire Dept., FL

Rep, Int'l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Nell P. Stong, Joseph Stong Inc., PA

Rep. Aanerican Fire Sprinkler Assn., Inc Willie IL Templin, American Automatic Sprinkler, Inc., TX

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

Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. JohnJ. Walsh, United Assn. ofJorneymen & Apprentices of file Plumbing & Pipe Fitthag Ind of the U.S. & Canada, MD William E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Researcll Corp., MA Reginald John Wright, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, ON,

Alternates

James IL Bell, Marriott Corp., DC (/kit. to T. G. Daly)

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

James A. Bychowski, Schinner Engr Corp., IL (Alt. to C. W. Schirmer)

Don IL Dean, Dow Chemical Co., TX (/kit. to C. M. Goddard)

David D. Evans, Center for Fire Research, MD (Alt. to I-). Madrzykowskl)

John Gait, C'madian Automatic Sprinkler Assn., ON, Canada (Alt. to B.J. Luke's)

Ralph Gerdes, Ralph Cerdes Consultants, IN (Alt. to A. M. Comly, Jr.)

James Golinveaux, Central Sprinkler C'orp., PA (Alt. to C. Barnett)

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

George E. Laveriek, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL (Air. to K. M. Bell)

Edward IL IJsin~ 1.1nderwrite~ Laboratories of Canada, ON, Canada (Alt. to R.J. Wright)

Maurice Marvi, ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc., NJ (Alt. to R. E. Hughey)

PeterJ. McWilliams, -Eastman Kodak Co., NY (Alt. to F.J. Mikloucich) RobertJ. Pearce, Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers, CA

(Alt. to K. W. Linder)

j. Kenneth Richm'dson, Nat'l Research Council of (~anada, ON, Canada (Alt. to A. Kim)

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

Gerald R. Schultz, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc., IL (Alt. toJ. G. O'Neill)

Harry Shaw, Harry Shaw & Assoc., Inc., MI3 (Alt. to T. L. Siegfried)

Jack Thacker, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of S. CA, (2A (Alt. to W. L. Testa)

Lynn K. Underwood, Wausau HPR Engr, WI (Air. to G. IL Myers)

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

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

Nonvoting

William E. KoffeI,Jr., Koffel Assoc., Inc., MD Rep. S',ffety to Life Committee

Barry M. Lee, Wormald Australia Pty Limited John Nigel Stephens, Loss Prevention Council, England

Staff Liaisons: Robert E. Solomon/Milosh T. Puchovsky

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Sinc~e that time. changes in the membership rna 3 have occurred.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibil- ity for documents on the design and inst~dlation of automatic and of open sprinkler systems, including the character ,and adequacy of water supplies, ,and die selection of sprinklers, piping, valves, and all materiMs and accessories; this committee does not cover die installation of fire pumps, nor die constrnction and insmJlation of gravity and pressure t~mks and towers, nor the installation, maintenance, and use of central station, proprietary, auxiliary, and local signaling systems for watchmen, fire alarm, and supervisory service, nor die care of valves controlling water supplies, nor the design of fire department hose connections, nor the installation of private fire service m:tins and their appurtenances.

Tiffs portion of die Technical Committee Report of die Committee on Automatic Sprinklers is presented for adoption in 3 parts.

Part I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, and documents its action on die comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 13-1994, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems as published in the Report on Proposals for die 1996 Annual Meeting.

Part I of dlis Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of die Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, whicb consists of 27 voting members• The results of the balloting can be found in the report.

Part II of diis Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 13[)- 1994, &andard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes ,as published in tt~e Report on Proposals for the 1996 Annual Meeting.

Part II of dais Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, which consists of 28 voting members. The results of die balloting can be found in die report.

Part III of dais Report on Comnlents was prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 13R- 1994, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residen- tial Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height as publishedin the Report on Proposals for the 1996 Annual Meeting.

Part III of this Ret~ort on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Techmcal Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, which consists of 28 voting members. The results of the balloting can be found in the report.

172

N F P A 13 1 A 9 6 R O C

PART I

(Log #11 ) 13- 1 - (1-4.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, /Mnerican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

1-4.5. l*(a) 1. Sprinklers def ined as fast response have an RTI of 50 (meters seconds) 1/2 or less, or are desigliated fast response by :moti~er test method . SUBSTANTIATION: The plunge test measures RTI. RT1 cannot be measured for recessed or concealed sprinklers. In addition it does not provide a true indication of thermal sensitivity for sprinklers wid~ ex tended coverage spacings. ()fl~er mefllods such ms a small room tests are required tot these sprinklers. This new language allows testing agencies to use odler test me thods to de te rmine thermal sensitivity when die p lunge test is not applicable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the submit ters c o m m e n t to read as follows: 1-4.5.1" (a) 1. Sprinklers def ined as fast response have a thermal

e lement widl ,an RTI of 50 (meters seconds) 1 /9 or less. Revise the last sen tence ofA-1-4.5.1 to read: "It is usually de t e rmined ..." Also add the following sentence as the last sentence of this

paragraph: "The p lnnge test is no t cur rendy applicable to certain sprinklers.

These sprinklers mus t have their thermal sensitivity de t e rmined lay odier s tandardized test mediods." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: RTI can be measured for die thermal e lements for all sprinklers. This change will recognize daat distinction. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #67) 13-2- (1-4.5,1): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7 RECOMMENDATION: Do no t comply wifll Recommenda t ion 4 to pu t ,all definit ions in alphabetical order. Keep die definit ions ,as they ,are presently f ound in die cur ren t edition. SUBSTANTIATION: Placing definit ions in alphabetical order is not adv:,mtageous here. The order should be more user friendly. Some definitions (sncll as Spray Sprinkler) ,are used to define other types (such ,as Quick Response). Therefore it is better to keep things in the existing order, so that those which are needed first, as a aid to the under s t and ing of odler types, will come first. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: W hen referencing definit ions f rom odler are,as in die document , it is difficult to f ind die definit ions if dley are not in alphabetical order. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #139) 13- 3 - (I-4.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J a m e s M . Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"..,80 (meters seconds) 1/2 or more." to "...greater than 50 (meters seconds) 1/2." SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions of Quick Response and Standard Response do no t provide for a sprinkler having an RTI between 50 and 80. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new sentence to section A-1-4.5.1 to read as follows: "IS() s ~ n d a r d 6182-1currently recognizes die RTI range of greater

than 50 m sec 1/2 ,and less titan 80 m sec 1 / 2 as "special response". S t~h sprinklers may be recognized ,as special sprinklers u n d e r section 4-4.9.1" COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The IS() s tandard currendy recognizes dtis range as "special response". The gap in the description is in tended to leave a buffer between die two sets of bou ndari es. NUMBER O17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #130) 13- 4 - (1-4.5.1 Fast Response Sprinkler): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Thomas , The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definit ion of Fast Response S~rinkler as follows:

Sprinklers def ined as fast response have a RTI of 50 (meters- seconds) 1 /2 or less, and a C of 1.0 (meters / seconds) 1)'2 or less." SUBSTANTIATION: 1. ISO 6182-1 limits C to 1.0.

2. U n d e r proposal 13-129 (Log #CP7) you allow area reduct ions for the use of QR sprinklers. You d o n ' t want the QR sprinklers operat ing slower tlian tile s tandard sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: C factor is addressed in Item 5 of

ix Secdon A-1-4.5.1. R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #120) 13-5- (1-4.5.1 Quick-Response (QR) Sprinkler): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7 RECOMMENDATION: Maintain die cur ren t definit ion of Qnick- Response (QR) Sprinkler. SUBSTANTIATION: IS() definit ion is no t in ag r eemen t witia cur ren t U.S.A. standards. ISO requi rements are less restrictive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See die Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-3 (Log #139). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #93) 13- 6 - (1-4.5.1 (a) 1 and 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RoffJensen, RoffJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

1. Thermal e lements having a response t ime index of S0 (meters, seconds) 1 /2 or less are def ined ,as f,xst response.

, 2. Thermal e lements having a response t ime index of 80 (meters, seconds) 1 /2 or more are def ined ,as s tandard response. SUBSTANTIATION: As filr ther def ined in A-1-4.5.1 of die commit tee report, the response time index or RTI is a measure of the sensitivity of die sprinklers thermal e lement . COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: ,gee tile Commit tee Action on Gomtnent 13-1 (Log #11). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 97

(Log #38) 13- 7 - (1-4.5.2, A-1-4.5.1): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMI'ITER: Kermedl E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-7

i RECOMMENDATION: 1. In file definit ion of both tile QREC and file QRF~S sprinklers replace die phrase. "a type of fast response spray sprinkler" widl "a type of Quick Response sprinkler."

2. In A-1-4.5.1 add at the end: "It is no t file in tent of NFPA 13 dlat listing laboratories actually

PwiUblish RTI data for each sprinkler since differences in RTI values dtin file specific per formance ranges are insignificant."

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Quick Response Extended Coverage Sprinklers are a subset of the much larger category of Quick Response Sprinklers. (',odes like d~e Life Safety Code ,and die l.Jniform Building Code require Quick Response sprinklers for certain applications ,arid we need to cont inue to clarify dlat QREC ,and QRES sprinklers are acceptable solutions to dais requirements . This is consistent widl die 1994 edition of NFPA 13.

2. To discourage the publication of specific RTI values and to let the public know why they are not published. We do not wish to see file beg inn ing of an RTI war. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

1. Accept Part 1 of die submit ters c o m m e n t as shown. 2. Revise tile definit ion of Quick Response Sprinkler in section 1-

4.5.2 to read ,as follows: "A type of spray sprinkler that meets the criteria of section 1-

4.5.1 (a) 1, and is listed ,as a Quick Response Sprinkler for its i n t ended nse."

3. Reject Part 2 of die submit ters comment .

173

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Part 1 of tile c o m m e n t is accepted iLs shown. The definition of QR has been revised to note that it is a spray sprinkler and diat it is a category of quick response sprinkler.

The decision to publish RTI values is no t widfin die purview of dais s tandard :rod shou ld be at the discretion of die listing laboratories. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC 12) 13- 8 - (Table 1-4.7.4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-2 RECOMMENDATION: In proposed new section 5-2.3.2.2 (Milch is table 1-4.7.4.2 of the existing edition of file s tandard) revise the entry for Class 11 commodi t ies to read as follows:

II up to 8 ft OH-1 OH-1 II over 8 ft u p t o 12 ff OH-2 OH-2

SUBSTANTIATION: Test data indicates flaat sprinkler design densities for Ordinary Hazard Group 2 Occupancies are needed to attain control of fires in class II commodi t ies which are stored over 8 ft and up to 12 ft in height. In addition, this change provides consistency wiflt the definit ion of OH-1 occupancies which do no t address stockpiles of combust ibles in excess of 8 ft in height. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 2

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LINDER: Tile testing at FM demons t r a t ed that ?ack storage of a

Class II commodi ty could he protected by an OH-1 design when spray sprinklers are used. To raise the Occupancy Hazard classification tbr this storage simply becanse too many ECOH sprinklers opera ted using the OH-I density does not make sense. It also leaves m e quest ions as to whefller a 5 sprinkler design would he acceptable for storage of a (;lass IV conunodi ty protected by an OH-2 design.

In addition, when dte ignition location is centered between two sprinklers, the geometry would suggest tha t it is very likely dlat 6 sprinklers will open radler than 5, thus overtaxing rite design. This was tile case in file FM tests. Also, when die ignition is below a single sprinkler, the next ring of 4 sprinklers tha t would bring tile totM to 9 is only 8 ff fl trther f rom rite ignition location titan tilose that operate unde r a 5 sprinkler design scenario when tile EC sprinkleir are on a 20 x 20 spacing. They would be even closer with a 16 x 16 spacing. As a result, I believe tile colnnli t tee ac t ion to leave tile ntlnlber of design sprinklers at 5 and change tile Occup:mcy class to OH-2 was in err, w, and suppor t tile original 9 sprinkler r ecommenda t ion of the task group.

WILCOX: The substant iat ion for the Commit tee Action is incorrect a£td not suppor ted by die te~t d~tt& referred to. In fact, the test data which was submi t ted include~t informat ion tha t did establish that for spray sprinklers installed on a m, 'udmum of 130 sq if, file present OH-1 protection is adequate for the (;lass 2 storage heights as presently listed in the 1994 edition of NFPA 13.

In four separate fllll-scale fire tests of 10 ft h igh double-row rack storage, which included both a main rack ,arid a target rack, us ing bodt upr ight and p e n d e n t sprinklers spaced at 130 sq ft, with the two well-recognized worst c~ase ignition scenarios (under one sprinkler and between two sprinklers), and a destiny of 0.15 g p m / s q ft, fl~e rmmher of sprinklers opened rmiged f rom 5 to 1 I, all of which are widlin tile design area of 1500 sq ft. These tests were solely conducted to provide positive verifi cation that tile NFPA 13 protection R~r this occupancy was indeed adequate , for the purpose of pr(Mding a baseline test protocol to evaluate the per formance of ex tended coverage sprinklers (up to 20 ft by 20 it) for protection of ordinary hazard occuparlcies.

Subsequen t test ing of dte ex tended coverage sprinklers, using tile same criteria as descr ibed above, except daat die spacing was 20 ft by 20 ft rather than 10 ft by 13 It, showed dlat up to 9 sprinklers could be expected to operate, which is significantly different than the 5 sprinklers specified in section 5-2.3.2.2, Exception No. 3. (It should be noted here that a related Commit tee C o m m e n t #CC11 develope d by die New Technology Task Group and the Chapter 5 Task Gronp r e c o m m e n d e d that this except ion be changed to 1-equire a design for 0 sprinklers, but that c o m m e n t was not accepted by the full commit tees at the December 1905!meeting; because it was a commit tee c o m m e n t it does no t appear on the b,allot for the ROC). Compar isons of the two test progr~mis flint led to dte different designs of 5 and 0 sprinklers shows that tile testing which opened 9 sprinklers was conduc ted in a completely open, n o n c o m p a r t m e n t e d test facility.

174

The testing that led to the specification for 5 spr inkle~ was conducted in a 40 by 40 test facility, using on-floor storage rather titan rack storage, wida four sprinklers installed at 20 by 20 ft in all tests in that series us ing ex tended coverage spririklers. In every test, 4 sprinklers opened, which is hardly surprising since only 4 were installed widfin file compar tment . Subsequent testing to evaluate the effect of having more sprinklers installed were conducted at 15 by 15 ft in die same 1600 sq ft compar tment , with n ine sprinklers installed, four of which were at the corners of the room, an area gbenerally recognized as being a possihle "dead" area as far ,as heat

ui ldup goes. Four sprinklers operated. The issue here that full-scale fire testing in an open area showed

that the existing design for ex tended coverage ordinary hazard sprinklers for file Class II commodi t ies may no t be adequate. Focusing on one change to one commodi ty hazard level obscures the fact dtat ex t ended coverage ordinary hazard sprinklers can be used widl both dae OH-1 and OH-2 curves and ,associated occupancies, and file results f rom d~e test that opened 9 sprinklers should raise concerns about o ther design points for h igher hazard occupancies widiin the OH-1 and OH-2 categories, such as Class 4 commodi t ies in racks and tubber tire storage. Also, since OH-2 includes mercanti le, the various products puts into quest ion whether the 5 sprinkler design now in section 5-2.3.2.2, Exception No. 3, is adequate.

In summary, there is a quest ion of the validity of dte testing; in a 40 ff by 40 ff compa r tmen t to justify a 5 sprinkler design area, tills quest ion being fllrther suppor ted by the testing in the open facility which opened 0 sprinklers. Use of the 5 sprinkler desigli for the t i l l- range of in tended occupancies within the ( )H-1 :rod OH-2 categories may, I believe, lead to possible scenarios where dte levels of protection may fall far short of fltat in tended by dais standard.

(Log #66) 13-9-(2-1.1 Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Paul Shumway, American Tube & Pipe Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-8 RECOMMENDATION: I d o n ' t believe this proposal should be rejected. SUBSTANTIATION: Contractors need to know that dte pipe they buy meets as high a s tandard ,as o ther system components . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No new informat ion has been presented to chmage the original commit tee action f rom reiect. The commit tee requested that specific instances of pipe failures, n u m b e r of failures, and possible reasons for such failures be made a~dlable for review. Wi thout dtis type of data, the commit tee carmot endorse the concept of requir ing all sprinkler pipe to be listed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NEGATIVE: 3 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BARNETT: As a general rule, file Commit tee Statement, that

documenta t ion of failures should be made available for review before making a change, is a good one to follow; but, in fltis c~Lse, I do not believe it shou ld be applied. The penalty to be paid ,after discovery of even one installation of poor quality ~ipe can be severe.

Listed pipe, which requires periodic inspection ny Follow Up Service inspectors provides at least some measure of quality control. This third party inspect ion I believe to be very desirable in order to m~dnt:dn quality st:mdards particularly when applied to pipe of foreign manufacture .

My company has had only one bad experience with a sh ipmen t of off-shore pipe, bu t one is enough. With th i rd world countries becoming increasingly competitive in the world market, quality control measures such ,as agency listings and IS(.) certifications are becoming increasingly more importanL

There are n ine (9) mamffacturers of listed sprinkler pipe in tile 1995 I.IL Fire Protection Directory so availability and competi t ion is no t a problem.

I firmly believe dlat NFPA 13 should require sprinkler pipe to be listed.

LUKES: Adopt ion of this proposal would improve the s tandard, bu t at tile same t ime would not impose any hardship on d~e industry since over 90 percent of sprinkler pipe comes f rom m:mufacturers who make listed pipe.

WILCOX: The need for consistent quality control procedures for piping is obvious. Listing of piping would incorporate quality control procedures which currently do not to dte extent as fltose required for odaer fire protection products. It has always been rite " in tent to NFPA 13 provide listed products when such products are available. The Commit tee has provided instffficient subst~mtiation for no t requir ing listed piping which is current ly available.

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: BELL: I.IL is abstaining on this comment . We believe d~at dae

Listing of these products offers a significant value to the industry; however, we are not aware of the field data which provides inf 'ormadon on die per formance characteristics of non-listed pipe, :d'ter the system II;L~ been [)ut into service.

(Log #119) 13- 10 - (2-2.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-11 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 27/32 in orifice and new Exception to 2-2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Cur ren t "K" factors are adequate to provide s tandard 13 specified densities at 100 ft2 spacing mad 7 psi pressure, "K" 17 is not required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Delete dae line for the 22/32 in. orifice sprinkler as suggested by this commenL

Revise die exception which w~,ks proposed for 2-2.3 to read ~L~ folh:)ws:

Exce[:)tior]: Sprinklers wid~ a larger orifice di,'mleter and which incre;L~e the flow by a 50 percent increme[lt when compared with a 1/2 in. orifice sprinkler shall be permit ted when listed in accor(kmce wifla section 4-4.9. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The text of die new Exception to 2-2.3 has been revised to clarify that dae incremental increase relates to the l / 2 in. orifice sprinkler. T he nex t generat ion orifice can be controlled in this m,'mner, d~ereby el iminat ing dae need for the new row in the table. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO ~rOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #114) 13- 11 - (Table 2-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER~ Peter Thomas , The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-11 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to 17KSprinkler add two new rows :Ls follows:

29/32 22,0 -23.0 400 1 yes 1 29.5 -30.5 500 1 yes

SUBSTANTIATION: A 17K sprinkler is no t required for either s tandard or ex tended spacings. A 22 and 30K sprinkler would be preferred for E.C.E.H. and possibly storage occupancies.

DIS'T, DOWN 8R~V t ~ " i:~q~ ING y . - 1.0 e :=.,3~.~ bI~ := 10

P3-~ D I I T Q I ~

O . - ~t:. "DEN5 R i- "

OR IFZ~ D IR I4ETER

t r " I I l l ] I [ [ ~ Y I I I - - . . 75 .o00~ ,~28 .Q .*¢

D ~" I I - - - - ] n ~L ~ ' R

- K FACTOR

, = ,~9.s~.e. rn - , : , , i e F= i =

" ' ° ° ' - ig D ~ F L E C T O R ~1 ~

~D ~e i e L- J

t , • D G

n

0 D[N~ P K n n

O - t't_c0a ~ P P I~0U~E Ps i i1 - - K FRCTOR D = ORIF I r .F n r ~ ~NCHES ~ = O~R]~ ~ IZ~ I DF -- D~'3~I-ECTOR I N ~ E S ~ -- ~ R ~ R

n z I . . ~ i - .OS n

" C FA r . fOR

D := , 95

~EBER NUr4~R

~, . . ~ . ro . < , , , : = o ] "L ~ J

WE : - - -

~@-D 3 - . I¢.~

DROP ~T~"

3 .21 "D ' ~5 . ~,- 1~ n

OS : i n

3 WE

l? .3&~ 10 I

1 4 1 I 2 . 2 ~ 1 ' 10 I

O 153". D(~N {3RAV ITY SPACZNE

y : = 1 . 5 G : = ~ . 2 S~ t= 20

FLOW DISTANCE

sp r -

n n

O R I F I C E D IRNETER

II I I - - " " 7 5 " . O02~..9.a " O " 4 1|

i ' I S

r , L n 'R j

K FACTOR

: = ~ . e . ' - c - I'D l e ] " L- J

ITEI~TIONS

" C F~CTOR

C := , 9 5

WE ; .

n

P~SSURE

P : " I ~ 1 DS

~' 1 K I - L n J

D E N S I T Y DENS : = .05 r,

n

~E~BE R NUMBER 2

16 6a.,~ Fo '.ooaa~8]

2 3 "D ". 161

DRO~ SIZE

3 .21 "D "E5° 4" i ~

DEFLECTOR SIZE

2 D " 1 2 n

D F ~-- 2 5 . 4 " r, 4 " D S '

n

O D E N S P K D ' 1 ~ D S D F

~ ~ . ~

Q = F L O W S~'M D E N ~ ~ D E N S I T Y ~ M P E R F T S O P PRESSURE PSI K ~ K FACTOR D = ORIFICE DIA INCHES DS = DROP SI~E rata DF = DEFLECTOR INPHES WE = WEBER NUMBER

C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITPEE STATEMENT: See tile Commit tee Action C o m m e n t 1 3-10 (Log #119). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATWE: 27

I

3 . WE

~f

n

! 4 ~ 4 ~ 2 1 0 4

! 6~ 3 3 9 " 1 0 4 t

L 7 • 7 G 4 " 1 0 4

I I ¢ ' ' 1 0

1 . ~ 6 8 " 10 !

o n

VOTE: 27

(Log #115) 13- 12 - (Table 2-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ Peter Thomas , The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-11 RECOMMENDATION: Revise th read type from 3 / 4 in. NPT to 1 in. NPT. SUBSTANTIATION: A 27/32 in. orifice with a tapered waterway leaves a dfin wall at file inlet end ofdae sprinkler. Since a 17K

~lpf inkler is no t requi red or needed for retrofit purposes a 1 in. read should be required.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See die Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 1 3-10 (Log #119). NUMBER OF COIVI~IITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #39) 13- 13- (Table 2-2.2, 2-2.3 Exception): Reject SUBMITrER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-11 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add a row in Table 2-2.2 for a K=22 sprinkler ,and a K=30 sprinkler.

2. Put the co lumn back in Table 2-2.2 for orifice type. Give the K=17 sprinkler an orifice type of"Ul t ra Large," the K=22 sprinkler an orifice type of "Ultra Large A" and the K=30 sprinkler ,'m orifice type of "Ultra Large B."

3. Delete the exception proposed to 2-2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. It is good for NFPA 13 to promote future technology ~ l d standardize wbere the industry is beaded.

2. The orifice type is a convenient way of referring to various sprinklers in a world where bodl metric and English units arc constant- When a des igner wants an extra large orifice sprinkler, r ight now all he needs to do is specify "large orifice" in dae specification documents . If the orifice n a m e is lost, the engineer could specify a sprinkler with an orifice of K=I 1, but then someone migh t argue dmt a sprinkler widl a K of 11.2 doesn ' t mee t the spe~:.

175

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

Tile nmning system r e c o m m e n d e d here is consistent with the tempera ture codes tbr sprinklers. The system of using letters above "Ultra Large" will allow many more orifice sizes if it becomes uecessary in die fiRure without exhanst ing tile s)qJonyms for big.

3. As orifice sizes get larger, one half of the flow f rom a half inch sprinkler becomes insignificant. We will end up creat ing half sizes of sprinklers when there really is no need. The s tandard should jus t follow part one of our c o m m e n t and specify what orifice sizes to allow in tile flmlre. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

See ifie Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-10 (Log #119) with regard to Parts 1 and 3 of tile submit ter ' s comment . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tiffs cont inues to move the Commit tee in tile direction of per formance rather dian prescriptive requirements . The appropriate specific, ation can be made th rough tile nominal orifice size. N U M B E R O F COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

13- 14- (2-2.3): Reject (Log#12) SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, American Instlrance Service t ; roup COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-12 RECOMMENDATION: Item 1: Require SIN in Section 6-1.1(L).

Item 2: Add digit for response time. Item 3: Add code to position digit six o ther or special.

SUBSTANTIATION: Felt proposal step in die r ight direction, addition;d data necessary to make SIN code complete.

Item 1: The addit ion of this code on die drawings will allow the reviewer to more easily de te rmine which sprinklers are to be used where.

Item 2: Left ou t imporLTmt item. h e m 3: Attic sprinkler would be considered o ther or special.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Commit tee Action and Sta tement on ( : o m m e n t 13-17 (Log #118). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

n u m b e r shall consist of four digits which identify the sprinkler. Any different ,~ssembly of sprinkler frame, deflector~ or o ther operational part shall consti tute a change and require a different model munber . Mmiufacturers shall provide data sheets with each sprinkler to identify the specific listing ,and other use limitations of each model sprinkler.

Exception: A chmage in tempera ture rating or orifice size shall not constitute a r equ i r emen t for a new model number . The maruffacturer shall clearly identify on the data sheets for each model what tempera ture ratings and orifice sizes are awailable and any limitations on their use.

2-2.3.2 Tile year of manufac tu re shall be prominent ly marked on a nonopera t ing part of tile sprinkler.

2-2.3.3 The te lnperature rating shall be prominent ly marked on a nonopera t ing part of file sprinkler in degrees Celsius.

2-2.3.4 The nonfinal K-Factor in metr ic units shall be marked prominent ly on a nonopera t ing part of tile sprinkler.

2-2.3.5 Horizontal Sidewall sprinklers shall have file word "Top"

~ rominent ly marked on the top of the defector. UBSTANTIATION: The SIN n u m b e r was a good idea, but it is jus t

too difficult to get all of die information necessary into one code n u m b e r which will fit on die deflector of a sprinkler. This proposal gives die user a ~ t y to identif)/ the sprinkler arid tile manufitcturer, and ,allows the maruffacturer to set in wridng what MI of the limitations of dais device are. It should end tile confilsion while simplifying mad standardizing the industry, ff dtis passes, it would no t lye necessary to put die following marks on sprinklers which are currently required by the labs: Control #, SSI J, SSP, RES SPR, QR, EC, ESFR, HSW or the arrow showing flow direction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action an d Sta tement on C o m m e n t 13-17 (Log #118). In addition, having manufac ture rs provide a un ique model n u m b e r on the sprinkler will no t provide any detailed or special informat ion about that sprinkler. Also, i f a particular sprinkler were no longer manufac tured , all relevant dam about that sprinkler would be lost or very difficult to obtain. However, die Commit tee agrees tliat dlese concepts should be considered dur ing tile next revision cycle. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #28) 13- 15 - (2-2.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roger L. Allard, Factory Mutual Research C~orporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-12 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Listed sprinklers shall be identified with a Sprinkler Identification N u m b e r (SIN)." mad Table A-2-2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinkler marking should either s tand alone and convey what the installer, inspector, owner, etc. need to know; or a model m u n b e r shou ld be provided to refer the individual to the reference l is t ing/approval guide to obtain the necessary infornlatiorL The proposed SIN code combines undesirable features of both. There is e nough informat ion on the sprinkler to allow people to draw inappropr ia te / incor rec t conclusions, bu t not e n o u g h to tell the individual what be or she needs to know without going to some o ther reference. Similar codes such as the ULI manufac ture r listing m n n b e r and others required 'by national and itJternational laboratories are fi lrther likely to increase confilsion. A unique model designat ion allowing relatively easy reference to the appropriate laboratory's d i rec tory/guide offers inamffacturers 's reasonable flexibility in mee t ing national and internat ional laboratory mark ing requirements . C O M M I T r E E A C T I O N : Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action and Sta tement on C o m m e n t 13-17 (Log #118). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

13- 16- (2-2.3): Reject (Log#40) SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-12 RECOMMENDATION: Replace the SIN n u m b e r idea with the following requirements:

2-2.3 Sprinkler Markings. 2-2.3.1 All sprinklers sold af terJarmary 1, 1999 shall have a un ique

model rnnnber marked prominent ly on a nonoper , tting part of the sprinkler. The model n u m b e r shall begin with ari :dphabedc cbaracter or symbol un ique to die manufacturer . The rest of the

(Log #118) 13- 17- (2-2.3): Accept SUBM][TTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-12 RECOMMENDATION: Delete r equ i r emen t for sprinkler identification numbers . SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed system does not adequately define

rinkler type ,and daerefore serves no usefitl purpose. MMITFEE ACTION: Accept.

The Commit tee in tends to cont inue work on this concept for the nex t cycle. In suppor t of this action, 13-14 (Log #12), 13-15 (Log #28), 13-16 (Log #40), 13-18 (Log#141) , ,'rod 13-19 (Log #24), contain additional informat ion on oilier characteristics which could be included in an identification table. Specifically, a n u m b e r of readily available sprinklers currently on the market are cross listed for v'in-ious areas of coverage, applications, and response features. There is no readily available med lod to dist inguish theses devices without requir ing mult iple identification mnnbers . The commit tee does not consider die proposed identification numbe, r ing designation to be a practical solution to dais problem. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

13- 18- (2-2.3): Reject (Log#141) SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-12 RECOMMENDATION: i. Change "Table A-2-2.3" to "Talkie 2-2.3".

2. Add "Quick Response" to Type of sprinkler list. 3. Change '°Type 7=EC Spray" to "7=Extended (',overage Light

H,~trd" . 4. Change "Type 8=ECO Spray" to "8=Extended Coverage

Ordinary Hazard". SUBSTANTIATION: Witli tile Table in the Appendix, tile n u m b e r i n g system becomes option,'d for the manufacturer . Each manufac tu re r could devise its own n u m b e r i n g system, creating an even greater confusion in sprinkler identification. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action and Sta tement on C o m m e n t 13-17 (Log #118).

176

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27


AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #24) 13- 19 - (2-2.3, Table A-2-2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: EduardJob , Job ( ';mbH COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-12 RECOMMENDATION: Add sixth digit (6tb) to Sprinkler Identification Key ,as shown below:.

Examples shown in NFPA 13 - A96 ROP to be a m e n d e d to reflect tile insertion of a sixth digit. SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: 100 percent identification of failure mode in sprinklers which have activated in no fire situations cannot be accompl ished where tile manufac tu re r of the thermal release element , which having activated is now destroyed, cannot be directly identified f rom the activated sprinkler at tile installation.

Subst,asatiation: There are an increasing n u m b e r of manufac turers supplying thermal release e lements to file sprinkler industry. Sprinkler manufac ture rs are achieving listings a n d / o r approvals for sprinkler products us ing fliermal release e lements f rom more than one supplier.

Identification of die supplier of thermal release e lements on sprinkler markings will enable system inspectors to study failure modes cm an informed basis. Where such f~dlnre modes are attributable to the thermal rele,xse e lements die supplier and relew, mt agencies can be in formed or consul ted with, without hesitation or mistake.

Approw, d agencies mad Internat ional Teclmical Commit tees deal ing widl sprinklers are proposing requi rements for mark ing dlermal release e l ement identification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Commit tee Action and Sta tement on Co tmnen t 13-17 (Log #118). In addition, identification of die manufac tu re r of the sprinkler operat ing e lement or taller componen t s of tile sprinkler are not die types of items that were to be addressed by tile originM table. Adding dlis information would not ,aid in the installation arid interchangeabil i ty of die sprinkler, which was die original intent of dae table. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #41 ) 13- 20 - (Table 2-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-16 RECOMMENDATION: Put tile daggers back in Table 2-3.1 ~ well ,as dae foomote. SUBSTANTIATION: Tile substantiat ion for die ch~mge to 2-3.6 was based on requi rements in A~STM A-795. NFPA 13 allows pipe to also be installed which meets ASTM A-135. It is no t clear dlatA-135 pipe can be bent in die same m a n n e r ,as A-795. By keeping die daggers in the table, we will be able to bend A-795 in accordmace wifll 2-3.6, bu t we will sdll prohibi t the bending of A-135. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: ASTM A135 specifically allows for bending and does no t identify any restrictions.

(Log #128) 13- 91 - (2-3.1 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roger S. Wilkins, (;rinnell Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-13 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception to read:

Exception: Pipe or u lbe open to amaosphere and that provides a connect ion f rom a drain valve flint does not ,affect system per formance need not be as previously designated, but shall be capable of hold ing the m a x i m u m system pressure. SUBSTANTIATION: As revised tile drain pipe to a tmosphere f rom critical componen t s such ,as solenoid valve releases for deluge mad precaut ion systems will be steel or copper. The exception is far more definitive. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

No action is required by accept ing this cotrunent in principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The t ;ommit tee Action taken on ProposM 13-13 (Log #67) referred back to the action on Propos,al 13- 9 (Log #66). The result of this addresses die submit ters concerns. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #152) 13- 22 - (2-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Rick Burris, Van Guard Plastics, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-17 RECOMMENDATION: Add to the tables 2-4.2 reference to ASTM F 1380, Standard Specification for Metal Insert Fittings for Polybutylene (PB) tubing size 3 / 4 in. mad larger.

Other changes to dae NFPA 13 s tandard should be made to be consistent widl dais change if approved by the committee. It is the in tent of dais proposal to allow fittings widl a measured ID less than 3 / 4 of an in. (.750) providing the hydraulic per formance of systems utilizing such fittings is in accorckmce widl NFPA 13 reqnirements . SUBSTANTIATION: Corrosion resistant fittings mamffac tured in accordance widl ASTM standards for 3 /4 in. size tubing have a measured ID which is less fllan 3 /4 of an inch (.750). The use of these connect ions in flexible tubing sprinkler systems enhances system affordability over other 3 / 4 in . jo in ing methods sncb as fllsion.

Fittings for use with 3 / 4 in. pipe having a measu red ID of 3 / 4 of an inch (.750) or larger are currently used in rigid pipe systems. Rigid pipe systerr~s require more fittings dlan flexible pipe system. These rigid pipe fittings, :~s required by NFPA 13, are assigned an equivalent feet of pipe rating for hydl~aulic calculations purposes.

V,xnguard is proposing connect ions used widl 3 / 4 in. nomina l flexible talbing. Fittings are manufac tu red in accordance with ASTM standard. Since tilese fittings will be limited to flexible tubing, few eli's or couplings will be required in a sprinkler system. Additional pressure drop ,associated widl dlese fittings, compared to fittings with a measured ID of 3 / 4 of an inch (.750) or larger, could be offset by tile use of fewer fittings. Tee ' s mad eli's will generally be used for sprinkler drops.

The proposed connect ion will be tested and listed by a recognized, accepted testing laboratory. Each fitting will have ,an equiwdertt feet of u lbing rating for hydraulic calculation purposes.

Table A-2-2.3 Sprinkler Identification Number (Key)

Description Position:

Type:

Nominal Orifice (K Factor Range) Maximum Length Comverage Dimension, Ft* Maximum Width Coverage Dimension, Ft* Therma/Re/ease Element Manufacturer**

1 = Pendent , 2 = Upright , 3 = Horizontal Sidewall, 4 = Sidewall - Uprightt 5 = Sidewall - Pendent . 1 = Spray (General), 2 = Conventional , 3 = Residential, 4 = ESFR, 5 = Large Drop, 6 = Specific Application. I = 1.3 - 1.5, 2 = 1.8 - 2.0, 3 = 2.6 - 2.9, 4 = 4.0 - 4.4, 5 = 5.3 - 5.8.6, 6 = 7.4- 8.2, 7 = 11.O - 11.5, 8 = 13.5 - 14.5 0 = Standard Spacing by NFPA 13, 1 = 10, 2= 12, 3= 14, 4 = 1 6 , 5 = 1 8 , 6 = 2 0 , 7 = 2 2 , 8 = 2 4 0 = Standard Spacing by NFPA 13, 1 = 10, 2 = 12, 3 = 14, 5 4 = 1 6 , 5 = 1 8 , 6 = 2 0 0 = Sprinkler Manufacturer° 1 = Manufacturer X. 6 2 = Manufacturer Y, 3 = Manufacturer Z

Note ** Sprinkler manufac tu re r responsible to nomina te specific N u m b e r to specific Supplier at t ime of product Listing.or Approval.

177

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The repor t which was reques ted by tile ( 'ommit tee wzLs not provided. No addit ional action is contemplated until some type of s tudy is accomplished. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #3) 13- 23 - (2-6.1 Exception) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: J o h n J . Walsh, Uni ted Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-18 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add to tile first proposed change die words "'when such points of suppor t exist".

2. Delete f rom second proposed change the word "bodl". SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The purpose of the exception is to address circumstances in which listed hangers canno t be installed in accordance with dleir listings. This may include situations where in~lxinnlln spacing requi rements canno t he met.

2. Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

I Reject Part 1 of the submit ter ' s comment , and Accept Part 2 of the suhmit ter ' s connnent . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the in tent of the commit tee that the hanger spacing requi rements f ound in Chapter 4 not be exceeded when alternative hange r designs are considered. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #108) 13- 24 - (2-6.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert L. Zink, Hihi, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-20 RECOMMENDATION: The Powder Actuated Tool manuRtcturer ' s hlstitute (PATMI) respectfully submits this reply to die re ferenced 13-20 (Log#113) (2-6.3.1): The following r ecommenda t ion was published:

"Add a new second sentence to read: "'Powder-driven studs shall no t be used in ear thquake areas."

SUBSTANTIATION: In 1990, similar changes were proposed to NFPA l 3 13-70, unaccomparf ied by suppor t ing objective technical data.

N( )TE: Suppor t ing inaterial is aw, dlable for review at NFPA Headquarters .

On September 17 and 18, 1992 (nmne deleted) presented the results of extensive testing ~md analysis relative to seismic qualification of sprinkler systems. Tiffs presentat ion was made to die NFPA Earthquake Protection Task Group. The presenta t ion of file work was a response to the fo rnmdon of die Sprinkler Hanger and Sway Bracing Task ( ; roup in 1991, ,arid its r ecommenda t ion of fur ther study.

The Task Group made the r ecommenda t ion to die NFPA Technical C, ommi t tee daat only listed powder driven fasteners be used to attach sway hracing. They stated at the 1992 mee t ing that there was not intent to el iminate powder actuated fastenings for sprinkler hangers .

The proposed change dlat would prohibi t powder-actuated f~mteners is die same as was proposed in tile 1990-1991 code cycle. No fur ther suppor t has been provided for the proposal beyond tha t which was amply and professionally refilted in that cycle.

A fiarther aggravating e lement is the CUl'rent lack of distinction in NFPA a m o n g seismic zones 1 darough 4. The proposal would effectively prohibi t powder fasteners in over ninety percent of the developed USA. In 1990, different zones were dist inguishable in NFPA 13: applicable zones were only 3 and 4. Changes to NFPA 13 now reference all four zones ms seismic zones.

In light of the above, PATMI reiterates both its objection to any barJ on the use of powder-actuated fasteners in ear thquake areas; and its willingness to again provide technical suppor t for such use, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read: 2-6.3.2 Powder driven fasteners shall no t be used to attach hangers

to the bui lding s t ructure where the systems are required to be protected against ear thquakes using a horizontal force factor exceeding 0.50 Wp.

Exception: Powder driven fasteners shall be permi t ted where they are specifically listed for horizontal force factor~ in excess of 0.50 W; . C- ~ M M I T T E E STATEMENT: The primary concern wifl~ powder driven fasteners used as part of a hanger assembly ceriters on dlose circumstances where the horizontal force factor is in excess of 0.50 Wp. Tile Commit tee agrees that in legs severe ear thquake prone

areas, a total prohibLtion on powder driven fasteners is not justified. The l a n g u a g e p r o p o s e d by tile Commit tee recognizes dais difference. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #42) 13-25 - (2-7.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-23 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change 2-7.4 to read its follows:

2-7.4 Backflow Prevention Valves. Means shall be provided downstream of all backflow prevention w, dves for flow tests at system demand .

2.' Also reinstate appendix material as proposed in die original 13-23. SUBSTANTIATION: After mee t ing with manufac ture rs of backflow prevention devices, 75 percent of the voting members of the NFSA Engineer ing and Standards Commit tee were convinced that main drain tests ,are not stffficient to de te rmine i f a backflow device will open or not to provide system d e m a n d dur ing a fire event. The NFPA Commit tee on Inspection Test ing and Maintenance has tile same feeling. This was the reason for section 9-6.2.2 of NFPA 25. NFPA 13 should recognize that special equ ipmen t is needed for this test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle,

Accept the submit ter ' s c o m m e n t and r e n u m b e r his proposed 2-7.4 ,as 4-7.4.2. R e n u m b e r existing sections accordingly. Also, add dae reinstated appendix material as section A-4-7.4.2. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This irfformation is more appropriately located unde r section 4-7.4 for system connections. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #97) 13- 26 - (2-7.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Matthew C. Mingoia, Edison Electric Institalte COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-23 RECOMMENDATION: Accept the commit tee action in dais proposal, which is a revision of the submi t te r ' s r ecommenda t ion . This revision provides for a means for flow test ing of die backflow prevention device, and does no t require a m e t h o d for full flow testing. SUBSTANTIATION: The Edison Electric Institute supports this action, and opinion of tile commit tee tha t a dill flow test is not necessary. Flow th rough the drain valve can bodl confirm die status of the water supply and exercise die valve. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Refer to tile Commit tee Action ,and Sta tement on Commen t s 13-25 (Log#42) and 13-27 (Log #65). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O V O T E : 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #65) 13-27- (2-7.4 (New)): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: J o h n Lippitt, State of Wisconsin -Safety & Buildings Division COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-23 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text and appendix note as follows:

. 2-7.4 Bacldlow Prevention Assemblies. When a backflow prevention assembly is installed, the following shall apply:

(a) A forward flow per formance test and a backflow pertbrnlmlce test will be conducted prior to placing the system in service.

(b) An outlet will be provided downstream of the assembly for conduct ing a forward flow per formance test.

(c) Tile m i n i m u m acceptable flow rate for tile forward flow per formance test is tile hydraulically calculated peak system demand , including hose s t ream d e m a n d where applicable.

(d) The static pressure ofdae water supplywill be recorded. The residuM pressure will be recorded willie flowing at file peak system demand . The pressure readings will be compared to the hydraulic calculations to verify proper operat ion of die system.

(e) A backflow performmace test wiU be conduc ted at the complet ion o f the forward flow per formance test. The backflow per formance test mus t verify the assembly is prevent ing back_flow its specified by file rmanufacturer or the local audlori ty having jurisdiction.

178

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

(f) The results of the per formance tests will be recorded in a m a n n e r acceptable to the Ioc.:d anthori ty having jurisdict ion.

A-2-7.4 There are two types of listed backflow prevent ion assemblies. These are the reduced pressure principle txtckflow preventer, and the douhle check back_flow prevent ion ,assembly. There are models of both types of :Lssemblies listed with a detector bypass. The forward flow per formance test may be per formed with a test header , main drain, fire p u m p test header or any other outlet downstream of the assembly that will ,allow for die m e a s u r e m e n t of flow equal to the peak system demand . SUBSTANTIATION: In dae state of Wisconsin the hackflow preventer per formance tests have been required since March 1, 1994. The reason for these requi rements is to comply with 9-6.2.] of NFPA 25, 1992 edition. The Wisconsin &fie W & Buildings Division has received reports f rom l icensedjourneymara sprinkler fitters conduct ing the tests and municipM fire inspectors witnessing the tests of" new assemblies failing the per formance tests. There have been many different types of failures for a variety of re;tsons. The one th ing they all have in c o m m o n is that these were all new installations. These failures would have gone undetec ted and would not have heen corrected, if not for die per formance test requiremencs.

The NFPA 13 technical commit tee ' s conclnsion that a main drain test is adequate to e~dnate the per formance of a backflow preventer would be correct for smMl systems which do not have a large demand . However, for larger systems the main drain test will only partially open the backflow preventer. The position of tile technical commit tee appears to be: "where a sprinkler system has an 8 in. system riser it s ()K to provide a flow equivalent to a 2 in. pipe, as that is all we know the system will deliver." This position is irresponsible. The NFPA 25 technical commit tee tried to do the right th ing by requir ing the per fonramce tests. To comply with NFPA 25 we mus t have enabl ing requi rements in NFPA 13. Backflow preventers are here and the NFPA 13 technical commit tee mus t respond responsibly to that fact.

Backflow prevention assemblies are mamffac tured in accordance with nationM standards. Typically these assemblies are of high quality. However, as with any mechanicM device there is a percermtge of assemblies daat will not perform ,as expected when shipped fi'om the t~tctory. NFPA 13 contains very specific requi rements for the sprinkler system water supply. To allow the installation of a device which restricts the water supply and not require that the device perform as expected is ,an open invitation for clisaster. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Accept in Principle the suhmit ter ' s proposed section 2-7.4(c) by revising it to read its "Tile m i n i m u m flow rate shldl be the system demand" and adding it as the second sentence to proposed section 8-2.6.

Reject tile r emainder of the submit ters connnent . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Part C of the su bmitters c o m m e n t wa~s revised to require d~e f o r ~ r d flow test to he comple ted as part of the systems acceptance test. With regard to tim remainder of the submit ter ' s comment :

(a) This matter is addressed in ROP 1 3-151 (Log #CP16). (b) This mat ter is addressed by C o m m e n t 13-25 (Log #42). (d) The static and residual pressures are currently required to be

obtained f rom the gauge of dae main drain and recorded dur ing the acceptance test.

(e) This e lement is outside the scope of NFPA 13. (t) It is already required to record the static and residual pressures

at the main drain. The information in proposed section A4-7.4.2 as indicated in

13-25 (Log #42) discusses the means to conduct the tes t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #6) 13- 28 - (3-2.2 Exception No. 1 ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: . [ohnJ . W~sh , Uni ted Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-31 RECOMMENDATION: Revise existing wording to read:

"listed dry-pendent sprinklers installed in th readed tees shall be permitted". SUBSTANTIATION: AS stated in the negative ballots, dm proposed d l ange introduces potential freezing and obstruct ion problen~s. AS poin ted out by Mr. Linder, there are also potenti:d problems with dry-pendent sprinklers installed in plain end and grooved tees. COMMITTEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Acid a new A-3.2.2 ,xs follows: "hastallation liufitations of listed dry penden t sprinklers may vary

wifll different products. Limitations should be inc luded in product installation instruction to warn against the potential accumulat ion of water, scale and sed iment f rom collecting at the sprinkler.

179

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The large variety of product types and d imens ions of hoth dry sprinklers and fittings make it very difficult to positively cover all installation situations in the standard. Also, see dae Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-31 (Log#92) . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #13) 13-29- (3-2.2 Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paohlcci, American Insnrance Service ( ; roup COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-31 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the reference to horizontal sidewall. SUBSTANTIATION: The cur rent substantiat ion is incorrect. Horizontal sidewall sprinklers are required to he inst;dled parallel to ceiling. If there is a sloped ceiling, the horizontal sidewall sprinkler can trap water and cause an ice plug when frozen. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C 'omment 13-31 (Log #92). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #99) 13-30- (3-2.2 Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-31 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "horizontal sidewidl" f rom the proposed text. SUBSTANTIATION: Horizonv, d sidewall sprinklers have the potential to trap water and collect silt and scale. There are nnmerous ~Lses where a horizontal sidewall will no t he installed perfectly horizontal (such as at the top of a sloped ceiling) where water will collect and freeze i f a horizontal sidewall is used on a dry system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action or, C o m m e n t 13-31 (Log #92). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: ,97

(Log #92) 13. 31 - (3-2.2, .3-3.2.4, 3-4.1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: RolfJensen, Rol fJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-31, 13-34. 1.5-3(5 RECOMMENDATION: Revise all three to read:

Exception No. 1: Listed dry sprinklers shall be permitted. Exception No. 3: Horizontal sidewall sprinklers, installed so that

water is no t t rapped shall be pernfitted. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. C'larifies fllat all dry types of sprinklers may be used.

2. Prevents use of horizontal sidewall where water may he t rapped and freeze. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

Editorial Note: Exception No. 2 stays as shown in 3-2.2. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #7) 13- 32 - (3-3.2.4 Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J o h n J. Walsh, ! Inked Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-34 RECOMMENDATION: Revise existing wording to read:

"listed dry-pendent sprinklers installed in th readed tees shall be

~ ermit ted ' . UBSTANTIATION: As stated in the negative t)allots, the proposed

change introduces potential freezing and obstruction problems. A~s pointed out by Mr. Linder, there ,are also potential problems with dry-pendent sprinklers installed in plain end and grooved tees. C O M M I T r E E A C T I O N : Accept in Principle. COMMIT'fEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-28 (Log#6) and 13-31 (Log#02) . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

(Log #I 00) 13- 33 - (3-3.2.4 Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Kennedl W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-34 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "horizontal sidewall" f rom the proposed text. SUBSTANTIATION: Horizontal sidewall sprinklers have die potential to trap water and collect silt and scale. There are numerous c~mes where a horizontal sidewall will no t be installed perfectly'horizontal (such as at the top of a sloped ceiling) where water will collect and freeze if a horizont~d sidewall is used on a dry system. Furdier, silt and scale could collect and plug the sprinkler even if the sprinkler is located in a hea ted area. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on ( :omment 13-31 (Log #92). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #101) 13-34- (%4.1.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneda W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-36 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "horizontal sidew~,dl" f rom the proposed text. SUBSTANTIATION: Horizontal sidewall sprinklers have die potential to trap water and collect silt and scale. There are n u m e r o u s cases where a horizonval sidewall will no t be ins, tailed perfectly horizontal (such as at the top of a s loped ceiling) where water will collect and freeze i f a horizontal sidew:dl is used on a dry system. Further, silt ,and scale could collect and plug die sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on Comnlen t 13-31 (Log #92). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #8) 13- 35 - (3-4.1.4 Exception No. 1 ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: j o h n J . Walsh, Uni ted Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-36 RECOMMENDATION: Revise existing wording to read:

"listed dry-pendent sprinklers installed in d l readed tees shall be permitted". SUBSTANTIATION: As stated in die negative ballots, die p roposed change introduces potential freezing ,and obstr t lcdon problems. As pointed out by Mr. Linder, there are ,also potential problems widl dry-pendent sprinklers installed in plain end and grooved tees. COMMITTEEACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-28 (Log #6) and 13-31 (Log #92). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #43) 13-36- (3-5.3): Accept in Principle in Pmt SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-37 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Review 3-5.3 and 3-5.3.1 mad clarify if these will still be required when a backflow prevention device is installed in accordance with new 3-5.3.2.

2. Include appendix material on the proper way to fill an antifreeze system. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. It.is not clear wbat the couuni t tee in t ended for a anti-freeze system when a backflow preventer is installed. Do sprinklers still need tO be below the' interface unless an additional check v:dve with a hole is installed? (Section 3-5.3) Are the two small solution test valves required since die exception was d ropped to 3-5.3.1 ? Whey are the two smail valves not shown on Figure 3- 5.3.2 if dley are requi red by 3-5.3.1 ?

2. Aii expected fill p rocedure would go a long way in clarifying the need for tile equiipmment .shown in Figtlres ,3-5,.3 ,arid 3-5 . . . . 3 2 COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in P,'u-t.

I Revise 3-5.3 to read: 3-5.3* Ar r angemen t of supply piping and valves. A control valve

and two small solution test valves sh:dl be provided as illustrated in Figure 3-5.3(a) and 3-5.3(b).

3-5.3.1 Where sprinklers are above die water /ant i f reeze interface, a check valve with a 1/32 in. (0.8 ram) hole in t i e clapper shall be provided. In most cases, dais necessitates the use of a 5-ft (1.5-m) drop pipe or U-loop ,as illustrated in Figure 3-5.3(a)

Exception: When tile connect ion between the antifreeze system and the wet pipe system incorporates a backflow prevention device, piping and ~dves shall be a r ranged as illustrated in Figure 3-5.3(b). An expansion chamber of appropriate size and pre-charged air pressure shall be provided to compensa te for thermal expansion of the antifreeze solution as illustrated in Figure 3-5.3.2(b). COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The revised text specifies the location of the test valve and the position of a backflow prevention device. A procedure for filling die system was not included as part of d~e submit ters r ecommenda t ion . Also, see Commit tee C o m m e n t 13-40 (Log #CC 14). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #68) 13-37- (Figure 3-5.3.2): Accept ira Part SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-37 RECOMMENDATION: Revise die proposed Figure 3-5.3.2 to show Test Valves A and B, a Check Valve with a 1/3 in. hole in the clapper and with the l-)rain Valve to be downstream of die c lapper - to be more in accord with the existing Figure 3-5.3. SUBSTANTIATION: The reconf iguradon is necessary for die proper installation and ma in t enance of the Anti-Freeze solution. Without Test Valve A or file Check Valve the solution cannot be filled to the level of the h ighes t sprinkler on die one side and to 12 in. below die water supply on the odaer. Test Valve B is n e e d e d to check for the correct concentrat ion. The drain location is serf evident. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

See C o m m e n t 13-36 (Log #43). Reject "a Check Valve...of the clapper".

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Check valve in Figure 3-5.3.1 (a) is not needed down s t ream of back flow preventer. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #129) 13-38- (3-5.3.2 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Roger S. Wilklns, Grinnell Corporat ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-27 RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to read:

Exception: Non-d iaphragm style tanks shall be located at h ighest elevation of sprinkler piping. SUBSTANTIATION: By do ing so, ,air to water mixture will be reduced and die effectiveness of die expansion ~ank will be prolonged. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The expansion tank may be located any place downst ream of the ba~zk flow preventer since it is charged wida ,air as needed. NFPA 25 requires annua l dra in ing an d testing of system components . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 97

(Log #30) 13- 39 - (3-8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Raymond M. Fremont , General Air Products, General Blower Co., Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the last sen tence to read:

"This can be accomplished by t ak ingd l e air snppl~, f rom the coldest freezer ,area, AND instaUing a TWIN T O W E R REGENERATIVE type air dryer, or using a moisture-free gas such as nitrogen." SUBSTANTIATION: Compressed air taken f rom die coldest area by itseff is no t a solution to prevent moisture in piping. Wh en you compress ,air you raise its pressure dewpoint. For example, if you draw air f rom -10°F freezer :rod compress it you will raise its pressure dewpoint to a h igher tempera ture which would result in additional condensa t ion occurr ing in the sprinkler system. C O M M I T r E E A C T I O N : Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 13-40 (Log #CC14).

180

N F P A 13 1 A 9 6 R ( ) C

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC 14) 13-40 - (3-8.2, A-3-8): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Gommit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 3-8.2 and Section A-3-8 ,as follows:

3-8.2 Spaces main ta ined at tempera tures below 32°F. 3-8.2.1 M/here sprinkler pipe passes th rough a wall or floor into d~e

refrigerated space, a section of pipe a r ranged for removal shall be provided immediately inside the space. The removable length of pipe shall be a m i n i m u m of 30 in.

3-8.2.2 A low air pressure alarm to a constaratly a t tended location sbidl be installed.

Exception: Systems equ ipped with local low pressure alarms and an atttomatic ,'tit" ma in tenance device.

3-8.2.3 P ip ing in refrige~tted spaces shall be installed wid~ pitch as out l ined in 4-6.3.3.

3-8.2.4 Air supply for systems shall be taken f rom the room of lowest t empera ture to reduce moisture content of die ,air.

Exception: Where compressed ni t rogen g~ts f rom cylinders is used in lieu of compressed ,air.

3-8.2.5 Art indicating type control valve for operational testing of the system sball be provided on each sprinkler riser outside of da~ refrigerated space. •

3-8.2.6 A check valve widt a 3 /32 in. d iameter hole in the clapper shall be installed in die system riser below the test valve r equ i r ed in 3-8.2.5. The check valve is to prevent evaporation of prime water into system p!l?ing.

Exception: wl ten s ~ t e m dry-pipe or preaction valves, if designed to completely dr,dn all water above Ore seat m~d are listed for installation widaout pr iming water rem,-dning ,and where pr iming water is not used in tl~e system riser.

3-8.2.7 The ,air supply piping en te r ing the freezer area shall be equ ipped with two e:Lsily removable supply lines at least 6 ft long and at le,~st 1 in. in d iameter its shown in Figure 3-8.2.7. Each supply line sball be equ ipped widt control valves located in file warm ,area. Only one air supply line sball be open to supply the system air at any one time.

Exception: When compressed ni t rogen gas f rom cylinders is used in lieu of compressed air.

8-2.3.1 (New) When systems are insmJled in spaces which are capable of being operated at t empera tures below 32°F. air pressure leakage tests in 8-2.3 sball be conduc ted at the lowest nominal t empera ture of die space.

A-3-8.2 The requi rements in dfis section are in t ended to minimize tile chances of ice plug format ion inside sprinkler system piping protect ing freezers.

A-3-8.2.5 A major contr ibut ing factor of in t roducing moisture in the system piping comes f rom excessive air compressor operation caused by system leakage. Where excessive compressor operat ion is no ted or ice is accumula ted in the air supply piping, file system should be checked for leakage and appropriate corrective action should be taken.

A-3-8.2.4 A higher degree of prevent ing ice blocks c~'m be achieved by lowering moisture of die air supply enter ing die refrigerated space to a pressure dew point no greater fllan 20°F below tl~e lowest nominal tempera ture of die refrigerated space. Pressure dew point of the air supply can cause moisture to condense and freeze in sprinkler pipe even when ,air supply is f rom fl~e freezer. ( )he med~od of redticing moisture contet~t of the air by use of air drying systems is illustrated in Figure A-3-8.2.4. (Figure A-3-8.2.4 is shown on page 182.

A-3-8.2.7 The dual lines feeding the system air en te r ing die cold ,area is in tended to tacilitate cont inued service of bte system when one line is removed for inspection. It should be noted that when us ing a system ,as described in Figure A-3-8.2.4, dfifferences in the pressures at gauge PW and gauge PA indicates blockage in tlte air supply line or other mldfimctions. SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee has elected to develop an alternative strategy for decre,xsing d~e chances of an ice plug or ice block developing in the air supply piping line or in dae sprinkler piping lines. These me thods involve a r ranging the pipe and associated appur tenances in such a way so ,'u~ t o minimize file moisture con ten t in fl~e air supply. While these two options go a long way to improve die siumtion, it is ant icipated that the next (1999) edit ion of file s tandard will have fi]rd~er ref inements . COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27

Healed area

Two easily removed sections of pipe_

control VK

Check VA. W/3/32" h~ ~c~:~ . ~

o,y ec,o, v^. - -7. t Main control VA.--.-~ " 1 ~

Water supply - - ~

Check VA. U Two easily removed

air supp ly l ines

Refrigerated space

I

t

Nr compressor and tank

L.,

Freezer air intake

.J

1. Chedt valve with 3/32" hole in clapper not required if prime water not used. 2. Supply air to be connection to top or side of system pipe. 3. Each removable air line shall be a minimum of I in. diameter

and minimum of 6 ft long.

Figure 3-8.2.7 Refr igerator area sprinkler systems to minimize the chances of developing ice-plugs.

181

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

Heated area Two easily removed"~ I aO" Refrigerated space sections of pipe.. . F,-=-,-

Normally open ~ ~ Check VA. control VA.

Check VA. W/3/32" - - - - - .~ , hole in clapper

"-"""~1~ ) TWO easily removed Dry/preaclJon VA. air supply lines

Main control V A . - I ~ =

Water supply

AIrdtyer ~ ~ ~ p

coais~er h r L. 1) Freezer air intake

Air compressor and tank

1. If pressure gauge P1 and 1=2 do not indicate equal pressures it could mean the air line is blocked or the air supply is malfunctioning.

2. Air dryer and coatescar filter not required when system piping capacity is less than 250 gallons.

Figure A-3-8.2.4 -Refrigerator area sprinkler systems to minimize the chances o f developing ice-pings.


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: WALSH: While I have voted ~fffirmadvely on this c o m m e n t in

NFPA 13, my notes show it to be incomplete ,as follows: 3-8.2.7 Add: Air gauges sh:dl be installed to indicate blockage. 3-8.2.8 Tile compressed air supply shall be condi t ioned to achieve

a pressure dew point of 20°F below die lowest nomina l refi igerated space tempel~ature. The supply air shall be connec ted to die sprinkler system above the check valve reqnired in 3-8.3.4.

Ex. 1: Walen system air capacity does not exceed 250 g~,dlons. Ex. 2: Where compressed ni t rogen gas f rom cylinders is used. 3-2.6.2 Add: Exception: In refrigerated spaces main ta ined below

5°F normal system air presst re shall be restored within 60 minutes .

(Log #31 ) 13- 41 - ("~8.2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Raymond M. Fremont . GenerM Air Products, General Blower Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise file sen tence to read:

"The air supply for systems shall be taken f rom e room of die lowest temperature , AN[) d l rough a chemical dehydrator, to el iminate introdu ring moisture." SUBSTANTIATION: Taking air f rom the coldest or lowest tempera ture and then compress ing it does no t insure moisture free air because you raise the PRESSURE DEWPOINT of the air going into tile sprinkler system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 1340 (Log #CCA4). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #109) 13- 42 - (3-8.3.4 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard R. Kaiser, Star Sprinkler Corporat ion COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-39 RECOMMENDATION- Add an Exception to Section 3-8.3.4 ,as follows:

"A check valve and drain connect ion shall no t be required above the test valve when the system dry-pipe or preact ion valve is listed for installation without pr iming water and when pr iming water is not used in tile system riser." SUBSTANTIATION: The check valve with a 3 /32 in. d iameter hole in tile clapper is in tended to prevent evaporated pr iming water f rom migrat ing into die freezer system and causing ice plug folTnation. However, there are freezer system water control valves (preaction, double interlock valves) available dlat do no t require pr iming water. If p r iming water is no t present in the system riser, the r equ i r emen t for this che-ck valve is no t necessary. Furdlermore, any residual water left in the system riser :d'ter a trip test can be dra ined out of the drain connect ion at die base of the freezer system water control wdve (preaction, double interlock valve).

Note that some double interlock system water control valve assemblies consist of a deluge valve widl a check v~dve. The check valve may require pr iming water, therefore, the s t a tement "...and when pr iming water is no t used in the system riser" should be included in the exception. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 1 3-40 (Log #CC14). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

182

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

(Log #127) 13- 43 - (3-8.3.4 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roger S. Wilkins, GrinneU Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Add mad Exception to read:

ExceptiotJ: Unless the dry/preact ion valve does not utilize pr ime w a t e r . SUBSTANTIATION: The original concern by FM. tile check valve 3 /32 in. orifice was to prevent evaporation of printing water. Tile exception is se l f explanatory. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 13-40 (Log #CCI 4). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 97 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #33) 13- 44 - (3-8.3.5): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER~ RaymorJd M. Fremont , General Air Products, General Blower Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read ~Ls follows:

"The compressed air supply shall be condi t ioned to achieve a pressure dewpoint below die lowest nominal refrigerated space tempera ture and be properly prepared prior to en ter ing a regenerative type air dryer, sucb as, m i n i m u m air pressure, m a x i m u m inlet air t empera ture and proper filtration of compressed air. The supply ,air shall be connec ted to die sprinkler system ahove the check valve required in 3-8.3.4." SUBSTANTIATION: ()nee pressure dewpoint is below the nominal t empera tu re of freezer rooln, no additional condensat ion will occur, therefore it is no t necessary to go 20°F below nor is it economical. In addit ion it is imperative to properly prepare tile compressed air prior to enter ing a regenerative dryer because if inlet t empera ture excee&s 100°F or pressure is below 70 psi, the dryer will riot f imction efficiently or at ME COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Acid an appendix i tem to A-3-8.2.8 to read :Ls follows: A-3-8.2.8 The compressed air supply should be properly prepared

prior to euter ing a regenerative type air dryer such ,as m i n i m u m air pressure ln~cxilnum inlet air t empera ture and proper filtration of compressect Mr. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tile appendix text higlalights die need to properly condit ion tile ~dr supply into tile refrigerated space. Adclitiotml information included wida C o m m e n t 1340 (Log #CC14) will also help to insure that a m i n i m u m a m o u n t of moisture content is in t roduced into the air supply. NUMBER OF COMM1TTEEMEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #102) 13- 45 - (3-9.3 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneda W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-40 RECOMMENDATION: The proposal should be rejected. SUBSTANTIATION: While the tests conduc ted by UL indicate that a properly desigxmd system can control a fire in the duc t dlat originates below the hood, there are too mmay "real life" installations where equ ipmen t is no t installed correcdy. Even d m u g h the fire was put out, the tempera tures in the duct were h igh enough to ignite adjacent material if tile proper clearances to comhust ible material :u'e not inalntained. Also, if die duc t seams are not properly welded fire can propagate. Finally, what happens if a f i re originates in the duct? A sprinkler in tile duct will correct ,all o fd lese problerrts and control the fire if the sprinklers in the h o o d fail to control tile fire for any reason. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The spray nozzles or sprinklers which successfully pass tests in UL 300 should be as acceptable and any other device which passes this test. ()tiler deficiencies in tile duct system should be addressed ,as a separate issue regardless of die

ruMOtection system employed for the cooking equipment . BER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27


(Log #25) 13- 46 - (Chapter 4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Golinveaux, Centred Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 .~41 RECOMMENDATION: 4-5 GENERAL 4-5.2.1.1 Move text to 4-5.2.1 4-5.2.1.2 R e n u m b e r to 4-5.2.1. l. 4-5.3.3 Change tile last sentence to read "The

distance f rom tile wall to tile sprinkler shall be measured perpendicular to tile wall."

4-5.5.1 Move text to new 4-5.5.1.1, move exceptions to 4-5.5.2.2 and remunber .

4-6 STANDARD SPRAY P ENDENT AND UP RIGH T 4-6.2.1 Change reference from 4-5.2.1.1 to 4-5.2.1. 4-6.2.2 Change "Maximum Protection Area" to

"Maximum Protection Area of (:;overage", add "composite wood joist" "after "utilizing" in exception No. 2.

4-6.3.2 Chmage tile word "referenced" in file first sentence to "indicated", UlOVe tile second sentence starting with "Under curved ..." to new 4-6.3.2.1. Change exception 4 table reference to 4-6.5.1.2 Ca). Move exception n u m b e r 1,2 mad 3 to 4-6.5.2.2, delete ";rod sidewall" f rom exception 3. Change reference of 4-5.5.3 to 4-5.5.2, change table reference from 4-6.5.1.2 to 4-6.5.1.2(a). Add "Ca)" to die end of die bead ing " Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to the end of the head ing "Maximum Allowable ...".

Figure 4-6.5.1.2 (b) Change all "a" to "b", all "b" to "d" and all "C" tO " a ' .

4-6.5.2.2 Add "(See Figure 4-6.5.2.2)" to tile end of tim first sentence alter tile ,parentiaeses.

Figure 4-6.5.2.2 Change :ill "a" to "c", all "b ' to "d" and all "C" tO "a".

4-6.5.3 Add text f rom 4-5.5.3. Table 4-6.5.4 Add "Ca)" to tile end of tile h e a d i n g "

Horizontal Dist~mce", acid "(b)" to die end of tile heacting "Minimum Vertic,d ...".

4-7 STANDARD SPRAY SIDEWALL

4-6.4.1.2

4-6.5.1.1

4-6.5.1.2

Table4-6.5.1.2(a)

4-7.2.1.1 4-7.2.1.2 4-7.2.2

4-7.3.1.1 4-7.3.1.2 4-7.4.1

4-7.4.1.I 4-7.4.1.2 4-7.4.2 4-7.4.3 4-7.4.3.1 4-7.4.3.2 4-7.4.3.3 Table 4-7.5.1.2

Table 4-7.5.1.3

4-7.5.2.2

Figure 4-7.5.2.2

4-7.5.3

Table 4-7.5.4

Move text to 4-7.2.1. R e n u m b e r to 4-7.2.1.1. Chm~ge "Maximum Protection Area" to "Maxinmm Protection Area of (.;overage". Move text to 4-7.3.1. R e n u m b e r 4-7.3.1.2 to 4-7.3.1.1. Change Ode to "[)istance Below Ceilings and f rom Walls". R e n u m b e r to 4-7.4.1.3. R e n u m b e r to 4-7.4.1.1 R e n u m b e r to 4-7.4.1.2 R e n u m b e r to 4-7.4.2. Move text to 4-7.4.3. Rennin ber to 4-7.4.1.3.1. Renumber 4-7.4.2.1. Add "Ca)" to dm end of file heading " Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to die end of the head ing "Maxi mu m All owaM e ...". Add "Ca)" to the end of the heading " Distmlce From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to die end of the head ing "Maximum Allowable ...". Acid exception 1 and 3 f rom 4-6.5.1.1, delete "penden t mad" f rom exception 3. Ch,'mge all "a" to "c", all "b" to "d" ,and all "c" to "a", add "See Table 4-7.5.4" to Elevation view f rom tile sidewall to tile top of the obstruction. Move text to new 4-7.5.3.1, Acid teXt f rom 4-5.5.3. Add "Ca)" to the end of die h e a d i n g " Horizontal Distance", add "(b)" to die end of the head ing "Min imum Vertical ...".

183

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

4-8 EXTENDED COVERAGE UPRIGHT AND PENDENT 4-8.1 Delete first sentence. 4-8.2.2 Change "Maxinmm Protection Area" to

"Maximum Protection Area of Cove~tge". 4-8.3.1 Relocate sentence #2 and #3 to the end of

4-8.3.2, Add "The maximum distance shall be measured along tile slope of the ceiling." after sentence #1. Move exception to new 4-8.4.1.1 and new 4-8.4.1.2, delete the remainder of the text. Add new with text and exception from 4- 6.4.1.1. Add new with text and exceptions #1 and #2 from 4-6.4.1.2. Add new with text from 4-6.4.1.3 without the exceptions. Move exceptions to 4-8.5.2.2 Change reference of 4-5.5.3 to 4-5.5.2. Add "(a)" to the end of tim beading " Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to tile end of the heading "Maximum Allowable ...". Change all "a" to "b", all "b" to "d" and all "c" to "a", replace "(SSU/SSP)" with "(extended coverage upright an pendent spray, sprinklers)"

4-8.5.2.2 Exception 2 Delete "provided that all truss members ,are greater fllan 4 in. width."

Figure 4-8.5.2.2 Change all "a" to "c", all "b" to "d" and all "c" to "a".

4-8.5.3 Add text from 4-5.5.3. Table 4-8.5.4 Add "(a)" to the end of the heading"

Horizontal Distance", add "(b)" to file end of the heading "Minimum Vertical ...".

4-9 EXTENDED COVERAGE SIDEWALL 4-9.2.2 Add new "Maximum Protection Area. The

inaximum allowable protection area of coverage for a sprinkler (As) shall be in accordance with die value indicated in Table 4-9.2. In any case, the maximum area of coverage of a sprinkler shall not exceed 400 sq. ft." Add new Table 4-9.2 for maximum protection ar~--t by hazard group as indicated.

4-8.4.1

4-8.4.1.1

4-8.4.1.2

4-8.4.1.3

4-8.5.1.1 4-8.5.1.2 Tal)le 4-8.5.1.2 (a)

Figure 4-6.5.1.2 (b)

Table 4-9.2 Protection Area mad Maximum Spacing for Extended Coverage Sidewall Spriakler*

Construction Type Light Hazard Ordinary Hazard

Prote.ction Protection Area Spacing Area Spacing (ft 2 ) fit) (ft 2 ) fit)

[ lnobsta'ucted r Smooth~ FLat 400 28 400 24

4-9.3.1.1 4-9.3.1.2 4-9.3.2

4-9.3.3 4-9.4.1

4-9.4.1.1 4-9.4.1.2

4-9.4.2.1 4-9.4.2.2 4-9.4.2.1

Table 4-9.5.1.2

4-9.5.2

Move text to 4-9.3.1 Renumber 4-9.3.1.1 Add ",as indicated in Table 49.2." to file last sentence. Delete the last sentence "Sidewall ...". Change tide to "Distance Below Ceilings and f rom Walls". Renumber to 4-9.4.1.3. Renumber to 4-9.4.1.1, add new 4-9.4.1.2 "Sidewall sprinkler deflectors shall be located not more than 6 in. nor less than 4 in. from walls." Move text to 4-9.4.2 Renumber 4-9.4.1.3.1 Add new "Sidewall sprinklers, where installed under a sloped ceiling, shall be located at the high point of the slope arid positioned to discharge downward along tile slope." Add "(a)" to the end 'of die i leading" Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to the end of the headin[{ "Maximum Allowable ...". Reuumoer to 4-9.5.2.2, chanl~,e all "a" to "c", all "d" to "d" and all "c" to "a ', add "See Table 4-9.5.4" to Elevation view from the sidewall to the top of die obstruction.

4-9.5.2.2

4-9.5.3

Table 4-9.5.3

Figure 4-9.5.3 4-9.5.3.1

4-10 LARGE DROP 4-10.2.1

4-10.3.2

4-10.5.1.1

4-10.5.1.2 Table 4-10.5.1.2

Figure 4-10.5.2

4-10.5.2

4-10.5.2.1

4-10.5.2.2 4-10.5.3

Table 4-10.5.3.1

Figure 4-10.5.3.1 4-10.5.3.2

Figure 4-10.5.3.2

Figure 4-10.5.3.3 4-10.5.3.3

4-11 E.S.ER. 4-11.2.1

4-11.4.1

4-11.4.2

4-11.5 4-11.5.1.1

4-11.5.1.2 Table 4-11.5.1.2

Revise reference of Figalre 4-9.5.2 to 4-9.5.2.2, revise Figalre 4-9.5.2. to 4-9.5.2.2. Remnnber to 4-9.5.4, revise Table and Figure No. to 4-9.5.4, add new 4-9.5.3 "'OI)stxuctions that prevent Sprinkler Discharges from Reaching file Hazard. C o n t i n u o u s o r n o r i c o n t i n n o u s o b s t r u t : t i o n s that interrupt die water discharge in a horizontal plane more fllan 18 in. below tile sprinkler deflector in a manner to limit die distribution from reaching die protected hazard." Renumber to 4-9.5.4 Add "(a)" to the end of

die heading" Horizontal Distance", add ".(b)" to the end of the heading "Minimum Vertical ...'. Renumber to 4-10.5.4. Add new "Sprinklers shall be installed tinder

fixed obstructions over 4 ft. wide such as ducts, decks, cutting tables, and overhead doors. Exc#ption: Obstructions that are not fixed in

place s ~ h as conference tables."

Add title "Determination of the Protection Area of Coverage.", change reference of 4-5.9.1.1 to 4-5.2.1. Change the word "referenced" to

"indicated". Move Exceptions to 4-10.5.2.2, revise

Exception 2 "less than 2 1/2 in." to "less fllan 2 in." Change reference of 4-5.5.3 to 4-5.5.2. Add "(a)" to the end of the heading"

Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to file end of the heading "Maximum Allowable ...". Renumber to 4-10.5.2.2, Chan~e :dl "a" to

"c', "all "b" to "d" and all "c" to ' a". Change title to read "Obstnicfi~ns to

S~finkler Discharge Pattern Developmeht" enumber to 4-10.5.2.2 Revise reference of

Figure 4-9.5.2 to 4-9.5.2.2, add new 4-10.5.2.1 "Continuous or noncont inuous obstructions less than 36 in. below the sprinkler deflector that prevent the pattern from fully developing shall comply with this section." Renumber 4-10.5.2.3 Add text from 4-5.5.3 and change 18 inches

to 36 inches. Add "(a)" to the end of the heading"

Minimum Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction, ft.", add "(b)" to the end of file he,-~ding "Distance of ...". Change "a" to "b", all "b" to "a". Renumber to 4-10.5.3.3, revise all references

of Figure 4-10.5.3.2 to 4-10.5.3.3,2add new 4-10.5.3.2 "Sprinklers installed under open

gratings shall be of the intermediate level/ rack storage type or otherwise shielded from the discharge of overhead sprinklers." Renumber to 4-10.5.3.3, revise all references

of Figure 4-10.5.3.3 to 4-10.5.3.4 Renumber to 4-10.5.3.4. Renumber to 4-10.5.3.4.

Add title "Determination of tile Protection Area of Cover, tge.", change reference of 4-5.2.1.1 to 4-5.2.1. Move first and second sentence to new 4-11.4. I. l, add last sentence to 4-1 1.5.2.3. Relocate second sentence "With obstructed " to new 4-11.4.1.1, revise sentence from

2.'.sball be parallel..." to "..shall be "aligned parallel... Delete "Pattern Development" Move Exception 1 to 4-11.5.2.2, delete

Exception 2. Change reference of 4-5.5.3 to 4-5.5.2 Add "(a)" to file end of the heading"

Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to file end of the heading "Maximum Allowable ...".

184

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

4-11.5.3

Table 4-11.5.3.2

Add text f rom 4-5.5.3 ,and change 18 inches to 36 inches. R e n u m b e r to 4-11.5.3.1, Add "(a)" to the

end of die h e a d i n g " Distance From Sprinkler to Side of Obstruction", add "(b)" to the end of the heading "Maximum All owabl e ...".

Figure 4-11.5.3.2 R e n u m b e r to 4-11.5.3.1, change "a" to "b' , change "b" to "a".

4-11.5.3.2 Revise first sentence from "...and otiler obstruct ions located..." to ".. .and other obstruct ions more than 24 inches wide and located...", R e n u m b e r to 4-11.5.3.3, add new 4-11.5.3.2 "Sprinklers installed unde r open gratings shall be of the intermediate level/ rack storage type or odlerwise shielded from the dischm'ge of overhead sprinklers."

SUBSTANTIATION: To accomplish technical mid editorial consistency hetween sections 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 and 4-11. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in .Principle.

1. In Exception No. 3 of section 4-5.5.1 replace the te rm "perpendicular" witll "pendent".

2. Revise the proposed title of section 4-6 to read as "Starldard Penden t and I lpr ight Spray Sprinklers".

3. In section 4-6.1 revise the phrase "standard spray upr ight and penden t sprinklers" to read ,as "standard upr igh t and penden t spray sprinklers".

4. Revise the title of section 4-6.2.2 to read "Maximum Protection Area of (.;overage".

5. In Exception No. 2 of section 4-6.2.2 do not add "composite ,wood joist" ~ffter "utilizing" as indicated by the subntitter.

6. In Exception No. 1 of section 4-6.4.1.2 revise the reference " 4-6.5.2" to read "4-6.5.1.2".

7. In Exception No. 4 of section 4-6.4.1.2 the table reference should be 4-6.5.1.2 not 4-6.5.1.2(a) as indicated by die submitter. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These actions represent editorial corrections to the rewrite of Chapter 4. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #45) 13- 47 - (Chapter 4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. lsman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41

• RECOMMENDATION: Review chapter and make sure that all sections for all types of sprinklers whicb have die same requirements also read file same. Make sure tha t all exceptions granted for one t e of sprinkler ,apply to o ther types of sprinklers when appropriate. . . ;YI~BSTANTIATION: Several comment s have been sublmt ted winch will eharlge which obstruction criteria apply to different sprinklers. These exceptions should be consistent t h r o u g h o u t die cllapter. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: As noted, a n u m b e r of comments have been received on this proposal to coordinate, cross reference ,and verify file various clmnges for each type of sprinkler. W h e n appropriate, the requi rements have been coordinated ,among the types of sprinklers. Also, See Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-46 (Log #25). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #64) 13-48- (Chapter 4): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTEI~ Brent Gutierrez, U.S. Dept of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-72 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

4-14.4.3.1 As stated in response to various A96ROP recolnmendat ions , "NFPA 13 is not, no r should ever be relied upon to de termine when seismic protection is required." Yet, the current wording of 4-14.4.3.1 does deternfine fllat "where subject to earthquakes" (i.e., in a seismic zone) sprinkler systems "shall" be protected to prevent pipe breakage. This has been in terpre ted to read that in most of file Eastern and Western l LS. (i.e., seismic zones), NFPA 13 does manda te seismic bracing of sprinkler systems. Should 4-14.4.3.1 read:

"When the authori ty having jurisdict ion requires that sprinkler systems be seismically designed, the requ i rements of 4-14.4.3 shall apply."

4-14.4.3.1 Exception Consistent with file new Exception 1 to 4-14.4.3.5.3 ~md with c o m m o n practice, file word "dynamic" could be

deleted. Equivalent static me thods and beam formulas are usually used to seismically evaluate piping systems as an option to dynamic analysis (such as elastic response spectra or, more rarely, t ime history techniques) .

4-14.4.3.1 Exception To link the piping system seismic capacity to the building capacity is a roll order, for 2 reasons:

(1) It requires a seismic e~duat ion of the soil and building structure to de te rmine it's capacity.

(2) The piping systems may be seismically qualified without necessarily being ,'~s seismically s t rong ,as fl~e bui lding.

When us ing this exception, a PE knowledgeable in seismic qualification of piping systems, would seistnically evaluate and qu:dit~¢ the sprinkler systems on the b:Lsis of stresses in the pipe (compared to allowables such as A~SME B31), loads on snpports and anchors (comparecl to allowables such zLs eLSCE, AIS( :, ACI, AIS0, loads and displacements at couplings and equ ipmen t nozzles (compared to vendor Mlowables), interferences and interactions. On this basis, the sprinkler system could be seismically qu:dified wiflmut necessarily having the stone capacity :us the buildinl~.

4-14.4.3.2 NFPA 13,justifiably, emphasizes file need to cmculate loads on bracing and compare them to allowable capacities. There is no such emphasis for seismic loads (or displacements, or rotations) on mechanic~d (grooved or rolled) couplings. A-4-14.3.2 does men t ion "using listed flexible couplings." It wonld be advisable to state in 4-14.4.3.2 or its Appendix fl~at loads, displacements or rotations at mechanical couplings mus t be m~dnudned wititin the listed allowables.

4-14.4.3.5.1 The addit ion of "vertical loads" is appropriate. There are 2 componen t s to the vertical load: (1) the vertical load wltirh resuhs f rom the horizontal swing (addressed in ROP 13-81), and (2) tile vertical load which results f rom the vertical force Fv impar ted by the building to the piping. Selecting tile magn i tude of tile vertical load Fv (the verticM I o ~ factor) is not a simple task. A ~flue less than Fv = 1.0 Wp would be insufficient to overcome gravity and would result in no ne t upward load.

Could guidance be provided regarding the magni tude of tile vertical load factor and its combinat ion with file horizontal force?

4-14.4.3.5.5 The emphasis on the manufac tu re r ' s certified allowables - in addition to Table 4-14.4.3.5.6 is an improvement .

A-4-14.4.3.5.6 Considerat ions of edge distance and type of bolts apply to ~dl types of anchor bolts. Once could delete the words "for internally th readed [shell type?] anchors" f rom the last paragraph.

4-14.4.3.5.8 Editorial: ". . . to serve as lateral.. ." SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-119 (Log #110). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #94) 13- 49 - (Chapter 4): Reject SUBMITTER: RoffJensen, Rol f Jensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Change title of Chapter 4 to "Sprinkler Spacing, Location Coverage, ,-and Obstructions." Place all hanger rules in a separate chapter enti t led "Piping S u p p o r t " SUBSTANTIATION: Original rewrite proposed a change in file title of Chapter 4 to better describe the information contained therein. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes that tile current make-up of Chapter 4 is sufficient. However, file Chapter 4 task group agrees with this c o m m e n t in principal. This matter will likely be a topic of future consideration. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #( ;(.: 16) 13- 50 - (Chapter 4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the exception that permits 1 in. structural members to be within 1 in. of the sprinklers, l-)elete file exception in file lollowing paragraphs:

4-5.5.1 - Exception No. 1. 4-6.5.1.1 - Exception No. 1. 4-8.5.1.1 - Exception No. 1. 4-10.5.1.1 - Exception No. 1. 4-11.5.1.1 - Exception No. 1.

185

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

R e n u m b e r file taller exceptions as necessary to acconwnodate the delet ion of these exceptions. SUBSTANTIATION: Tile Commit tee does not wish to ignore flae potential impact of tile obstruct ion which c,'m still be created by a small di:m/eter strnctural m e m b e r which i,~ located in close proximity to the sprinkler. Even small d iameter elements , even wiflain ;m inch of the sprinkler can still create a subst~mtial impact on the deve lopment of the sprinkler spray pattern. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #14) 13-51 - (Chapter 4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add a section 4-9.4.2.3 which parallels 4-7.4.3.3 for completeness. SUBSTANTIATION: While EC sprinklers are not permi t ted t inder steep slopes, they are permit ted u n d e r slopes of 2 in. per 12 ft. For example, at 20 ft spacings, dlere could he a 40 in. difference in elevation between sprinklers. Adding the section which was left out will address this concern. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-46 (Log #25). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #1 ) 13- 52 - (4-1.1): Hold for Fu r r i e r Study SUBMITTER: Gerry Harr ington, West Vancouver Fire Dept., BC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: RECOMMENDATION: Revise text.

"Parking garages and carports a t tached to, or inc luded in die residential occupancy, same to be sprinklered wifll Quick /Fas t Response Sprinklers. In ,areas where cold climate is experienced,

~l~ ick/Fast Response Dry Sidewall Sprinklers may be used." BSTANTIATION: Our deparmaent has exper ienced three recent

fires within this last year, t / a t have originated in die garage or open . carport areas, fllen traveled into file dwelling units.

Sidewall sprinklers, located in the garages or carports, would control any fire tllat does occur, plus give an alarm to notify the occu pants and fire deparunent .

N()TE: Suppor t ing material is availahle for review at NFPA Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Fnrdler Study. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t represents new material which was not previously considered by dae committee. It is !rated however, that NFPA 13 already requires sprinkler protect ion in ~ara~,ara es. N t ~ B r I ~ OF COMMITTEE MEMBVa~S ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #69) 13-53 - (4-2.2 Exception): Acc_ept . SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler

;ompany Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Change "for the same ceiling conditions" to:

"with smoofll, flat ceilings." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, to clarify the exact intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #4) 13- 54 - (4-3.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERz J o h n J . Walsh, Uni ted Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-44 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following:

"Standard response and quick response sprinklers shall no t be installed in tile same compar tment" . ~ : Instzdlation of s tandard response mid quick response

sprinklers in tile same c o m p a r t m e n t shall be permi t ted when it has hzLs been d o c m n e n t e d d~at this will no t adversely impact system performance.

Add to the Appendix: A~I-3.1.1 Exception Examples of situations in which s tandard

response and quick response sprinklers may be installed in die stone compa r tmen t are when QR in-rack sprinklers are used widl the s tandard response sprinklers at die ceiling ,and when dr:fit curtains ,are used to separate stancktrd response from quick response. SUBSTANTIATION: Tile revised proposal addresses m y concern regarding indiscriminate mixing as expressed in die ROP widlout being overly restrictive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new section A-4-4 to read as follows: A-4-4 The selection of a sprinkler type will vary by occupancy.

W h e n more than one type of sprinkler is used widlin a compar tment , sprinklers with similar response characteristics should be use d (i.e., s tandard or quick response) . However, some hazards may benefit f rom designs diat include die use of bodi s tandard ,arid quick response sprinklers. Examples include rack storage protected by s tandard response ceiling sprinklers and quick response in-rack sprinklers. Ano the r case may include open ing protection us ing closely spaced quick response sprinklers with s tandard response sprinklers in the adjo in ing areas. Other designs can be compromised wberl sprinklers of differing sensitivity are mixed. Aal example is a system utilizing ESFR sprinklers adjacent to a system using high tempera ture st~mdard response sprinklers as may be found in a warehouse. In this case a fire occurring near die boundary may open F~SFR sprinklers which would not be contempla ted in the s tandard response system design. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tile commit tee is of the opinion that there are too many cases where mixing of st~mdard response and quick response sprinklers could become a problem with the submit ter ' s proposed text. For example, quick response sprinklers installed th roughout , except in d~ose areas where a h igher t empera tu re sprinkler is needed (under skylight, near beat ing sources) would require some form of documenta t ion u n d e r the submit ter ' s proposed text. In reality, mixing of the two types of devices should not be problematic. Tile commit tee ' s action is in tended to address this concern. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #15) 13-55 - (4-4.1.3.2.2 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-53 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"0.9 m" shou ld be "0.31 m". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The i tem in the r ecommenda t ion was referring to text in the proposal. As indicated, this has ,already been incorporated into NFPA 13 and no action is needed at this time. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: .27

(Log #70) 13-56- (4-4.1.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1.3-41, 13-54 RECOMMENDATION: Change "shall be permit ted" to "sh,-dl be maintained." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, to clarify the exact intent. As it is cur rendy written it could be interpreted to me,'m clearances of between 18 in. ,and 36 in. would be acceptable for special sprinklers, whereas in fact a m i n i m u m clearance of 36 in. is required for tllese devices. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The text of Exception No. 2 is in tended to manda te that special sprinklers be permit ted to have a clearance r equ i r emen t of 36 in. or more. Tile Commit tee ' s cnrrent wordinga l ready specifies this. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

186

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

(Log #i 06) 13- 57 - (4-4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Doug Rice, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Reword 4-4.3 to tbe following:

"Extended coverage sprinklers shall be l imited to a type of unobs t ruc ted construct ion consisting of flat, smooth ceilings with a slope not exceeding 2 in. per ft." SUBSTANTIATION: Adding the term unobs t ruc ted construction r~eeds clarifying d/at alley are only acceptable for a part of definition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC3) 13- 58 - (4-4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: 1. In Exception No. 1, delete die second sentence in its entirety.

2. Add a new Exception No. 2 to read as follows: "Extended cove~tge upr ight mad penden t spray sprinklers shall be

permit ted widfin trusses or b:ucjoists baying web members not greater fl~an l-in. m a x i m u m dimension."

3. R e n u m b e r cur rent Exception No. 2 as Exception No. 3. SUBSTANTIATION: This change will clarify the commit tee ' s in tent with respect to ex tended coverage sprinklers located within various types of truss confignrations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #103) 13- 59 - (4-4.6.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneda W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "only" between die word "use" and "in" in the first sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: ESFR sprinklers systems ~ e routinely proposed for buildings where the ce i l ing / roof consmlc t ion is not suitable (e.~., deep pre-cast concrete "T's"). The addition of the word "only' is editorial and is in tended to reinforce the fact that some roof construct ion types are not acceptable if an ESFR sprinkler installatiorl is p lmmed. COMMITTEEACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #46) 13- 60 - (4-4.7.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed 4-4.7.2 de,'ding with a m a x i m u m roof slope for Large Drop sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: There are no cur rent limits to file installation of Large Drop sprinklers unde r sloped roofs. This would be an added r equ i r emen t widl no documenta t ion fllat daere is a problem wida sloped roofs. The Large Drop sprinkler is a control or iented sprinkler with response e lements similar to s tandard response sprinklers. It should be treated as such.

The co~lmtittee has already recognized dais fact in proposal 1 3-130 ' which allows the Large Drop sprinkler to be installed widl sloped roofs mad adds an additional 30 percent to die design ,area to account for die change in open ing pattern. To leave boda proposals widlout dais cb~mge would create a conflict in the s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #123) 13- 61 - (4-4.7.2): Accept SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 4-4.7.2. SUBSTANTIATION: No data was given to suppor t ceiling restrictions. Field pe r fo rmance has been acceptable.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #88) 13- 62 - (44.9.1 (0 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Golinveanx, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

(f) Hydraulically most d e m a n d i n g area. SUBSTANTIATION: Guidance is necessary to the laboratories to look at dae m i n i m u m operat ing area of any special sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise submit ter ' s c o m m e n t to read: (f) Area of design.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This more appropriately addresses die submit ter ' s intent. The system 'area of design ' is unders tood to mean die ,area of sprinkler system operation. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #124) 13- 63 - (4-4.9.2): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking ( :orpomtion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 196 ft2 restriction for extra hazard and higb pile storage occupancies. SUBSTANTIATION: No data has been presented to suppor t incre:Lsing or restricting sprinkler spacing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Without dae restriction the limit wonkl be 400 sq ft. By definit ion extra hazard occupax~cies can involve extensive shielding of sprinkler discharge. The conmaittee agrees dlat when appropria te test data becomes available it will reconsider this matter. The original concept was to limit the area dlat would burn freely widl the impa i rment of one sprinkler. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #29) 13- 64- (4.4.20): Reject SUBMITTER: William Conner , American Society of Theat re Consultants COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-60 RECOMMENDATION: Do not change dae Commit tee Action. This system is used stand-alone, not wit1 a curtain, as the Explanat ion of Negative ballots suggests. SUBSTANTIATION: See dae fourdl paragraph of my Substantiation for file proposal. I have worked on a n u m b e r of projects with deluge systems used for p roscen ium opening protection and they are "all on file audience side of the plaster line (stage side of p roscen ium wall). NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA

Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The C, ormnittee bas reevaluated tile content of die proposal and has developed a Commit tee C o m m e n t to address the issue. The basic hazard on a legitimate stage comes f rom the scenery and set construct ion on the stage, thus tile deluge system should be provided on the stage side. See Commit tee C o m m e n t 13-116 (Log #CC15). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #111) 13- 65 - (4-5.1.1 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-61 RECOMMENDATION: Revise cur ren t Exception No. 9 (proposed Exception No. 10) to read:

"Concealed spaces wbere tile only combustible is exposed combustible insulation where the..." SUBSTANTIATION: The substantiat ion for proposal 1 3-61 (Log #37), ,and the acceptance of tha t substantiat ion by the Commit tee , effectively creates a commit tee interpretat ion wltich is in correct based on an analysis of past commit tee actions.

187

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

llt die c;ise described, a large concealed space with combustible roof and 2 x 6 in. wood joists was pe rmi t t ed t o be unspr inklered based on tile fact tlaat the exposed surfaces were covered wida foil- faced fiberglass insulation widl f lame spread rat ing of 25 or less. This presumably satisfied Exception No. 8.

However, Exception No. 8 was added to the s tandard in the t983 edition. At tbat time, the Commit tee had proposed a new section as follows:

%ghen the exposed surfaces have a f lame spread rating le~s than 25 and dae surface materials have been demons t ra ted not to propagate fire in the form in which tiaey are installed in dais space."

The substantiat ion addressed dae need t o p e r m i t fire retar "dant treated wood or similar materials. Dur ing tile public c o m m e n t period, Rol f Jensen proposed a re turn to Commit tee , citing other factors Milch should be considered. One example was a limitation placed upon BTU conten t per sq ft of horizontal concealed space, such as in the case of paper racing of insulation material. Tbe (;omntit tee accepted the c o m m e n t in principle mad revised the exception to read:

"When the exposed surfaces bave a f lame spread rating less th,'m 25 and the materials have been demons t ra ted not to propagat6 fire in the form in which daey are installed in dae space or Mien the BTU content of flae facing and substrate of insulation material does no t exceed 1,000 BTU per sq ft."

As we recall the discussion at die time, the insnlation material exception was impor tan t because a n u m b e r of odaerwise noncombust ib le concealed spaces (such as in nurs ing h o m e attics) were being requi red to be sprinklered on tile basis oftiae insulation alone, which would no t be expected to have e n o n g h heat con ten t to set off sprinklers in dae space.

The wording of the s tandard in dais area was later split into two exception, recognizing these as two separate issues. These are the current Exceptions No. 8 and No. 9.

( ;ett ing back to the situation described in the proposal substantiation, we do no t believe sprinklers should have been omit ted from flae space because the combinat ion of insulation and wood ioists was presumably never demons t ra ted not to propagate fire il~ dae form in whicb it was installed in the space. It would tllerefore not qualify for Exception No. 8.

In our advice to our m e m b e r contractors, we have acknowledged file use of foil-faced insulat ion in lowering dae effective ceiling location witla regard to depfll of composi te wood joists and the like, but we have never acknowledged its use in permit t ing omi~ ion of sprinklers f rom combust ible concealed spaces. To the contrary, we bave pointed out the Exception No. 9 addresses the use of insulation and permits omission of sprinklers where d ie insulat ion is dae combusti bl e.

While we do not see a problem in splitting Exception No. 8 as proposed in the C, ommit tee Action, we see a neect to address flae final exception, clarifying tiaat its in tent is to apply to tbe situation where the insulation is tl~e only combustible in the concealed space. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The ( 'ommit tee believes that the current wording is adequate . The cur ren t text is applicable to a conceMed noncombust ib le space in wltich a combnst ible insulat ing material is installed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #71) 13- 66 - (4-5.5.3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Change "cutting tables and overhead doors." to "and cutt ing tables." SUBSTANTIATION: Overhead doors are not f ixed obstructions. Additionally, installing piping unde r or a round such doors is an impractic~d proposition, it obstructs the head room and creates banging problems. Sprinklers unde r overhead doors ,are no t necessary, the obstruct ions they create can be e l iminated by tiae simple expedient of closing them. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commi t tee Sta tement on C o m m e n t 13-86 (Log #74). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

( Log #CC 1 ) 13-67- (4-5.6, 4-6.6, 4-7.6, 4-8.6, 4-10.6, 4-11.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise sections 4-5.6, 4-6.6, 4-7.6, 4-8.6 to read as follows:

"The clearance between tiae deflector and rite top of storage shall be 18 in. or greater."

Revise sections 4-10.6 and 4-11.6 to read as follows: "The clearance between the deflector and the top of storage shall

be 36 in. or greater." SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee is of die opinion tlaat the revised language more clearly expresses their intent. COMMITtEE-ACTION: Accept2 NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #132) 13-68- (4-5.18.2 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1.3-62 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 2 to read:

Exception No. 2: The use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25':4 ram) is no t permi t ted in areas subject to earthquakes.

Also, apply dais exception to 4-5.18.3. SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee did not provide specific word ing to satisfy tile submit ter ' s intent. Eidler the exception s i m u l d b e located in 4-5.18.2 and 4-5.18.3 or the r equ i r emen t should be located in Section 4-6.4 with a r e f e r e n c e in 4-5.18.2 an d 4-5.18.3 to the specific paragraph in Section 4-6.4. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Editorial Note: In proposed 4-14.18.3, Exception No.2, change "... pipe schedule.. ." to "... hydraulically calculated... ' . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #83) 13- 69 - (Table 4-6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: .James Golinveanx, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add " ( S S U / S S P ) " to dae end of heading.

Add "Max" to file spac ing cohmm. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC4) 13-70- (4-6.2, 4-6.3, 4-6.4, 4-6.5, 4-6.6): Accelat SUBMITrER: Technical Commit tee on Aut6mat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: After the title of eacb of tlae sections add the following:

"(s tandard spray penden t and upr igh t sprinklers)" SUBSTANTIATION: This will make it easier to identify the installation requ i rements for the specific type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #134) 13- 71 - (4-6.3.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J ames M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last sentence ,and Fignre 4-6.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: This sen tence suggests tha t a s tandard spray sprinkler could be located 11.25 ft f rom a wall - no t ju s t the c o m e r as elgure 4-6.3.2 indicates. The m a x i m u m distance f rom a sprinkler to a c o m e r is file square root of 2 t imes the m a x i m u m distance between sprinklers provided the protect ion area for that sprinkler :is de t e rmined by the hydraulic calchlations is no t exceeded." The protect ion area of a sprinkler is rectangle or square. The distance oetween a sprinkler and a wall at an angle is de t e rmined such that ,all port ions of the wall are widtin the prote-ction area (square or rectangle) of a sprinkler, Considerat ion shou ld be gl~ven to de te rmin ing the p rotection .area o f s p rinkler by usin g the radius, of coverage and the area o f t orcle. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add die following as tile last sen tence of section 4-6.3.2: "Provided the m a x i m u m perpendicular distance is no t exceeded."

188

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The section is referring to walls which are angular or irregular. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #79) 13- 72 - (Figure 4-6.3.2(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vi[)ond Automatic Sprinkler ( ;ompanv Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41, 13-163 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the new Figure A46.3 .2(a ) to show that Dimension A represents tile fitil width of die room (12 ft-1 in. for 200 ft2 and 13 ff-'7 1 /2 in. for 225 ft2) as was shown on the cwiginal Figure A-4-4.1.2.1 (a) of the cur rent edition. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, to clarify the exact intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #72) 13- 73 - (4-6.4.1.2 Exception No. 2): Hold for Fur ther Study SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler ( ' ,ompany Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 2 and r e n u m b e r ti~e existing Exceptions No. 3 mid 4 :m No. 2 and 3, respectively. SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. 2 creates an unnecessary expense and complicat ion to ti)e layout of a sprinkler system.

N( )TE: Sup[ ~ rting material is a~tilak le for review at NFPA Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Furdler Study. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This C o m m e n t represents new material which was no t previously considered by the committee. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #47) 13-74-(4-6.4.1.2 Exception No. 4): Accept SUBMITTER: Kemleth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to reference Table 4-6.5.1.2(a) at the end instead of Table 4-6.5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #73) 13- 75 - (4-6.4.1.3 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Insert dae words "having a slope exceedinl~ 2 in. or 12 in." between tile words "Under a steeply pi tched surface and "din distance f rom the peak. . ." SUBSTANTIATION: There is a need for guidance ,-as to wbat constitutes a steep pitch. Since d l e p r o p o s e d New Paragraph 5-2.3.2.3 (Proposal 13-130, Log #CP8) references a slope of 2 on 12

to be a steep mope, that sanle rate shouM be used here. COMMITTEE ACTION: Re}ect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee believes that slopes in excess of 2 in. per ft are not considered to be steeply sloped in all cases. For system design purposes , as described in Chapter 5 and in Proposal 13-130 (Log #(1P8), slopes in excess of dfis were considered to be s teep lypi tched . N U M B E R O F COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #16) 13- 76 - (4-6.4.3.2(e)): Accept SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-75 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text ,as follows:

"... of die top and bot tom of drops.to hose lines..." SUBSTANTIATION: Edit~'ial. - COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #C('10) 13- 77- (4-6.4.3.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Auton~atic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-78 RECOMMENDATION: Add tile following to the revised text:

A second sentence in tim b ~ e paragraph should read as follows: "Caearance froul structural members not penet ra ted or used,

collectively or independently, to suppor t the piping shall be at least 2 in."

In proposed Exception No. 3 for this paragraph, the te rm "floor" was t-o h-ave been added. SUBSTANTIATION: This text was to be included in the proposal to this section but was omit ted by accident dur ing the ballot. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #133) 13- 78 - (4-6.4.3.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-80 RECOMMENDATION: Change the word "applied to "seismic". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. It makes tile r equ i r emen t more

Ooe cifi c. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 1 3-122 (Log #142). This should satisfy file in tent of the submitter. Tile changes in dais c o m m e n t now refer to the applied seismic load to clarify which load is of concern. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #148) 13- 79 - (4-6.4.3.5.5): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-97 RECOMMENDATION: Accept original proposal with revised wording:

"Fasteners for connec t ing tile bracing to eidler tile structure, or to the pipe being braced, and wttich rely on friction for adequate strength, sha l lbe listed for the service based on dynamic testing." SUBSTANTIATION: This clarifies intent. Friction type devices rely on proper insudlation techniques which are no t verifi,'i.ble in the field. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is still unclear to tile Conmfit tee as to wbat type of hanger assembly utilizes friction based hardware. In addition, even if dfis is specified, there are currently no provisions wittain the listing laboratories to complete dynantic load testing. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #26) 13- 80 - (Table 4-6.4.3.5.5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel C. Duggan, Fire Sprinkler Design COMMENT ON PROPOSALNO: 1.3-87 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Table 4-14.4.3.5.7 as follows:

Table 4-14.4.3.5.7

Allowable Horizontal Load on Brace Assembli~s Based on the Weakest Component o f the Brace Assembly

Brace Angle Allowable Horizontal Load

30 degrees f rom vertical Ultimate Stren~dl divided by Safety Factor divided by 2.000 45 de~rees f rom vertical Ultimate Strength divided by Safety Factor divided by 1.414 60 degrees f rom vertical Ultimate Strength divided by S,'ffety Factor divided by 1.155

189

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee Action on my Proposal 13-87 (Log #60) includes a Table that was to be prepared by NFPA Staft. ()n page 731 of die Report on Proposals die Committee Action adds a new Section 4-6.4.3.5.5, which refers to a Table XXX for loads that are less thara 90 degrees from vertical. On page 782 of the Report on Proposals, which shows how the proposed changes would appea, in the 1996 edition, this change is under the new Section 4-14.4.3.5.7. This new section refers to Tal31e 4-14.4.3.5.3, which is the Assigned Load Table and has nothing to do with loads that are less than 90 degrees from vertical. I m n proposing this Table 4-14.4.3.5.7, which would conform to the Committee Action in tended to insure that brace fittings will not be the unknown weak link for brace assemblies in die future ,as they have been in tlae past. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE AC~I'ION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #149) 13- 81 - (4-6.4.3.5.11):" Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-108 RECOMMENDATION: Accept as proposed. SUBSTANTIATION: See original substantiation for 13-108 (Log #109). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Some structural systems may not permit file hanger to be posit ioned'greater than six feet from the cross main. It is not known if the loss experience referred to resulted from an improperly braced system. Systems with longitudinal bracing in accordance with NFPA 13 should not be subj ect to damage. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log#150) 13- 82 - (4-6.4.3.5.11 Exception No. 3): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-110 RECOMMENDATION: Accept original proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Loss experience. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No data has been submitted to justify acceptance of the original proposal. The committee stands on its original statement for initially rejecting the proposal. See Proposal 13-110 (Log #111) of dae A96 ROP.


AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #21) 13- 83 - (4-6.4.3.5.12.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RobertJ. Pearce, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-113 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

"Where bung or d ropped ceilings are braced against movement from earthquakes the sprinkler drops shall be restrained as an integral part of that system." SUBSTANTIATION: In older buildings, the unbraced ceilings rapidly gave way limiting damage to sprinkler drops. Model codes and municipal retrofits now require ceilings to be braced to prevent horizontal and vertical movement. This more rigid structure left unbraced sprinkler drops more vulnerable to damage in the Loma Prieta and Northridge Earthquakes. The shearing of heads and drops was the most prevalent damage that caused sprinkler system to become impaired. In the Northridge Earthquake, we also saw manufacturing and mercantile establishments would walt the longest for aid. When utilities are being restored these facilities are most vulnerable to fire following an earthquake. Most of the facilities left vulnerable to catastrophic loss because of an impaired sprinkler system would be in that condition because of minor damage to beads and drops. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the suggested text of the comment to read: "Where ceilings are seismically braced to prevent horizontal and

vertical movement, branch lines and armovers in excess of 24 in. horizontally, if,provided, shall be restrained against upward movement and sprinklers shall be provided with a one piece escutcheon.

Exception: Recessed, flush and concealed s~rinkiers shall not be required to be provided with the escutcheon. '

190

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The change proposed by the committee addresses flae issue of sprinklers, piping and ceilings be braced and or restrained to move as a unit. The proposed exception recognizes that certain types of sprinklers are not ,as ,affected by the independen t movement of ceilings and sprinkler pipe. This should satisfy the level of protection whith was being sought by the comment, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 . VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #48) 13- 84- (4-6.5.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add a re fe rence to Figure 4-6.5.2.2.

2. In Figure 4-6.5.2.2 replace "c_<24" with '~This figure is only to be used when the obstruction dimension 'c ' is less tiaan or equal to 24 in. If tiffs dimension is greater than 24 in., the requirements of

• 4-6.5.2.2 do not apply regardless of the size of the obstruction." 3. Take out second truss in Figure 4-6.5.2.2.

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Editorial. It is a good idea to referenced a figa~re in the text.

2. To clarify the meaning of dimension 'c' being less than or equal to 24 in. It is not clear that tiffs figure doesn ' t apply when a large obstruction is more than 24 in. away. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

1. Accept in Principle. Make dais change on all similar Figures ( - 5.2.2)

2. Accept in Principle. Delete the 'c~< 24 in.' in Figure 4-6.5.2.2, and all similar figures.

3. Accept• COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes that dais more appropriately addresses the submitter 's comment . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #140) 13- 85 - (Figure 4-6.5.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Fe[d Engineering COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: 1. If the "TRUSS' identified in the Figure is in tended to be an open web truss, dlen the Figure should be specific in that respect. If the "TRUSS" is in tended to be any truss including a solid web truss, then Figure 4-6.5.1.2(a) should apply also (specifically for solid web trusses). 2. The reference to c<24 in. suggests the maximum distance

between the sprinkler and the truss is 24 in. Why would a sprinkler located 36 in. from the truss not be acceptable? Please clarify the Figure. SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

1. Accept in Principle. Revise all of the figures with a truss to indicate t]mt it is an 'open web steel or wood truss." This inclndes Figures 4-6.5.2.2, 4-8.5.2.2, 4-10.5.2 and 4-11.5.2.

2. Accept in Principle as indicated in 13-84 (Log #4"8). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. Label ingthe figure as indicated will clarify that this applies to an open wed truss.

2. See the Committee Action on Comment 13-84 (Log #48) arid Committee Comment 13-50 (Log #CC16). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #74) 13- 86 - (4-6.5.3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, "vqpond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Change "cutting tables and overhead doors." to "and cutting tables." SUBSTANTIATION: Overhead doors are not fixed obstructions. Additionally, installing piping under or a round such doors is an impractical proposition, it obstructs the head room and creates hanging problems. Sprinklers under overhead doors are not necessary, the obstructions they create can be eliminated by the simple expedient of closing them. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes that overhead doors are obstructions. Therefore, sprinklers are required to be installed undernea th the doors. There is no way of closing overllead doors in an expedient manner . Overhead doors at garages, warehouses and manufacturing plants will likely remain open all day during good weather.

N F P A 13 1 A 9 6 R ( ) C


AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #86) 13- 87 - (Table 4-7.2): Accept SUBMITTER: James Golinveaux, Central Sprinkler (:o. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41

. RECOMMENDATION: Add "(Standard sidewall spray sprinkler)" to the end of beading. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: ~7

(Log #CC5) 13- 88 - (4-7.2, 4-7.3, 4-7.4, 4-7.5, 4-7.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1.3-41 RECOMMENDATION: After the title of each of the sections add the following:

"' (stan&trd sidewall spray sprinklers)" SUBSTANTIATION: This will make it easier to identify file installation reqni rements for the specific type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #75) 13- 89 - (4-7.2.1.1 (a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Lan T Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Mong die Wall. Determine tile distance between sprinklers a long the wal l (or to die end wall or obstruct ion in the case ofd~e end sprinkler on die branch line) ups t r eam and downstream. Chose d~e larger of eidler twice the distance to the end wall or the distance to the nex t sprinkler. This d imens ion will be def ined as S." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. The proposed text appears to be missing some lines. The verbiage suggested above was derived from the proposed text for 4-5.2.1.1 (a) which contains similar instructions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #84) 13-90- (Figure 4-7.3): Accept SUBMITTER: .]ames Colinveaux, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete figure. SUBSTANTIATION: Since die protection area is now the stancktrd area, there is no need for the figure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #87) 13-91 - (4-7.3.1.2 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: James (.;olinveaux, ( 'entral Sprinkler (;o. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: l 3-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "(see Figure 4-7.3)" SUBSTANTIATION: The figure should be deleted by one of my previous comments . No reference should be made. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log # 137) 13-92- (4-7.5.1.2, 4-7.5.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-7.5.1.2 to read:

"Sidewall sprinklers shall be installed on flat, smooth , horizontal ceilings."

Delete 4-7.5.1.3.

SUBSTANTIATION: When sidewall sprinklers are listed d~ey are tested on flat, smooth , horizontal ceilings. Ceiling m o u n t e d obstructions create an obstruct ion to d~e heat flow to the sprinkler result ing in a delayed response. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Co~mnittee believes flint die mat ter of "flat smooth ceilings" is addressed in section 44.2. The obstruction criteria for side wall sprinklers is n e e d e d for a variety of reasons including light fixtures, ducts and similar architectural featnres NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #(i;(i"2) 13-93- (4-7.5.1.2, 4-9.5.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: In file second sentence of sections 4-7.5.1.2 and 4-9.5.1.2 change the te rm 'beam.s' to ' l ight fixtures". SUBSTANTIATION: It is more likely that sidewall sp~ty sprinklers would be effected by certain architectural features such as light fixtures or soffits. This change is in tended to clarify this point. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #89) 13- 94 - (Figure 4-7.5.1.3) : Accept SUBMITTERa James Golinveaux, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Change "elevation" to "elewttion view." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #76) 13- 95 - (4-7.5.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1.341 RECOMMENDATION: Change "cutdng tables and overhead doors." to "and cutting tables." SUBSTANTIATION: ( )verhead doors are not fixed obstructions. Additionally, installing piping unde r or a round such doors is zu-J impractical proposition, it obstruct~ tl~e head room and creates hang ing problen~s. Sprinklers unde r overhead doors are not necessary, the obstructions flley create c~m be el iminated by the simple expedient of closing d~em. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Sta tement on C o m m e n t 13-86 (Log #74). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #138) 13- 96 - (4-7.5.4): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-7.5.4. SUBSTANTIATION: M d l o u g h the Table may result in water spray clearing the top of the floor m o u n t e d obstruction, a considerable a m o u n t of water will be blocked by tile floor m o u n t e d obstruction. Consider a fire at tlae base of file obstruction on file opposite side. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: NIST has recently comple ted work on s imulated patient care room fire scenarios and sprinklers. While floor m o u n t e d obstructions can shield the spray, tiffs table and figure t end to improve the chances of get t ing water to die opposite side of the floor m o u n t e d obstruction. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

191

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R ( ) C

(Log #85) 1.3- 97 - (Table 4-8.2): Accept SUBMITTER: James Golinveaux, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add "(Extended coverage upright and penden t spray sprinklers)" to the end of heading. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #I 26) 1:~- 98 - (Table 4-8.2): Reject SUBMITTER: James RetzlotF, The Viking Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add 15 ft x 15 ft spacing to all hazard classifi c~atio ns. SUBSTANTIATION: To allow for 5 f t x 5 ft tile. To provide for next generation of EC sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no restriction for using 16 ff by 16 ft sprinkler spacing for dfis application. It is not the intent of the Committee to permit spacing in excess of 196 sq ft in high piled storage :rod in extra hazardoccupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC6) 13-99- (4-8.2, 4-8.3, 4-8.4, 4-8.5, 4-8.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-41 RECOMMENDATION: Alter the title of each of tile sections add rite following:

" (extended coverage upright arid penden t spray sprinklers)" SUBSTANTIATION: This will make it easier to identify file installation requirements for file specific type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMM/TTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #125) 13- 100- (4-8.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, Tile Viking Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Add and Exception to allow listing of 15 ft x 15 ft spacing. SUBSTANTIATION: Standard does not provide spacing required when using 5 ft x 5 ft tile. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Committee Action on Comment 13-98 (Log #126). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #50) 13- 101 - (4-8.5.2.2 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, NationalFire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Change ". . .provided that all truss members are not greater titan 4 in. in width." at the end of the exception to read:

". . .provided that truss chords do not exceed 4 in. in width m~d web members do not exceed 1 in. in width." SUBSTANTIATION: This was die true intent of tiffs exception. When web members exceed 1 in., it is much more difficult for spray Pcatterns to develop properly.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #77) 13. 102- (4-8.5.3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler C, ompany Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: I:~41 RECOMMENDATION: Change "cutting tables and overhead doors." to "and cutting tables." SUBSTANTIATION: Overhead doors are not fixed obstructions. Additionally, installing piping under or around such doors is an impractical proposition, it obstructs the head room and creates hanging problems. Sprinklers under overhead doors are not necess,'u3,, the obstructions they create can be eliminated by the simple expedient of closing tllem. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Committee Statement on

• Comment 13-86 (Log#74). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC7) 13. 103 - (4-9.2, 4-9.3, 4-9.4, 4-9.5, 4-9.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 341

I RECOMMENDATION: After die title of each of the sections add die following:

" (extended coverage sidewall spray sprinklers) SUBSTANTIATION: This will make it easier to identify the installation requirements for dae specific type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. - " - NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #51 ) 13- 104- (4-9.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 341 RECOMMENDATION: Delete ". . .between 14 feet. . ." fi'om the last sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Manufacturers want the ability to list Oorinkiers wida lengths less than 14 ft for corridor protection.

MMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See file Committee Action on Comment 13-105 (Log#90). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

"(Log #90) 13- 105 - (4-9.2.1): Accept SUBMrI"rER: James GolinveatL~, Central Sprinkler Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Chmage last sentence to read:

" . . . increments up to 28 ft-" SUBSTANTIATION: There is no reason to limit flae minimum coverage to 14 ft, sprinklers should only be limited to 2 ft increments and a 28 ft throw. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Action on tiffs will result in file last sentence to read as follows: "Listing dimensions shall be in 2 ft increments up to 28 ft."

NUMBER'OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #112) 13- 106- (Table 4-10.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Roland Lafontaine, The Viking Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Revise protection areas from 100 sq ft to 130 sq ft for all construction types except "combustible-obstructed." SUBSTANTIATION: See previous editions of NFPA 13, where maximum spacing has always been 130 sq ft, except for combustible obstructed construction, which has a maximum of 100 sq ft spacing (See Table 4-2,2 1994 edition of NFPA 13, page 27.).

. COMMITFEEACTION: Accept- NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 • VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

192

N F P A 13 1 A 9 6 R O C

(Log #CC8) 13- 107- (4-10.2, 4-10.3, 4-10.4, 4-10.5, 4-10.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41

i RECOMMENDATION: After the title of each of the sections add the following:

"(large drop sprinklers)" SUBSTANTIATION: This will make it easier to identify the installation requi rements for the specific type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #113) 1:~- 108 - (4-10.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roland L:ffontaine, The Viking Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 127,-41 RECOMMENDATION: Remove last sentence which states "in any case, the mzodmum area of coverage of any sprinkler shall not exceed 100 sq ft." SUBSTANTIATION: Previous NFPA 13 Tables have always shown large drop spacing out to 130 sq ft, except for combustible obstructed construct ion which has a m a x i m u m of 100 sq ft, spacing (See Table 4-2.2, 1994 NFPA 13, page 27.)

i COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise d~e last sen tence to read:

"In any case, die m a x i m u m area of coverage of any sprinkler shall no t exceed 130 sq ft." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-106 (Log#112) . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #116) 13- 109- (4-10.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Retzlott, The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"Correct Protection Area. Max imum area of coverage for las'ge drop should be 130 ft2 for non-combust ible obstructed ,and all unobs t ruc ted construction." SUBSTANTIATION: No data has been presented to reduce spacing requi rements f rom 130 if2 to 100 ft2. This sprinkler has been used for many years for ex tended coverage extra hazard applications. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Commit tee Action on C, o lnmen t 1.3-108 (Log #113). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #52) 13- 110 - (4-10.4.1.2 Exception No. 2 (New)): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 2 to read as follows:

Exception No. 2: Deflectors of sprinklers unde r concrete tee construct ion witi~ s tems spaces less than 7 1/2 feet but more them 3 feet on centers shall, regardless of the depth of the tee, be permit ted to be located at or above a horizontal plane 1 in. below tile bot tom of the s tems of the tees and shall comply with Table 4-10.5.1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The Large Drop sprinkler is a s tandard response sprinkler with similar operat ing e lements to s tandard spray sprinklers. The same rules of position should apply for all forms of construct ion with regard to distance li 'om a ce i l ing / roof deck. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Fur ther Study. " COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t introduces new material which dae commit tee has not previously considered. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC9) 13- 111 - (4-11.2, 4-11.3, 4-11.4, 4-11.5, 4-11.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341

I RECOMMENDATION: After the title of each of the sections add the following:

"(early suppress ion fast-response sprinklers)" SUBSTANTIATION: This will make it easier to identify file installation requi rements for the specific type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: AccepL NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #53) 13- 112- (4-11.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 :~-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the second sentence to read:

"l.lpright sprinklers shall be posi t ioned so that tile deflector is 3 to 5 in. below tile ceiling." SUBSTANTIATION: To be consistent within the paragraph. The easiest th ing to measure is where tbe deflector will be positioned, not the centerl ine of tile link. Also el iminated the use of the term roof /cei l ing which was no t consistent t h roughou t tile paragraph. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #104) 13- 113- (4-11.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 4-11.5.2 to read:

4-11.5.2 ()bstructions to Sl~rinkler Pattern Development. 4-11.5.2.1 Sprinklers shall be posit ioned in accordance with Table

4-11.5.1.2 to avoid obstrnctions to the discharge pat tern caused by cont inuous obstructions such ,as beams, top chords of trusses, sides of ducts, conveyors, and other cont inuous obstructions which are located near the ceiling.

4-11.5.2.2" Sprinklers shall be posi t ioned such that they are located at a distance three t imes 'grater m.-m the m a x i m u m dimens ion of an isolated obstrnction up to a m a x i m u m distance of 24 in. or comply with Table 4-11.5.1.2, when the obstruction is located near the ceiling but less than 36 in. below tile sprinkler deflector.

A-4-11.5.2.2 Isolated obstructions are not cont inuous ,and which, because of their dimensions, arc capable of obstruct ing only one sprinkler. Isolated obstructions include structural members sucb as bar joist or truss webs, steel cohnnns , and some light fixtures.

Renumber Figure 4-11.5.2 ,as 4-11.5.2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The existing wording can lead to corffusion since it does not differentiate between solid con t inuous obstructions and cont inuous obstructions. The revised wording is in tended to clarify die intent that solid cont inuous obstruct ions such ,xs bemns mus t comply with the table and that small obstruct ions like joist or truss webs, individual pipes and similar obstruct ions mus t meet eid/er the 3 t imes rule or the figure.

i OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. In the text proposed in section 4-11.5.2 by the Commit tee , add the

te rm "Discharge" between the words "Sprinkler" and "Pattern". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This more appropriately addresses the Commit tee ' s intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #105) 13- 114- (4-11.5.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-11.5.3 to read ,as follows:

4-11.5.3 Obstruct ions which Prevent Sprinkler Discharge from Reaching the Hazard. W h e n sprinklers are located entirely above obstrnctions such ~Ls file bot tom chords of trusses or joists, duels, piping, f luorescent l ighting fixtures, conveyors, or similar ol~strnctions, the sprinklers shall be posi t ioned so dlat tile m a x i m m n distance f rom tile bot tom of the obstruction to file deflector does not exceed the values specified in Table 4-11.5.1.2.

Exception No. 1 : ESFR sprinkler shall be posi t ioned so that tile deflectors are at least 1 ft horizontally f rom the nearest edge of :my bot tom chords at open trusses or open bar joists.

193

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

Exception No. 2: Sprinklers shall not be required to meet Table 4- 11.5.1.2 when addit ional sprinklers are located beneada tile obstruction and are added to tile water demand . If file obstruction is not solid (sncb as a group of closely spaced pipes or conduit) place a barrier t inder die obstrnction and above die sprinklers. Sprinklers installed unde r tile barrier or obstruct ion shall be

~ osit ioned in accordance wkh section 4-11.4 as if dae obstruction or arrier was a ceiling. Section 4-11.6 shall apply to sprinkler located

below obstructions. Exception No. 3: Sprinklers shall no t be required to mee t Table

4-11.5.1.2 when die sprinkler de f ec t o r is at least 1 ft horizontally f rom tile nearest edge of any obstruct ions lip to 2 ft wide and located below a single sprinkler, but not below two or more adjacent sprinklers, including diagonally.

Exception No. 4: Sprinklers shall no t be required to meet Table 4-11.5.1.2 when file sprinkler deflectors ,are at least 1 ft horizontally fi 'om file nearest edge of any obstruct ions up to 1 ft wide which are located below two or more ad:jacent sprinklers, including diagonally.

Exception No. 5: Sprinklers shall not be required to meet Table 4-11.5.12 when die sprinkler deflectors a le least 2 ft horizontally f rom the nearest edge of any obstruct ions up to 2 ft wide which are located below two or more ad)acent sprinklers, including diagonally.

Delete section 4-1 1.5.3.2 a n a Table 4-11.5.3.2. R e n u m b e r Figure 4-11.5.3.2 as Figure 4-11.5.3.

SUBSTANTIATION: The obstructions in Section 4-11.5.3.1 and. 4-11.5.3.2 are similar in nature. Some, such as ducts are listed in both places with slightly different rules. In addition, Table 4-11.5.3.2 is exactly die same as Table 4-11.5.1.2 and therefore is no t needed. The revised wording clarifies die rules and makes tile NFPA rules closer to those used I W FM. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #54) 13- 115 - (4-11.5.3.~ Exceptions): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman. National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Make tile exceptions to 4-11.5.3.2 consistent witll the new release of Factory Mutual ' s Data Sheet 2-2. SUBSTANTIATION: Factory Mutnal has pe r fo rmed file bulk of file deve lopment work widl die ESFR sprinkler is in file best position to state its use limitations. We do no t want to put contractors in the position of compli,-mce wifll FM's data shee t only to f ind tha t flley violate some rnle in NFPA 13. Unfortunately, a copy of this data sheet was not awdlable for review prior to submit t ing dais comment . Hopefully, FM representatives c~'m make this d o c u m e n t available before file subcommit tee nleetings. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Commit tee Action on Conmlen t 1 ~114 (Log #105). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

( Log #CC 15) 13- 116- (4-13.14): Accept SUBMITTER: TechnicalC, omrnit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-60 RECOMMENDATION: Revise tile criteria for special protect ion of stages as follows:

4-13.14. Stages. 4-13.14.1 Sprinklers shall be installed u n d e r file roof at the ceiling,

in spaces trader the stage eifller conta in ing combust ible materials or constructed of combust ible materials, and in all adjacent spaces and dressing rooms, store rooms and workshops.

4-13.14.2 Where p roscen ium opening protection is reqnired, a deluge system shall be provided on tile stage side of dae proscenium curtain within the p roscen ium arch witlfin 3 ft of the stage side of the p rnscen ium arch with open sprinklers spaced up to a m a x i m u m of 6 ft on center. The design discharge for dlese sprinklers shall be in accordance witb 5-3.3.

Exception: When no proscen inm curtain is provided, the deluge rinkler system shall be located widtin the p roscen ium wall. BSTANTIATION: The Commit tee is of the opinion at tile

pr imer hazard is on the stage side of tile p roscenium opening, thus tile deluge system should be provided on dlat side. The exception allows ml option for those cases where a proscenium curtain is no t present. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 26 NEGATIVE: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MYERS: I believe that placing file sprinklers in the stage area is an

error. The ceiling in dais area may exceed 80 ft in heigbt, and will be obstrtlcted with stage equipment . This a r r a n g e m e n t provides less proscenium opening protect ion than placing tile deluge curtain in the clear area on the audience side of file plaster line.

(Log #144) 13- 117- (4-14.3.2(e)): Accept SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-75 RECOMMENDATION: The ROP incorrectly shows change to section (O. Revise to app ly to section (e). SUBSTANTIATION: Correction of intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The prepr in t of tile d o c u m e n t on Page 781 inadvertantly incorporated this change into tile wrong paragraph. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #14fi) 13- 118 - (4-14.3.5.5): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-90 RECOMMENDATION: Accept dais proposal . SUBSTANTIATION: Commit tee substantiat ion that, L / R of 300 is okay if buckling load is calculated is flawed, in that it is no t expected dlat a brace with L / R > 200 will resist buckling. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: There are some situations where longer b~tces ,are necessary to accommoda te piping installed above drop ceilings but below a structural system with deep members . By reducing tile allowable loads on die braces, d~ere is no reason to not

eUMBrlnit L / R values of 300. ER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27

VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #110) 13- 119 - (4-14.4.3): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: George Antaki, West inghouse Savannah River Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-72 dwough 13-121 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

4-14.4.3.1 As stated in response to various A96 ROP recommen&ations, "NFPA 13 is not, nor sbould ever be relied upon to de te rmine when se ismicprotec t ion is required". Yet, tl/e current wording of 4-14.4.3.1 does aetermit le that "where subject to earthquakes" (i.e., in a seismic zone) sprinkler systems "shall" be protected to prevent pipe breakage. This has been in terpre ted to read that in most of dae Eastern and Western US (i.e., seismic zones), NFPA 13 does manda te seismic bracing of sprinkler systems. Should 4-14.4.3.1 read:

"When the authori ty having jurisdict ion requires tllat sprinkler systems be seismically designed, the requ i rements of 4-14.4.3 shall apply".

4-14.4.3.1 Exception: Consistent widl the new Exception 1 to 4- 14.4.3.5.3 and wkh c o m m o n practice, dae word "dynamic" could be deleted. Equivalent static med lods and beam f o r m u l ~ are usually used to seismically evaluate piping systems ,as an opt ion to dynamic analysis (snch ,as elastic response spectra or - more rarely - t ime history techniques) .

4-14.4.3.1 Exception: To link the piping system seismic capacity to the building capacity is a tall order, for 2 reasons:

1. It requires a seismic evaluation of the soil and bui lding structure to de te rmine it's c~pacity.

2, The piping systems may be seismically qualified wkhou t necessarily being as seismically s t rong ,as tile building.

When using dtis exception, a PE knowledgeable in seismic

~ u,alification of piping system, would seismically evahmte and qualify ae sprinkler systems on tlle basis of stresses in tile pipe (compared

to allowables such ,as ASME B31), loads on suppor ts and anchors (compared to allowables sud l ,as ASCE, AISC, AC, I, AISI), loads and displacements at couplings ,and equ ipmen t nozzles (compared to vendor allowables), interferences and interactions. On dfis basis, the sprinkler system could be seismically qualified widlout necessarily having file same capacity as the building.

194

N F P A 13 1 A 9 6 R O C

4-14.4.3.2 NFPA 13, jnstifiably, emph~tsizes die need to c~tlculate loads on bracing and compare them to allowable capacities. There is no such emphasis for seismic loads (or displacements, or rotations) on mechanical (grooved or rolled) couplings. A414 .3 .2 does men t ion "using listed flexible couplings". It would be advisable to state in 4-14.4.3.2 or its Appendix that loads, d isplacements or rotations at mechanical couplings mus t be main ta ined within tile listed all owabl es.

4-14.4.3.5.1 The addit ion of "vertical loads" is appropriate. There are 2 componen t s to the vertical load: (1) tile vertical load which result s f rom the horizontal swing (addressed in ROP 13.81), and (2) tile vertical load which results form the vertical force Fv impar ted by tile building to the piping. Selecting the magni tude of tile vertical load Fv (the vert ic;dload factor) is not a simple task. A value less than Fv = 1.0 Wp would be insufficient to overcome gravity and would result in no ne t upward load. Could guidance be provided regarding file magn i tude of the vertical load factor and its cc,mbinafion with tile horizontal force?

4-14.4.3.5.5 The emphasis on the manufac ture r ' s certified allowables - in addit ion to Table 4-14.4.3.5.6 is an improvement .

A-4-14.4.3.5.6 Considerat ions of edge distance and type of bolts apply to all types - f anchor bolts. One could delete the words "for internally th readed [shell type?] anchors" f rom the last paragraph.

4-14.4.3.5.8 Editorial: "...to serve,'Ls later~d..." SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

This c o m m e n t contained a n u m b e r of suggested changes and ideas with regard to a n u m b e r of proposed chartges in Chapter 4 ,as it relates to seismic protection. The c o m m e n t was broken down into various segments and addressed ,as follows:

Revise 4-14.3.4.1 to read as follows: "When sprinkler systems are to be protected against damage from

earthquakes, the requi rements of Section 4-14.3.4 shall apply." 4-14.4.3.4.1 Exception. Hold For Further Study. 4-14.4.3.4.2. Reject 4-14.4.3.5.1. Reject 4-14.4.3.5.5. No action requested. 4-14.4.3.5.6. Accept. 4-14.4.3.5.8. Accep t

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 4-14.3.4.1. This km~uage should fllrther clarify that it is no t up to NFPA 13 to specify any level of ,seismic, .protection... The der is ion is more. appro, priately made by the governing bui lding code or the authori ty h a v m g j u n s d i c u o n .

4-14.4.3.4.1 Exception. This concept represents new material which has not been subject t o p r i o r public review.

4-14.4.3.4.2. No specific wording was given to the committee. In addition, ffiere have been no reports of failures at t r ibuted to this effect. Tile commit tee is no t aware of,any testing which has been developed to address this isstie.

4-14.4.3.5.1. Reject See C o m m e n t 13-124 (Log#91) . 4-14.4.3.5.5. No action requested. 4-14.4.3.5.6. Accept. 4-14.4.3.5.8. Accept.


AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log#151) 13- 120 - (4-14.4.3): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-87 RECOMMENDATION: Redraw associated appendix figures to accurately reflect bracing spacing. SUBSTANTIATION: Accuracy. COMMITrEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This change represents a new concept which has no t previously been reviewed by tile public. In addition, rio revisions to the figures were snbmit ted.

NOTE: An editorial correction to Figalre A-4-6.4.3.5.2(d) will be made to indicate the dimensional criteria of 40' to show these distances as being approximately equal. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #143) 13- 121 - (4-14.4.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-74 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Commit tee Action so dlat the proposed wording is added at the end of the section in the main t ex t SUBSTANTIATION: While file commit tee substant iat ion may be fine, there is no reason that dais cross reference shou ld not be added

in the main text since it is part of the sUtncktrd, no t advisory. It will make the d o c u m e n t user-friendly so tlfis is no t missed dur ing design. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Acceptance of ffiis c o m m e n t will result in moving the text f rom tile appendix and placing it in the main text of this section in Chapter 4. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #142) 13- 122- (4-14.4.3.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERa W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1.3-79, 13-80 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"The system piping shall be braced where needed to resist both lateral and longitudinal horizontal seismic loads and to prevent vertical mot ion resuhing f rom seismic loads. The structur:d componen ts to which bracing is a t tached shall be de t e rmined to be capable of carrying the added applied seismic loads." SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording more clearly states the in tent of tile requirements . COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the c o m m e n t to read as follows: "Tile system piping shall be braced to resist both ktteral and

longitudinal horizontal seismic loads and to prevent vertical motior, result ing from seismic loads. Tile sm~ctur,M componen t s to which brac ingis a t tached shall be de t e rmined to be capable of carrying the added a.pplied seismic loads." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Tile changes to to this c o m m e n t are in tended to clarify that speciM at tent ion is directed at tile vertical loads. In most circumstances, the piping mus t be braced due to file horizontal loads which the pipe is subject to. In o ther cases, tile pipe may be subject to a vertical acceleration in excess of 1.0 g, thereby requir ing some addit ional fo rm of bracing to minimize such m o v e m e n t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #145) 13- 123- (4-14.4.3.5.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 13-87 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Cormnittee Action ~s follows:

(a) In 4-14.4.3.5.2 add at end "...instructions, and vertical rigid bracing is also installed to prevent vertical mot ion due to seismic forces.

(b) In A-4-14.3.5.2 Exception; Delete the first p~magraph. (c) In A-4-14.3.5.2, second sentence add " a n d / o r convection

methods" ,'-ffte r "materials." (d) In A-4-14.3.2 part (a), delete proposed wording and change to

"(a) Corrosion resistance." (e) In A-4-14.3.2 part (b), delete the port ion which reads "a

m i n i m u m of 60 percent of." (f) In A-4-14.3.2 part (c) change to "means of identification of roduet and that it has been prestretched, such as color coding, beling, etc." (g) In A-4-14.3.2 part (e), delete the last sentence. (h) In A-4-14.3.2 part (f), delete entire section. (i) In A-4-14.3.2 part (g), delete entire section. (k) In A-4-14.3.2, add new section to read "Type of end

connect ions used to initially fusion the cables, with particular emphasis on the ability to properly tension tile braces, as well as to perform future field ,adjustments. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording genericizes suggested criteria and eliminates any potent ia lpreferent ia l wording. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

I tem (a) Accept in Principle. Revise this item to read as follows and place it at die end of appendix section (A4-14.3.5.2) as i tem (h).

"The installation should include a means to prevent vertical mot ion due to seismic forces."

I tem (b) Accept. Item (c) Accep t This actually applies to the second paragraph of

A-14-4.3.5.2. Item (d) Accept. Item (e) Accept in Principle. Revise to read: "Prestretching to elimirmte perrnarmnt construct ion stretch m~d to

obtain a verifiable modu lus 6f elasticity." Item (f) Reject. Item (g) Reject. Item (h) Reject. Item (i) ReJect. I tem (k) Reject.

195

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Item (a) This change allows alternative mearis to prevent or minimize the vertical mot ion of the pipe whicll would include c inching the pipe against d-ie unders ide of a structural member .

Item (e) This change is more per formance oriented. It will allow the listing laboratory to de te rmine what (if any) pres t re tching is necessary.

Item (f) Color coding is the inost convenient way to identify tile type cabling used.

h e m (g) This safety factor is currently used in die product listing s tandards for rigid bracing materials. It is i n t ended to use similar requi rements for rigid and nonr ig id bracing systems to the extent practical.

Item (h) It is in tended that the manufac ture rs instruction contain the details on the proper installation and use of the product .

Item (i) It is i n t ended that the manufac ture rs instruction contain the details on the proper installation and use of the product .

Item (k) Field modification of any product is go ing to be market driven. Adding a r ecommenda t ion that this be evaluated does not :add to tile reliability of the product nor improve its use. If the product is not easy to use, tile market will de te rmine how widely it will be utilized. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log#91) 13- 124- (4-14.4.3.5.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Willimn Boyce, U.S. Depar tmen t of Energy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-81 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to add:

"Vertical braces shall be des igned to resist a ne t upward vertical seismic toad that exceeds the weight of die water-filled pipe. Tile upward load shall be 2 / 3 of die horizontal force de t e rmined in 4-14.4.3.5.3." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-14.4.3.5.1 adds a r equ i r emen t that pipe resist vertit~d loads but there are no details in the s tandard on how to do it. 4-14.4.3.5.4 ordy covers die vertical c o m p o n e n t of the brace but not the banger . COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Adding tiffs text would be a start in tile right direction for NFPA 13 to address the vertical load c o m p o n e n t which results f rom a vertic~d acceleration. The problem with simplifying the concept in dais manner , however, in t roduces some practi~tl considerat ions which have no t been considered by die submit ter of the comment . This includes the need to revisit the assigned load tables, dae bi,'acing tables and tile fastener load tables. Tile change would also most likely require substantial increases to building structural systems to simply suppor t file vertical c o m p o n e n t figrce of the sprinkler system piping. It is file opinion of die cotnmittee that tile magni tude of tills change is well beyond what a m i n i m u m s~mdard should be addressing. Tile exper ience of the NFPA 13 seismic design criteria over tile l,xst l0 years has indicated that the pipe failures at tr ibuted to vertical forces is practically non- existent. Acceptance of this criteria would make tile braced system nearly fail. proof. Tiffs may be necessary for a critical, impor tan t structure but is excessive for most buildings. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #147) 13- 125 - (4-14.43.5.10 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-103 RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal as or iginal lysubmit ted. SUBSTANTIATION: Loss exper ience in bodl Loma Prleta ,and Northr idge shows that hange r rods do now rod regardless of length. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No new informat ion has been

t wesented to fur ther restrict rods as being used in lieu of braces for ateral bracing of the pipe. NUMBER OFCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #I 7) 13- 126- (5-2.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Croup COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-124 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "for use" should be "using". SUBSTANTIATION: This change will make tile in tent less ambiguous and less subject to misinterpretat ion.

COMMI'I'rEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise section 5-2.1.3 to read as follows: 5-2.1.3. Sprinklers in light hazard occupancies shall be of die quick

response type as def ined in section 1-4.5.2. Exception: Residenti',d sprinklers are permi t ted in accordance with

section 4-4.5. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The C, orrmfittee believes that this nlore appropriately address die in tent of the submitter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #55) 13- 127- (5-2.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-124 RECOMMENDATION: Replace " . . .meet ing die criteria of 1- 4.5.1 (1)a." at the end of die sentence with:

".. .as def ined in 1-4.5.2." SUBSTANTIATION: It is more appropriate to reference tile definit ion of die sprinkler rather tilan jus t tile response mechan i sm which only encompasses a part of the overall perform~mce of tile

rinkler. MMITrEE ACTION: Accep t

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action mad Sta tement on Cormnent 13-126 (Log #17). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

( Log # 107) 13- 128 - (5-2.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas W.Jaeger , Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-124 RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed newSect ion 5-2.1.3. SUBSTANTIATION: As I interpret the in tent of the new Section 5- 2.1.3, it manda tes the use of quick response or residential sprinkler types in light hazard occupancy groups. The substant iat ion states that file new requ i remen t will enhance the use of QR sprinklers. Requir ing QR sprinklers goes well beyond enhanc ing their use.

I know of no t technical justification to manda t e QR sprinklers in all light hazard occupancies. The use of QR sprinklers is currently art option available to designers and building owners and should remain jus t dial, a design option. I ,am particularly concerned wida retrofitting new sprinkler systems into existing buildings and the alteration of existing sprinklered buildings.

If QR sprinklers are mandated , daat would mean that when I do a major alteration of an existing, light hazard sprinklered occupancy, die sprinkler system has to mee t new building sumdards. This would result in the rep lacement of dae existing s tandard sprinklers with QR sprinklers. The per formance of s tandard sprinklers for both property protect ion and.l ife s,'ffety in most l ight hazard occupancies does no t warrant the cost of replacing the s t :mdard sprinklers.

As m u c h ,'ts I am supportive of QR sprinkler systems, I can not suppor t QR systems being manda ted over all o ther optiorrs available to designers :rod bui lding owners in all light hazard occupancies. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-130 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WILCOX: The Commit tee h:Ls not provided any technical

stlbstaa-itiation to suppor t tile Commit tee Action, no r does file Commit tee Action mee t file submit ter ' s intent. The Commit tee Action will still manda te QR sprinklers for all new light hazard occupancies. This should rerrmin as ,an option, no t as a requirement .

(Log #56) 13- 129- (5-2.1.3 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-124 RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to the new 5-2.1.3 to read as follows:

Exception: Sprinklers in concealed spaces having no access for storage or t i l ler use shall be pe rmi t t ed to be any response type.

196 /

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers in these ,areas are allowed by 4-5.1.2 to be installed iLs light hazard, bu t there is no need to use QR or residential sprinklers here. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Combust ible concelded spaces generally have l imited accessibility, clearance limitations, and severe obstructions. Rapid opeJ,'ation of sprinklers in desirahle. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HU(;HEY: This c o m m e n t should be Accept in Principle, same as

13-130 (Log #36).

(Log #36) 13- 130 - (5-2.1.3 Exception (New), 5-2.1.3.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RolfJensen, Rol fJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-124 RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception:

"When individual sprinklers are replaced in existing systems." Acid: 5-2.1.3.1 When existing light hazard systems are converted to use

,luick response or residential sprinklers, all sprinklers in a compar tmen ted space shall be cbanged. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for replacements and complete changeovers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Accept the text for 5-2.1.3.1 as snbmit ted. Add a new Exception No. 2 as follows: "'For modifications or addit ions to existing systems us ing s tandard

response sprinklers, stanclard response sprinklers shall be permit ted to be used."

Add a new Exception No. 3 as follows: "When individual s tandard response sprinklers are replaced in

existing systems, st :mdard response sprinklers shall be permit ted to be used."

Add new appendix text for A-5-2.1.3 as follows: A-5-2.1.3 When renovations occur in an existing bni lding and no

changes are made in the existing sprinkler system, it is not in tended to require the rep lacement of existing sumd:u'd sprinklers with quick response sprinklers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tile two Exceptions will claril~/that it is permissible to cont inue to use s tandard response sprinklers in existing systems. The Exceptions cover those situations where buildings are substantially renovated as well as those situations where existing systems are modified. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #20) 13- 131 - (5-2.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, American Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-125

] RECOMMENDATION: Cbange "5,000 sq ft" to "5,000 sq ft or less". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial change. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #23) 13- 132- (5-2.3.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Arne H. Trelvik, Lebanon, OH COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-2

I RECOMMENDATION: Change "Class IIr ' Commodi ty row back to "OH-2" in both cohnrms. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Commit tee ' s stated purpose was to "relocate," not change requirements .

2. By definition, ()H-1 is "low combustibility" and "modera te quanti t ies of combustibles". This is inconsistent with definit ion of Class III Commodity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #37) 13- 133- (5-2.3.2.2): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isnaan, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1.9-2

I RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change die Class III commodi ty protection requirement for both palletized :uld r'/,tck storage to OH-2.

2. Change the Class IV conunodity protection r equ i r emen t for - bothpal le t ized lind rack storage to OH-2 regardless of height. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 231 st~ttes in 5-1.2.1 and 6-2.2.1 that ordinary bazard group 2 is die correct protection for (:l,'~s III commodi ty even when stored unde r 12 feet in height.

NFPA 13-1994 edition also sutted that both C&Lss III and Cl~Lss IV commodit ies were to be Ireated its OH-2 when stored unde r 12 t~ in heigbt.

I COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Accept Part 1 of the submit ter ' s comment . Reject Part 2 of die

submit ters comment . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: With regard to i tem 2, the 1994 edition of tile s tandard was chaslged to make die split for (;lass IV commodit ies. Tile change was inadvertently not incorporated into the first pr int ing of tile 1994 edition of NFPA 13, but was clarified in an errata issued August 24, 1994. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #121) 13- 134- (5-2.3.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corporatior~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-129 RECOMMENDATION: Delete new 5-2.3.2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Heads used in 1989 tests are not appropriately def ined by new definition of Quick-Response Sprinklers COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In tile opinion of tile Commit tee tile sprinklers used in the 1989 tests will mee t the definit ion of quick response sprinkler. Tile submit ter bas given no specific reason its to why he believes differently. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: t~ENSEN: There is just too much conflicting information between

e data developed m the 1989 tests to de te rmine reduct ion criteria for Fast Response Sprinklers and the data developed by IJ " nderwmters Laboratories and Factory Mutual Engineer ing Association in product tests of Extended Coverage Sprinklers. AS proposed, dlese changes represent a significimt lessening of tile ~afety factor i n h e r e n t i n system design. If, and when, a system is called upon to f imction unde r marginal water supply conditions (particularly minimal operat ing pressure), it is quest ionable wbether adequate per formance will be achieved. Given tile obvious differences in what constitutes a Light Hazard and what constitutes an Ordinary Hazltrd fire test condit ion on die part of UL and FM, it is quest ionable whether adequate per formance will be achieved urgler all possible condit ions flint a system may be required to extinguish or control. I believe that i t is impor tan t tbat the Commit tee cont inue t o p u r s u e additional data to suppor t this impor tant concept. H a d t h e ( ;ommit tee retained tile interim proposal of l imit ing this o )ncep t to Light Hazard, in addit ion to tile 20 it ceiling height limitation, Imigb t laave voted :fffinnative. It is imporumt/chat We not lose sight of the informat ion ga ined on the ~er formance of F:tst Response Spriiaklers in tile nearly 20 years of tire testing of Residential Sprinklers. It is well kalown that an ultra- fast fire can develop in a so-called Light Hazard Occupancy over a short period of time. Thus , dais proposal clarifies the need for tile Commit tee to begin to explore a substantive cbmage in the sv, m d a r d to move away fro/n the ill def ined terms of Ligbt, Ordinary and Extra Hazard in favor of a design approach based on an assessment of fire load and fire growth po ten t ia l

(Log #122) 13- 135 - (5-2.3.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: James Retzloff, The Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-130 RECOMMENDATION: Delete new 5-2.3.2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: No data was given to suppor t charige. A sbift in pat tern does not necessitate a change in area. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Conuni t tee ' s prior substantiat ion is based upon l IL test data which shows that a greater n u m b e r of s tandard spray sprinklers may be expected to operate when ceiling

197

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

slope exceeds 2 in. per ft. Factory Mutual research which has modeled performance of sprinklers under sloped surfaces indicates that marginal delays in systems operation are possible. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 26 -NEGATIVE: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JENSEN: See my Explanation of Negative on 13-134 (Log #121).

(Log #136) 13- 136 - (5-2.3.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineering COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-129 RECOMMENDATION: Hold for fur ther study. SUBSTANTIATION: The concept of a reduced ,area of operation for QR sprinklers is quite appropriate. However, I am not sure of just what tests completed in 1989 file Committee is referrihg to. I am not aware of tests comparing ceiling heights to number of sprinklers operating. Permitting a 40 percent reduction for a ceiling height of 10 ft is questionable. For extended coverage sprinklers, only 3 sprinklers would be required to be calculated. The proposed graph will serve to greatly reduce the only significant inherent safety factor in file standard.

Considering the proposed definition of Standard Response Sprinklers (RTI<80 m e t e r s l / 2 seconds l /2 ) and using the model DETACT, a standard response sprinkler spaced at 100 sq ft spacing will respond faster than a quick response sprinkler at 225 sq ft spacing. Therefore, consideration s h o u l d b e given for standard response sprinklers at reduced areas of coverage. The counnon denominator is response time - however it can be achieved. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMM!'I"rEE STATEMENT: The 1989 test data was file result of a test program which w~as f imded by the NFSA. A summary of those tests is contained in a supplement in tiae NFPA Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook. The subnfitter is incorrect about several items in his substantiation. The text proposed for 5-2.3.2.3 (see file last line) specifically states fllat file minimum number of design sprinklers can never be less than 5. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #57) 13- 137 - (Figure 5-2.3.2.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ Kenneth E. Isrr~m, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-129 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Make the line from the point (10,40) to the y-,'Lxis a solid line.

2. Delete the line from the point (30,10) to the x-axis. 3. ChaxJge the formula to read: "For ceiling height >10 and <30, y = -3x/2 + 55; for ceiling height

<10, y=40; for ceiling height >30, y=0." SUBSTANTIATION: 1. This line is still a part of file requirements of 5-2.3.2.3 and should be included as solid on the figure.

2. This line creates some confilsion and mathematically changes the formula from a t ract ion.

3. This more adequately describes the full range of ceilings heights which will be experienced. Note that in the equation, x has been moved to the denomina tor so that the equation will not be misread as y = -3/(2x) + 55. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept Item 1 of the subnfitter's comment . .1. Make the line from file point (10,40) to the y-axis aso l id line. Accept in Principle Item 2 of the submitter 's comment. 2. Change the second point to correspond to (20,25), do not add a

vertical line from this point to the x-axis. 3. Change the formula to read: "For ceiling height >10 ft and -<20 ft, y = -3/2 x + 55; for ceiling

height <10 ft, y=40; for ceiling height >20 ft, y=0."

40-

20

"E

,f.

y - ~ + 5 5

I I 10 20

Figure 5-2.3.2.3

I 30

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These changes reflect that the design area reduction is allowed only under a 20 ft maximum ceiling height. The formula has been revised to reflect what end points are allowable. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #2) 13- 138- (6-1.1.1): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Ronald E. Slaby, Fire-Ex Systems Eng., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-134 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

"Working plans shall be drawn to ,an indicated scale, on sheets of uniform size, with a plan of each floor, sbowing size and location of structural members and oosition of snrinklers, and shall show those items from the following'list that pertain to the design of the system." SUBSTANTIATION: Existing working plan requirements make it impossible to determine whether or not proper sprinkler placement is effected. Properly prepared working plans should include size and location of structural members and sprinkler position so that reviewing authority can determine if prolSosed installation conforms to applicable standards, especially since configuration and member sizes of beam mid girder construction (obstructed construction in general) can vary subsm:atially. COMMITrEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment represents new material wifich has not had previous review. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log#58) 13- 139- (Table 6-4.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nation,a/Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-138 RECOMMENDATION: In addition to the new column in the table, also add a note ,as follows:

"NOTE 2: Information on 1/2 in. pipe is only included in this table because it is allowed under 4-13.18.2 and 4-13.18.3. No wtaere else in this standard is 1/2 in. pipe allowed to be used as a part of a

rinkl er system." BSTANTIATION: To clarify that just because 1/2 in. pipe

appears in the table, it is not allowed to be used under most circumstances. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise Note 2 to read as follows: NOTE 2: Information on 1/2 in. pipe is included in this table only

because it is ,allowed under 4-13.18.2 and 4-13.18.3. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The first sentence of the note adequately addresses the restriction. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITFF~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

198

N F P A 1 3 - - A 9 6 R O C

(Log #135) 13- 140- (Table t~-4.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-138 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Delete eqn i~den t lengtim for elbow and long turn elbow.

2. Revise tile equivalent length for the 1/2 in. TEE to 3 ft. 3. Add the equivalent lengdl for a 3 / 4 in. TEE - 4 ft. "

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Including tile equivalent length for tile elbows suggest tilat such fittings are acceptable. In using paragraph 4-5.18.2 and 4-5.18.3 only a 4 in. nipple is to be used creating a TEE type fitting.

2. The equivalent l engt i / for a 1/2 in. TEE as de t e rmined by Crane Technical Paper 410 is 3 ft.

For 25 g p m and 1~2 in. pipe (0.622 in. ID): b m ( f t ) = K V / 2 g K = 6 0 f t f, = 0.027

h m = 60 X 0.027 X 697 / 64.4 = 17.53 ft = 7.59 psi

bLZ (psi/ft) = 4.52 QI.85 / (C 1.85 [)4.87) = 2.51 ps i / f t

Equivalent Length = h m / b L Z = 7.59 / 2.51

= 3.02 ft Use 3 ft

3. The equivalent lengdl for a 3 / 4 in. TEE as de t e rmined by Crane Teclmical Paper 410 is 4 ft.

For 25 gpm and 32(4 in. pipe (0.824 in. ID): h m (it) = K V / 2 g K = 60 ft ft = 0.025

h m = 60 X 0.025 X 226 / 64,4 = 5.26 ft = 2.28 psi

hLZ (psi/ft) = 4.52 Q1.85 / (C1.85 D4.87) = 0.64 ps i / f t

Equivalent Length = h m/=h~.~8 / 0.64

= 3.6 ft Use 4 ft COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

13- 141 - (7-1.2): Reject (Log #9) SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, American Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-143 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read:

"l ~pon confirmation of micro biolog!cal contarninat ion die con tamina ted water should be treated widl an antibacterial agent, similar to that used in municipal water supplies (0.5 ppm Chlorine or equivalent)." SUBSTANTIATION: The requir ing of testing for microbiological contaminat ion is good. However, requarang the testing without offering any corrosion corrective measures is incomplete ,and inconsistent with tile in tent of die initial requirement . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See file Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-142 (Log #59). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #59) 13- 142 - (7-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-143 RECOMMENDATION: Delete new 7-1.2 without replacement . SUBSTANTIATION: A meet ing on MIC corrosion was sponsored lay die NFSA to gain more informat ion and was a t t e n d e d b y experts in tile fields of fire protection and microbiology. At dtis meet ing, it was clear that very little is known about MIC at fills point. Wha t is known is dlat tile organisms which form MIC are present in many public water supplies ,as well as raw water sources. Some combinat ion of o ther inf luences such as temperatnre , oxygen

199

content of die water and type of pipe material is responsible for die corrosion at a rapid pace. Until tile entire combinat ion of event is unders tood, and a plan for how to deal witll the situation is developed, it i sp rema tu re to put anydt ing in NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee agrees d/at additional informat ion is needed before proper guidance can be given in tile s tandard. Tile scope of die problem, proper testing requ i rements as~d frequencies as well as suitable corrective measures all need to be identified. Tile proposed appendix material will also be deleted. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #96) 13- 143- (7-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Matthew C. Mingoia, Edison Electric Institnte COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-143 RECOMMENDATION: Insert the word "initial" between the words "in" and "testing" in tile dlird line of the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: this g roup suppor t s tbe commit tee ' s recognit ion of potential MIC problems in non-potable water sources. However, it should be die in tent to per form tests on an initial basis only. To require sucb MIC tests prior to subsequent tests of the system would be impractical or expensive, with no value added, as tile water supplyqual i ty will no t vary dial much. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See die Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-142 (Log #59). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #98) 13- 144- (7-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: J o h n K. Boucbard, Sedgwick of New England, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-143 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Add to tile proposed appendix item A-7-1.2, ,as a m in imum, file following text quo ted f rom reports p roduced by tile Electric Power Research Institute, whicb will belp in def ining the problem for tile user of NFPA 12, ,and will also describe diagnostic detection ,and control when water supplies test positive.

2. Include tile references in tile appendix for fiwtber research into this subject by tile user.

3. Include tile list of types of bacteria in this appendix item, as listed in Mr. Walsh 's negative ballot pr inted in the ROP.

PREVENTION • Preventive measures should be applied wherever MIC is a

concern - new construction, existing systems, systems with repairs or rep lacement materials.

* Keep systetrts clean dur ing construct ion and operation. • Avoid Stagnation. • Perform regular ma in tenance of hea t transfer systems, on-iine

cleaning systems, and water t rea tment delivery systems. * Use materials with greater MIC resistance (as po,~sible). • Use appropriate water t rea tments (as possible). DETECTION, DIAGN()SIS, AND M()NITORING • Proper diagnosis is critic~'d to application of appropriate

mitigation measures. An incorrect diagnosis and use of improper t rea tments can exacerbate corrosion.

• On-line moni to r ing (system per formance t rending or on-line NDE) can provide early warning of potential MIC problems.

• Collect water samples regularly to de te rmine corrosivity of tile water (abiotic, water t r ea tment levels, and t rend microbiological populat ions.

• Corrosion moni to r ing (e.g., s idestreams) can also provide an early warning of MIC. The response of corrosion moni tors to per turbat ions ( temperature , biocide additions, etc.) can help discern MIC f rom abiotic corrosion.

• Detailed examinat ion of componen t s removed from service must be done carefully to preserve tile chemical and microbiological character of surfaces. Procedures shou ld a t t empt to identify c~xnses o ther than MIC; MIC shou ld be concluded only if alternatives cannot be demonst ra ted .

• Procedures on parts removed f rom service should include: Review of operat ing parameters and history Nondestruct ive examinat ion Prel iminmy assessment (sight, smell, touch) Microbiological de terminat ion (species vs. numbers ) Chemical characterization Metallurgical examinat ion (morphology, na ture of attack).

MITIGATION • Cleaning (mechanical a n d / o r chemical) is generally

r e c o m m e n d e d as a first step.

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

* Water t rea tments (particularly biocide addit ions) can effectively control MIC. Water t r eaunen t chemicals mus t reach metal surfaces to be useflfl.

• ( ) ther mitigation m e d m d s (cont irmous flow at > 3 ft per sec, thermal t reatments , ultraviolet radiation, cathodic protection) may be effective and economic in some situations.

MATERIALS REPLACEMENT/REFURBISHMENT • Materials rep lacement is a part of a systems approach to control

of MIC; it is no t a panacea. • Replacement in kind, witia increased at tent ion to cleanliness,,

surface condition, etc., c~m improve MIC resistance significantly. • Coatings and linings ( including repairs) can improve resistance

of piping, h e a t exchangers, valves, a n d p u m p s . • Substi tution of more MIC-resisrm~t materiMs may significantly

increase margins against MIC. Sudnless steels (for carbon steels) Six percent m o l y b d e n u m austenit ic stainless steels High c h r o m i u m (plus molybdenum) ferritic stainless steels Duplex stainless steels Nickel base alloys Ti tan ium Non-meudlic piping

REFERENCES EPRI Report RP2812-2, The Sourcebook for Microbiologically

Inf luenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power Pkmts (1988). EPRI Report RP2939-1, Detection and Control of Microbiologically

Inf luenced Corrosion: An Extension of the Sourcebook for Microbiologically Inf luenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plants (1990). SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee is t ight in recognizing the potential for MIC problems in non-potable water supplies. However, the proposal fails to r e c o m m e n d preventive and remedial actions when positive test results occur. The references no ted above include vr, tiuable insight into the potential for MIC in fire protection systems, (e.g., "Condit ions [re: Fire Protection Systems] are nearly ideal for macrofouling, microfouling, and MIC. ...MIC can affect system per formance by deposi t ion of low density corrosion products a n d / o r as a result of through-wall pit t ing of pipes..."), diagnosis schemes, mad control methodlogies.

AS a min imum, die Summary and Recommenda t ions f rom the 1990 extension repor t (RP 2939-1) shou ld be modeled or quoted in die Appendix as r e c o m m e n d e d above. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t Log 13-142 (Log#59) . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #27) 13- 145 - (7-1.3 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Elwin G.Joyce, Lexington, KY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-144 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception to read as follows:

"Where required limited area sprinkler systems ,are allowed to be connec ted to domest ic water system by the code or s tandard requir ing the sprinkler system. (Note: Where domest ic water meters are present die qn:mtity of water av;dlable may be restricted to less dlan 160 gpm)." SUBSTANTIATION: The Commit tee was correct concern ing d~eir references to my previous proposal. However, daey overlooked two (2) facts.

1. Section 1-6.2 contemplates dae possible use of l imited area systems.

2. NFPA 13 is an installation s tandard only and does no t manda te the use of sprinkler systems. Tha t is covered primarily by the buildingco~tes, o ther NFPA standards and loc-al laws.

Regardless of what d o c u m e n t requires die installation of a sprinkler system die installation of the system is requi red to be in accordance with NFPA 13. The mat ter needs to be addressed even if it is in tile appendix. I have f o u n d tha t die smallest listed mete r is 3 in. While the largest s tandard domest ic meter is only 2 in. T he 2 in. s tandard d isp lacement meter will only allow flows of less daan 160 gpm. If dtis arrm~gement is Mlowed by NFPA staxldards NFPA 13[) a n d NFPA 13R then why can it no t be addressed in NFPA 13 which is somewhat the base d o c u m e n t for die otiler two. This informat ion is needed so that the designers, installers ,and code officials are gett ing systeJ~s that will work when needed.

N( )TE: Suppor t ing material is already awdlable at NFPA Headquar ters f rom the previous submRtal (ROP #13-144, Log #150). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'FI'EE STATEMENT: The majority of e q u i p m e n t used in domest ic water systems is no t listed. The Commit tee does no t feel that exceptions to every section are necessary. See 1-6.2 for gukFance on l imited area systems.


AFFIRMATIVE: 27 "

( Log #5) 13- 146 - (8-2.2.1 Exception No. 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J o h n J . Walsh, 1 ~nited Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-147 - RECOMMENDATION: Add: "in excess of the normal static pressure for a period of two hours." SUBSTANTIATION: The s ta tement in the ROP is incomplete :tnd does not accurately reflect the commit tee ' s action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 1.3-147 (Log # 18). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #18) 13- 147- (8-2.2.1 Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-147

I RECOMMENDATION: Exception No. 3 is incomplete. Add "in excess of normal static pressure for 2 hr." SUBSTANTIATION: This change is mostly editorial, however, if no t made could lead to inaccurate testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #60) 13- 148 - (8-2.2.1 Exception No. 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERa Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-147 RECOMMENDATION: Add at dae end of proposed new Exception No. 3:

"in excess of the normal Working pressure of the system." SUBSTANTIATION:- Test ing the system at 50 psi makes no sense. Test ing a 50 psi over the working pressure is more what the commit tee bad in mind. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See dae Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-147 (Log #18). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #131) 13- 149 - (8-2.2.1 Exception No. 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James M. Feld, Feld Engineer ing COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-147 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 3 or revise it to read:

"...tested at 50psi above normal static pressure for two hours." SUBSTANTIATION: ff tiae new addit ion can be isolated, t hen it sbould be tested at 200 psi for 2 hr. f f an addit ion to a system c~mnot be isolated than a 50ps i plus static would be appropriate. Tire excess pressure is i n t ended to provide a safety factor to ensure tbe system will widlstand file test of time. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See file Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-147 (Log #18). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #61) 13- 150 - (8-5(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. IsmmJ, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-153 RECOMMENDATION: Accept Proposal 1 3-153 revised as follows:

(d) Occug,'mcy classification, commodi ty classification and m a x i m u m storage height, SUBSTANTIATION: This informat ion is invaluable to inspectors and will only add a little bit (3 lines) to dae informat ion ,already required by dae placard. COMMITrEEk2CTION: Accept in Principle.

200

N F P A 13 - - A 9 6 R O C

I Revise to read: (d) ( )ccupancy classification or commodi ty cl:~sRication and

m a x i m u m permi t ted storage he igh t and configuration. Revise Figure A-8-5 to reflect these same changes.

COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The configurat ion of tile stored material [palletized, rack (single, double or multiple row)] is ;dso an impor tan t design considerat ion and should be included. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log#19) 13- 151 - (Chapter 9): Reject SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-154 RECOMMENDATION: This should be covered in its own standard, NFPA 13M. SUBSTANTIATION: Suppor t the need for ti~e standard, however, it is inappropriate in NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The fire hazards on ,and die goals, of a sprinkler system on mar ine vessels closely resemble tllose of land based structures. Subsequently, NFPA 13 only reqnires slight modificatior~ to make it applic~tble to marine vessels and structures. A new NFPA 13M would resemble NFPA 13 so closely as to make its deveh)pment unnecessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #CC13) 13- 152 - (Chapter 9): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automatic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-154 RECOMMENDATION: Make the following editorial corrections:

Entire Chapter - Change all insmsaces of "60 minnte" or "one hour" barriers to "A-Class'. G'hange all instances of "30 minute" barriers to "B-Class".

Entire Chapter - Change all instances of "sprinkler pump" to "fire pump".

A-9-1.1 Add a new paragrapli ,as follows: "Heat sensitive material. The backbone of tile fire protection

phi losophy for U.S. flagged vessels and passenger vessels which trade internationally is limiting a fire to the compa r t men t of origin by passive means. Materials which do not withstand a I h r fire exposure when tested in accorckmce witll A,STM E-119 are considered "heat sensitive"."

9-1.1 Reword second and third sentences ofdef ini t ion o f "mar ine thermal barrier" as follows:

"A mar ine thermal barrier shall mee t the requi rements of a 13-Class boundary. In addition, a mar ine diermal barrier shall be insulated such that, if tested in accordance widl ASTM E-119 for 15 min, die average tempera ture of die unexposed side does not rise more d3an 250°F (193°(i ") above tile original temperature , nor does the tempera ture at any one point, inc luding any joint, rise more than 405°F (225°(;) above die original temperature ."

%1.1 Delete definit ion o f " m a x i m u m allowable working pressure." 9-1.1 Add the following new definitions: Heel. The inclination of a ship to one side. Heel Angle. The angle def ined by die intersection of a vertical line

th rough the center of a vessel and a line perpendicular to the surface oftl~e water.

Survival Angle. The m a x i m u m angle to which a vessel is permit ted to heel ,after the a s sumed d,'unage required by stability regaflations is imposed.

Type 1 Stair. A fiflly enclosed stair which serves all levels of a vessel in which persons may be employed.

A-Class Boundary. A boundary des igned to resist die p~Lssage of smoke and flame for 1 hr when tested in accordance with A£TM E- 119. B-Glass Boundary. A bonndary des igned to resist the passage of

flame for 1 1 /2 hr when tested in accordance widl ASTM E-119. Table A-9-1.2 Reword footrmte 2 as follows: "2Space type definitions are given in the International Convent ion

for the S,'ffety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74), as amended , regulations II-2/3 and 1I-2/26".

Table A-%1.2 Delete parenthet ic , M c o m m e n t at the end o f f o o m o t e 4.

9-1.3 Reword as follows: "Partial installation of antomat ic sprinklers shall no t be permitted." 9-2.1 Add die following :ffter the first sentence: "Sprinklers shall have a discharge coefficient greater than 2.9". A-9-2.1 Add die following before the first sentence:

"Sprinklers with a nomina l orifice size 3 / 8 in. (9.5 m m ) or less coupled with a system strainer minimize tile potential for clogging".

Combine sections %2.4 and 9-2.5 into a new section %2.4 widl a title "system pipe ,and fittings" ,as follows:

I. Replace "Table 2-3.1" with "Tables 2-3.1 and 2-4.1" in 9-2.4.1. 2. Replace "Table 2-3.1" widl "Tables 2-3.1 or 2-4.1." in 9-2.4.3.

. Delete 9-2.5 and all subparagraphs. 9-2.4.3(b) Delete second sentence. Add a new paragraph

A-%2.4.3(b) in Appendix A ,as follows: "Materials which are not listed may be peml i t t ed provided that they

are shown to meet die performance requi rements of International Marit ime ()rgvmization Maritime Safety G'ommittee Circular 580".

9-2.6.3 Delete paragraph %2.6.3. A-9-2.6.3 Move text to after last paragraph of A-%2.6.1. 9-2.6.4 Delete paragraph %2.6.4. 9-2.8 Replace "shoe" with "shore". 9-2.8.1 Replace "show" with "shore". A-9-2.8.1 Delete "by the Authori ty Having Jurisdict ion ' . Add a new

paragraph, before the existing paragraph, ,as follows: "International shore connect ions ,are portable universal couplings

that permit connect ions of shil)board sprinkler or f i remain systems between one ship and ano the r or between a shore facility and a ship. Botli the ship and fl~e shore facility are expected to have an internat ional shore connect ion fitting such that in an emergency they c,m-i be at tached to dmir respective fire hoses and bolted together to permit chm'ging tim ship 's system, h mus t be portaMe to accomnmdate hose to hose connect ion and allow axsistance f rom any position".

9-3.2 Delete paragraph %3.2. 9-4.2 Move die second sentence of%4.2 to a new A-9-4.2. 9-4.3(b) Delete paragraph 94 .3(b) . R e n u m b e r A-9-4.3(b) ,as

A-9-5.2. 9-4.4 Exception - Reword to read: "Spaces which contain only nonmetal l ic piping which is

cont inuously filled widl water ,are no t required to be sprinklered". 9-4.6 Exception - Delete die Exception. 9-4.8 Modifyf ignre reference to Figure 4-13.17. 9-4.9 Combine paragraphs 9-4.9.1 and 9-4.9.2 into 4-9.2 ,as follows: "Sprinkler system piping shall no t be used to supply hose

connect ions or hose connect ions for fire depa r tmen t use". 9-4.10.1 Change paragraph reference to 9-2.4.3. 9-4.10.1 (b) Add die word "marine" between "the" an d "diermal". 9-4.10.1(c) Delete 9-4,10.1(c). 9-4.10.2 Change paragraph reference to 9-2.4.3. A-9~t.11.2 r)elete A-9-4.11.2 9-4.12 Delete paragrapll 9-4.12, and all sub paragraphs. 9-5.1 ( ;hange "application" to "sprinkler". 9-5.2 C, bange paragraph reference to 9-4.3. A-9-5.3 Reword last sentence in A-9-5.3 to read: "The water supply for fire streams is supplied by separate fire

p u m p (s) which supply the vessel's fire main". 9-6.2 Change paragraph reference to 94.3. 9-7.1.1.1 Insert die following sentence before tile first sentence of

9-7.1.1.1 ,as follows: "A pressure tank shall be provided". Table 9-7.1.1 Delete "of system demand" f rom table entry adjacent

to "wet pipe system". 9-7.1.1.3 Delete paragraph %7.1.1.3. 9-7.1.1.4 Reword 9-7.1.1.4 ,as follows: "There shall be not less than two sources of power for die

compressors which supply ,air to die pressure tank. Where die sources of power are electrical, these shall be a main genera tor and an emergency source of power. O n e supply shall be taken from the main switchboard, by separate feeders reserved solely for that purpose. Such feeders shall be run to a change-over switch situated near die air compressor , and die switch shall normally be kept closed to the feeder f rom tim emergency switchboard. The change- over switch shall be clearly labeled, and no o ther switch shall be permit ted in these feeders".

9-7.1.1.7 Move die Exception to 9-7.1.1.1. %7.1.2.1 Add "which takes suction f rom the sea" before "shall be

provided". Insert die following at the beg inn ing of the second sentence:

"Where two p u m p s are required to ensure the reliability of the water supply,".

9-7.1.2.4 Replace "sea water pumps" with "fire pumps". 9-7.1.2.6 Add "fire" before "pump" in first and th i rd l ines . 9-7.1.2.7 Replace "fire pump" widl "die fire p u m p which supplies

the tire main ' . 9-7.1.2.7(iii) Replace "fire pump" widl "tile fire p u m p which

supplies the fire nuain". Figure A-%7.1.2.7 Replace "fire pump" with "die fire p u m p whicl-t

supplies the fire main". %7.1.3.5 Delete paragraph 9-7.1.3.5. 9-7.1.3.6 Delete "and A-7-2.1" f rom first sentence.

201

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

%7 Replace text in %7.1 wid~ dae title "general". Renumber %7.1.1 as 9-7.2, %7.1.2 as %7.3, and 9-7.1.3 as %7.4.

Reverse the order of sections 9-6 and %7. 9-8.1 Replace "this test" with "the test required by 9-2.2.3". 9-8.2 Insert '*at tlae central safety station" between "alarm" and

"within". 9-9.1.4 Add "International shore" ,after "valves" in first line. 9-9.1.8 Delete "or the vessel's next por t of call, whichever is

longer". Add a new Exception as follows: "Fluslling file pipe network at tile vessel's next port of call is

permit ted when tlae vessel's voyage is longer than 45 days". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial~clarification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accepe NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #10) 13- 153- (9-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER~ Gene V. Paolucci, American Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-156 RECOMMENDATION: The Committee action is correct- dais material belongs in NFPA 25.' SUBSTANTIATION: The American Insurance Services Group issued suggestive guidelines for sprinkler replacement for many years prior to die creation of NFPA 25. We m~dntain extensive records of sprinkler tests conducted over a long period of time. A recent review of dlose records indicates that die failure incident for clean sprinklers is not as lfigh as quoted by tile submitter and that a mandate for automatic sprinkler replacement over 50 years of age is unwarranted. Test results do indicate, however, that a higher incident of failure for sprinklers which are moderately loaded or corroded (conditions I :mdJ referenced by the submitter) does exist, We will submit new suggested wording for NFPA 2.5 that will emphasize that sprinklers over 50 years should remain in service only whetl they are clean and are subjected to satisfactory tests of representative samples at ten year intervals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept` NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRM.ATIVE: 27

(Log #62) 13- 154- (9-2.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-154 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read ". . .International Shore Connection. . ." in both %2.8 and 8-2.8.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #34) 13- 155 - (9-4.3(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: T.G. Sliwinski, U.S. Depart lnent of Transportation, U.S. Coast Gnard COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-154 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text in 9-4.3(a) as follows:

"Sprinklers shall be installed at a distance not exceeding 1 ft (0.3 m) from file glazing at a spacing not exceeding 6 ft ( 1.8 m) such fl~at ti~e endre glazing surface is wetted at a linear density not less thml 6 g p m / f t (75 L p m / m ) . " SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording leaves die mechanics of sprinkler protection of windows up to listing audaorities, and gives no guidance to the desigr~er. Additionally, fl~ere presently are no "listed" window sprinklers.

The numbers presented here are based on research conducted by Richardson and Oleszkiewicz (see Fire Technology, Vol. 23, No. 2, May 1987, pp. 115-132) which show that ordinary glazing materials, when sprinklered as described above, will withstand a fire exposure in excess of 1 hr.

I COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept d3e proposed recommendat ion as submitted. Add ,an

exception for th~s item %4.3(a) to read: Exception: Window sprinkler protection systems installed in

accordance with their installation and testing criteria. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee is aware of at least one window protection system which has been evaluated for its capability to jgrovide ti~e necessary level of protection at design discharges which are different from dae base requirement. Tile proposed exception will account for such systems.


AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #35) 13- 156 - (9-4.13.2): Accept . SUBMITTER: T.G. Sliwinski, U.S. Deparuneut of Trmas[Jortation, I_I.S. Coast Guard COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-154 RECOMMENDATION: Reword 9-4.13.2 to read:

"Waterflow alarms shMl be installed for every zone of the sprinkler system. Sprinkler zones shall not encompass more than two adjacent decks or encompass more than one main vertical zone." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed requirements found in h ROP are in excess of present domestic and international requirements shipboard, and are Mso in excess of present NFPA 13 requirements for sboreside structures. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #32) 13- 157- (A-3-8.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Raymond M. Fremont, General Air Products, General Blower Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise drawing as follows:

FIG A-3-8.3

ItEATED AREA

SAME AS ORIGINAL SKETCFI ).., )

TAKE OUT SECTIONS, ]

VALVES & PR GAUGES

NOT SHOWN [ ~eutaro~

? ", TANK f ~ , ~ R

s s i s * * s s s ~ s s s r s i s s , , s s i s s s I s s s r s r r ¢ l J r t ~ , s s t s ~ , t t s J s H t s

* ' s s i

p p J s I s s ~ , ¢ ¢ s l

~ ¢ t s

h , ¢ 1 p s s t e t J I ~ s h " , ~ s J ¢ ~ s t e ~ , l s

e c p s

c J s , , ~ s t s

, i s s

, s ~ s , s c z

, ¢ ¢ s

, ~ t s ,

"U"

;G¢

iiil

FREEZER AREA

17

11 ] ~ AIR INTAKE

SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed drawing does not inform design engineers dlat additional components ,are necessary to p roper ly Ic)repare compre&sed air prior enter ing regenerative air dryer.

OMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'I*rEE STATEMENT: The Committee does not agree all equipment shown is necessary for all installations nor that adequately shows important features of the system. NUMBER OF COMMI'VrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

202

N F P A 13 ~ A 9 6 R O C

(Log #44) 13- 158 - (Figure A-3-8.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler

Associa t ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1 3-39 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Include a key at file bot tom of the figure which explains all of file abbreviations and parts.

2. Revise note 4 to clarify that parts "W" and "A" are gauges, no t switches or revise file note to say "PA" and "PW." SUBSTANTIATION: 1. It is no t clear what file different parts are that are labeled, PW, W, PA, PC and A,"

2. Switches canno t he read, which this note is telling the person to do. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 13-40 (Log #CC14). A n u m b e r of revisions have been made to proposed Figure 3-8.2.7. A legend will be provided to identify Pc, A, P1, P2, and W. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: ?7 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #78) 13- 159 - (Figure A-3-8.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise tile proposed Figure A-3-8.3 to show the Trip Test Valve above the Drain Valve.

In Note 4, revise "pressure switch W or A" to "Pressure Gauge PW or PA" SUBSTANTIATION: The system should be tested by shut t ing tile Normally ( )pen Trip Test Valve and allen open ing the Drain Valve to thus operate tile Dry/Preact ion Valve but to prevent water f rom enter ing tile system and thus causing freezing problems.

The Note 4 revision is editorial, a pressure switch cannot read high or low. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 13-40 (Log #CC14) and file Commit tee Action and Sta tement on C o m m e n t 13- 158 (Log #44). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #117) 13- 160- (Fignre A-3-8.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J a m e s Retzloff, Tile Viking Corporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Figure A-3-8.3 mus t be revised to prevent water f rom en te r inga l r lines in freezing area. SUBSTANTIATION: AS drawn, water will be t rapped in air supply line. Water will form ice plugs and result in accidental system

eration. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee C o m m e n t 1~340 (Log #CCI 4). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #63) 13- 161 - (Figure A-3-9.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isrnan, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-162

I RECOMMENDATION: Move the letter "Q" in the figure so that it is adjacent to the sprinkler which it represents. SUBSTANTIATION: From tile way that the letter is placed in tile figure in the ROP it appears that i tems "Q" and "R" are the same thing. The item "Q" is in tended to be the sprinkler protect ing "R." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #95) 13- 162 - (A-4-4.5.1, A-4-8.2.1, A-4-9.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: RoffJensen, Rol fJensen & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Correct text and diagrams per following. Also, 13-41 (Log #CP20) failed to include appendix material for 4-4.5.1.

A-4-4.5.1 The protect ion area for residential sprinklers is def ined in the listing of the sprinkler as a m a x i m u m square or rectangular area. Listing informat ion is presented in even 2 ft increments f rom 12 ft to 20 ft. W h e n a sprinkler is selected for an application, its ~ e a of coverage mus t be equal to or greater than both die length ,and width of the hazard area. For example, if tile hazard to be protected is a room 13 ft 6 in. wide ,and 17 ft 6 in. long, a sprinkler which is listed to protect a rectangular area of 14 f t x 18 ft or a square area of 18 f t x 18 ft mus t be selected. The flow used in tile calculations is allen selected ,as the flow required by the listing for tile selected coverage.

A-4-8.2,1 Tile protection area for ex tended coverage upr igh t an d sprinklers is def ined in the listing of the sprinkler as a

m a x i m u m square or r~c~.~s~l , . ,area. Listing informat ion is presented in even 2 ft increments f rom 14 ft to 20 ft. When a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage mus t be equal to or greater than bo th the length and width of tile hazard area. For example, if tile hazard to be protected is a room -1-413 ft 6 in. wide and 20, ft - 0 ~,~. 17 ft 6 in. long, a sprinkler which is listed to protect an area o f , 6 ft ^ 22 ft 18 f t x 18 ft mus t be selected. The flow used in the calculations is then selected as the flow required by the listing for the selected coverage.

1 8 '

'F " I

1' I I r.-.- L

. 1 ~ 6 " !

i" I

I I I I •

Figure A-4-8.2.1

A-4-9.2.1 Tile protection area for ex tended coverage sidewall spray sprinklers is def ined in the listing of the sprinkler ,as a m a x i m u m square or rectangular area, Listing i tdbrmat ion is presented in even 2 ft increments f rom 14 ff to 28 ft for ex tended coverage s ide~dl spray sprinklers. When a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage mus t be equal to or greater than both tile length and width of the hazard area. For example, if the hazard to be protected is a room 14 ft 6 in. wide and 20 ft 8 in. long, a sprinkler which is listed to protect an area of 16 f t x 22 ft mus t be selected. The flow used in the calculations is then selected ,as the flow required by tile listing for the selected covera e.

~ 14 ' 6" - - - ~ - , ~ *

I F'gure A-4-9.2.1

SUBSTANTIATION" Error in translation of commit tee materiM to ROC. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial note. In the first sentence of section A-4-8.2.1 replace the te rm "from 14 ft" with the word "up". In the second sen tence o f section A-4-9.2.1 replace the te rm "from 14 ft" with the word "up." NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27

203

N F P A 1 3 / 1 3 D - - A 9 6 R O C


(Log #22) 13- 163- (A-4-6.4.3.5.12.1): Reject SUBMITTER: RobertJ . Pearce, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-113 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text:

"Ceilings that are braced to prevent vertical and horizont;d movemen t are more likely to damage sprinkler drops. Drops over 4 ft in length or with a rmorers proved file most vnlnerable in recent earthquakes. Where ceilings are rigid f rom bracing or construct ion (HEPA ceilings and sheet rock on wood studs the drops should be individually braced by four splay wires or restrained to the ceiling bracing to p reven t differential m o v e m e n t and contact." SUBSTANTIATION: Adds guickmce to 4-6.4.3.5.12.1 which created the largest n u m b e r of incidents in the Northr idge Earthquake. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Comnfit tee Action on ( ; ommen t 13-83 (Log #21 ). This c o m m e n t relates to paragraph A-4-14.4.3.5.17. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #80) 13- 164 - (A-4-8.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler C'ompany Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1341 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

A-4-8.2.1 The protection area for ex tended coverage upr igh t arLd penden t spray sprinklers is def ined in the listing of the sprinkler ~s a m a x i m u m square area. Lisdng informat ion is presented in 2 ft increments f rom 16 ft to 20 ft when a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage mus t be equ~d to or greater than both die length and the width of the hazard area. For example, if the hazard to be protected is a room 14 ft 6 in. wide and 18 ft 8 in. long, a sprinkler which is listed to protect an area of 20 ft x 20 ft mus t be selected. The flow used in the calculations is the selected as a flow required by the listing for the selected coverage.

Mod~y the proposed Figure A`4-8.2.1 to show a 14 ft 16 in. x 18 ft 8 in. room with a 20 ft x 20 ft square (drawn with dot ted lines) su r round ing it. also show a small circle, to represent the sprinkler, in the center. Also insert all of the appropria te dimensions. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. The proposed text appears to be discussing the criteria for ex tended coverage sidewall spray sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-162 (Log #95). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

(Log #49) 13- 165 - (Figalres A-4-8.2.1, A-4-9.2.1, and A-5-3.2.1 ): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Figures A-4-8.2.1, A`4-9.2.1, and A-5-3.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: These figures are confus ing and do not add to the understandabi l i ty of the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-162 (Log #95). NUMBER OF COMMITTE E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

( Log #81 ) 13- 166 - (A-4-9.2,1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTE~ I.,arry Keeping, V ipondAutomat i c Sprinkler Comp~my Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: t3-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: A-4-9.2.1 The protection area for ex tended coverage sidewall spray

sprinklers is def ined in the listing of the sprinkler as a m a x i m u m rectangular area. Listing informat ion is p resen ted in 2 ft inc rements f rom 16 ft to 24 f t

When a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage mus t be equal to or greater than both the length and the width o f the hazard area. For example, if the hazard to be protected is a room 14 ft 6 in. wide and 18 ft 8 in. long, a sidewall sprinkler which is listed to protect an area of 16 ft x 20 ft mus t be selected. The flow used in die calculations is the selected ,as tile flow required by the listing for the selected coverage.

Modify the proposed Figure A-4-9.2.1 to show a 14 ft 6 in. x 18 ft 8 in. room with a 16 ft x 20 ft rectxmgle (drawn with dot ted lines) su r round ing it, with the top edges of the room and the rect;mgle in al ignment . Also show a small triangle, to represent tile sprinkler, in the center-line of the two al igned edges. ~dso insert all of the appropriate dimensions. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on ( ' o m m e n t 13-162 (Log #95). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

, (Log #82) 13- 167- (A-5-3.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13-41 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

A-5-3.2.1 The protection area for residenti,'d sprinklers is def ined ' in the listing of the sprinkler as a m a x i m u m square ,area for p e n d e n t sprinklers or a m a x i m u m rectangular a rea for sidewall sprinklers. Listing informat ion is presented in 2 ft increments fi-om 12 ft to 20 ft. When a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage mus t be equal to or greater daan bodl the length mid the width of the hazard area. For example, if the hazard to be protected is a room 14 ft 6 in. wide ,and 18 ft 8 in. long, a p e n d e n t sprinkler which is listed to protect an area of 20 f t x 20 ft mus t be selected. (See Figure A-4-8.2.1.) A sidewall sprinkler which is listed to protect an area of 16 ft x 20 ft may also be selected. (See Figure A-4-9.2.1.) The flow used in e c,alcnlations is the selected ,as the flow required 'by the listing for the selected coverage. SUBSTANTIATION: Editori~. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the Commit tee Action on C o m m e n t 13-162 (Log #95). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: ~27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27

P ~ T H

( Log # 12) 13D- 1 - (1-3 Residenti',d Sprinkler): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Larry Keeping, Vipond Automat ic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definit ion for a Residential S,prinkler to read:

'A type of fast response sprinkler tha t mee t the criteria of 1-4.5.1 (a) o f NFPA 13 and which has been specifically investigated for its ability to enhance survivability in the room of fire origin and listed for use in t hep ro t ec t i on of dwelling units." SUBSTANTIATION: Since NFPA 13 proposes to drop the definit ion of a Fast Response Sprinkler, this revised wording would be more explicit and is more in line with that of NFPA 13. COMMITI 'EEACTION: Accept in Principle.

No addit ional act ion required. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The changes in NFPA 13, part of which deleted a separate defini t ion for fast response sprinkler, h.x~ re ta ined a descript ion for a fast response sprinkler. The cur ren t definit ion is in line with the definit ions and descriptions of NFPA 13. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMtTrEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

13D- 2 - (2-3): Reject (Log #16) SUBMITTER: James D. Lake, Nation,'d Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-7, 13D-20 RECOMMENDATION: Replace Section 2-3 with wording identical to Section 2-3.3.1 of NFPA 13R ( including accompanying appendix material) but replacing "A c o m m o n supply main to the building"

204

N F P A 13D ~ A96 R O C

with "Combined system piping" and adding a second exception its follows: "Exception No. 2: I-5omestic design demand need not be added for systems where the combined piping consists only of a common supply main at least 1 in. (25 nun) in nominal diameter servicing a single dwelling unit." SUBSTANTIATION: The possible use of 1/2-in. non-metallic pipe iLs part of a gr idded system fi t ly integrated wida the domestic water s~ tem raises issues of simultmJeons domestic demand not previously considered. Use of NFPA 13R criteria will address dais problem, while maintaining the exception for single family dwellings widl simple systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tile acfiorl taken on Proposal 13[)-6 (Log #7) in the ROP now requires a shut off device to he installed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #'2) 13D- 3 - (2-3(a))~, Reject SUBMITTERz Gene V. Paolucci, American Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1315-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"...5 gpm is added to the sprinkler system demand at each point of connection." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See tile Corrmtittee Action on 13D~ (Log #7). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #6) 1315- 4- (2-3(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: JohnJ . Walsh, United Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-6

I RECOMMENDATION: Correct Committee Action to reference 2-3(a) not 2-3.2(a). SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #7) 13D- 5 - (2-3(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kennefll E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-7 RECOMMENDATION: Reject 13][)-7 (Log #GP2). SUBSTANTIATION: First of all, the proposi-d does not make sense ,as it is written. Second, file concept is flawed. The exiunple given to the committee was a condo wit] fire walls so as to make each unit a single family dwelling. Under FI80-1 individual 13D systems could go into each unit. Tile following drawing was given as an example.

I',1 1 I',l I I I I A B C D

It was stated that the demand should be 2 sprinklers at point D, 2 sprinklers plus 5 gpm at point C and so on for points A and B so that tile final de m a nd for tltis system would be 2 sprinkles plus 15 gpm.

How is dais situation any different from one with individual single family dwellings on a dead end street fed by one city main? In dais case, the demand for each house would be the two sprinkler demand without any extra allowance. Why should condos be treated differently? COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The action on tiffs comment will result in the rejection of Proposal 13D-7 (Log #CP2) as shown in the R()P. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28


(Log #11) 13D- 6 - (3-3.7, A-3.3.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Rick Burris, Van Guard Plastics, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-14 RECOMMENDATION: Add to 3-3.7 reference to ASTM F 1380 StancLard Specification for Metal Insert Fittings for Polybutylene (PB) tubing size 3 /4 in. and larger. Add to section A-3-3.7 "Fittings made to ASTM F 437, F 438, F 439,

F 1380 and other ASTM standard when e fittings are tested and listed by recognized and approved testing laboratory as decided in..."

Od]er chmages to file NFPA 13 standard should be made to be consistent wifll this d lange if approved by dile committee.

It is dae intent of dais proposal to allow fittings with a measured I15 less than 3 /4 of an inch (.750) providing di]e hydraulic performance of systems utilizing such fittings is in accordance with NFPA 13 requirements. SUBSTANTIATION: Corrosion resistant fittings manufactured in accordance with ASTM stancktrds for 3 /4 in. size tubing have a measured ID which is less than 3 /4 of an inch (.750). The use of these connections in flexible tubing sprinkler systems enhances system affordability over other 3 /4 in . jo ining medlods such :ts fllsion.

Fittings for use widl 3 /4 in. pipe having a measured II5 of 3 /4 of an inch (.750) or larger are currently used in rigid pipe systems. Rigid pipe systems require more fittings than flexible pipe system. These rigid pipe fittings, as required by NFPA 13, are assigned an' equivalent feet of pipe rating for hydraulic calculations purposes.

Vangalard is proposing connections used wid] 3 /4 in. nominal flexible tubing. Fittings are nmnufactured in accordm]ce wid] ASTM standard. Since these fittings will be limited to flexible tubing, few cll's or couplings will be required in a sprinkler system. Additional pressure drop associated wRh these fittings, compared to fittings with a measured ID of 3 /4 of an inch (.7~0) or larger, could be offset by the use of fewer fittings. Tee 's ,and cll's will generally be used for sprinkler drops.

The proposed connection will be tested and listed by a recognized, accepted testing laboratory. Each fitting will have an equivalent feet of tubing rating for hydraulic calculation purposes.

The approval of a 3 /4 in. connection with an ID less than 3 /4 of an inch (.750) wida an assigned equivalent footage will allow the use of 3 /4 in. approved flexible tubing wid] such fittings subject to listing or approval by an accepted testing laboratory.

As requested by tile committee, a special investigation initiated and f imded by Vangalard will be undertaken at UL to determine the following on fittings made to ASTM F 1380.

(a) Effects on sprinkler discharge coefficient (h) Effect~s on sprinkler discharge pattern (c) Empirical comparison of velocities in fittings (d) Flow limits for fittings (e) High velocity flow fbrpotent ia l erosion It is assumed that tile results of dais investigation will be compared

with similar results for 3 /4 in. fittings with a measured I[5 of .750 in. or larger which are acceptable for use in NFPA 13D systems.

The equivalent foot lengths of coiled pb pipe vs straight lengths will be provided by Vanguard.

It is our contention that if the insert fitting does not change the sprinkler operation characteristics, is a mechanically sound connection and has been ,assigned an equivalent footage of tubing, it should he allowed by tile standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlq'EE STATEMENT: Tile report wbicb was reqnested by the Committee wits not provided. No additional action is contemplated until some type of stndy is accomplished. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: SHAW: It is anticipated the study requested by tile Committee will

be completed by Underwriters Laboratories before the end of February 1996.

If tile results of dais UL study indicate insert fittings for 3 /4 in. pipe witl] ID's less than .750 do not present hydraulic problems, die submitter will request NFPA member approval at dae Teclmical Committee Session in May 1996.

Since die use of insert fittings for 3 /4 in. pipe will provide an opportunity for lower cost systems and optional designs it is my choice to abstain on tlais commefit.

205

N F P A 13D - - A 9 6 R O C

(Log #8) 13[)- 7 - (3-5.4): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 13[)-15 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Delete 3-5.2, 3-5.3, and 3-5.4 and replace witil the following (also renumber existing 3-5.5 as new 3-5.3).

3-5.2 Location of sprinklers wifl~ respect to heat sources. The following practices shall be observed when installing residential sprinklers.

Exception: Ordinary temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to tie used in any position relative to a beat source when heat transfer calcttlatons show tilat the temperature of the sprinkler (under non fire conditions) will no t ge t closer than 50°F to the operating tent?et,'ature of the sprinkler when the heat source is in use at inzt,XlnlU Ul output. 3-5.2.1 Residential sprinklers shall be installed such that the

tn:odmttm :nnbient ceiling temperature is at least 50°F lower th,'ua the temperature rating of dae sprinkler.

3-5.2.2 Sprinklers under glass or plastic skylights exposed to direct rays of the snn shall be of intermediate tetnperature classification.

3-5.2.3 Sprinklers in an unventilated conce:ded space under :m tminstflated roof, in an unventilated attic, or in an unventilated compartment containing a furnace or water heater, shall be of intermediate temperature classific~ttion.

3-5.2.4 Sprinklers shall be positioned with respect to specific heat sottrces in accordance with Table 3-5.2.4.

2. Also add new sections as follows: 4-5.1 Sprinkler system pipe shall not be run through heating ducts. 4-5.2 Sprinkler system pipe sh,all not be connected to flae domestic

hot water systems. Exception: Where calcttations or laboratory tests demonstrated

that the sprinkler will not be heated to a temperature closer than 50°F to its operating temperature, connection to the hot water system shall be permitted.

Table 3-5.2.4

Heat Source Minimum Distance from Edge of Source to

Ordinary Temperature Sprinl~ler

Minimum Distance from Edge of Som~ce to

Intermediate Temperature Sprinkler

Side of open or 36 inches 12 inches recessed fireplace

Front of recessed 84 inches 36 inches fireplace

C.oal or wood 42 inches 12 inches burning stove

Kitchen R,'mge 18 inches 9 inches

Wall Oven 18 inches 9 inches

Hot Air Fines 18 inches 9 inches

l tninsulated Heat 18 inches 9 inches Ducts

Uninsulated Hot 12 inches 6 inches Water Pipes

Side of ceiling or 24 inches 12 inches w=dl mounted hot ,air diffusers

36 inches 18 inches Front pf wall mounted hot ,air diflhsers

Hot water heater o r furnace

6 inches

6 inches 12 inches 24 inches 36 inches

Light fixture 0-250W 250-499W 500-999W 1000W or more

3 inches

3 inches 6 inches

12 inches 18 inches

SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize placement of sprinkles with respect to heat sources. All of this data can currently be found in mantffacturers literature, but many people do not have ready access to this literature. While some of file- disiances in die Table ,are flae same for all mantffacturers, t r i e r s are not, even daottgh flae acttmting link is the same. Standardization is needed.

The I ~ i c philosophy of using ordinary temperatttre sprinklers in are,~s where the ambient temperature does nbt exceed-100°F has been replaced with a requirement for a 50°F differential between ambient temperature and file sprinkler operating temperature. This

has been done because 165°F sprinklers should be treated differently allan 135°F sprinklers, If 155°F sprinklers can be used where file ambient temperature is 100°F, then why can't 165°F sprinklers be used where slightly higber ambient temperatures exist? COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Revise those sections of NFPA 13D which address the placement of sprinklers near heat sources ,as follows:

3-5 Sprinklers. 3-5.1 Listed residential sprinklers shall be used. The basis of suctt a

l is tng shall be tests to establish the abili W of the sprinklers to control resid+ntial fires under star~dardized fire test conditions. The standardized room fires shall be based on a residential array of fitrnishings and finisbes.

Exception No. I: Residential sprinklers shall not be used in dry systems tmless specifically listed for that purpose.

Exception No. 2: Listed dry sprinklers may be used in accord:race wifla 4-3.2,

3-5.2. Temperature Ratings. The requirements of 3-5.2.1 througlt 3-5.2.3 shMI be used for selection of sprinkler temperature ratings.

3-5.2.1 Ordinary-temperature-rated residential sprinklers [ 135 to 170°F (57 to 77°C - ")] shall be installed wltere maximtnn ambient ceiling temperatures do not exceed 100°F (38~C).

3-5.2.2 Intermediate-temperature-rated residenti,al sprinklers [175 to 225°F (79 to 107°C)] shall be installed where maxifimm ambient ceiling temperatures are between 101 :rod 150°F (39 :rod 66°C).

3-5.2.3 The following practices shall be observed when instaUing residential sprinklers,hhless maximum expected ambient temperatures are otherwise determined.

(a) Sprinklers trader glass or plastic skylights exposed to direct rays of the stm shall be of intermedtate temperature classification.

(b) Sprinklers in an unventilated concealed space under nninsulated roof, or in an unventilated attic, shall be of intermediate temperature classification.

(c) Sprinklers installed near specific heat sources which ,are identified in Table 3-5.2.3 shall be offlae ordinary or intermediate temperature rating as indicated.

Exception to (c): When sprinklers are listed for positioning closer to a heat source fl~an the minimum distance shown in Table 3-5.2.3, these closer minimum distances shall be permitted to be used.

3-5.3 Operated or damaged sprinklers shall be replaced with sprinklers having the same performance characteristics as the original equipment.

Insert Table- 3-5.2.3. All entries of the submitted Table will be added except for the last two snb-entries under "Light Fixtures". (Criteria for light fixtures of 500 W and greater).

Heat Source

Table 3-5.2.3 "

Minimum Distance from Edge of Source to

Ordinary Temperature Sprinkler





Coal or wood 42 inches 12 inches burning stove

Kitchen Range 18 inches 9 inches

Wall (Iven 18 inches 9 ifiches

Hot Air Flues 18 inches 9 inches

Unlnsulated Heat 18 inches 9 inches Ducts

1 ]ninsulated Hot 12 inches 6 inches Water Pipes

Side of ceiling or 24 inches . 12 inches wall mounted hot J r diffusers

Front of wall 86 inches 18 inches mounted hot air diffusers

Hot water heater 6 inches 3 inches or furnace

6 inches 12 inches

'~rht fixtu~'e 0W

250-499W 3 inches 6 inches

Renumber current 3-5,5 and 3-5.7 ,as needed.

206

N F P A 1 3 D - - A 9 6 R O C

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he ch,anges accepted by file commit tee address die original in tent of the proposal which was to provide guidance on die p lacement of sprinklers near point heat sources. Some e lements of this c o m m e n t would have resulted in die de-listing of some residential sprinklers b ~ e d u p o n the 50°F ambien t difference rule that was proposed. The comndt tee does not see where die current language is not adequate widl respect to proper use of sprinklers unde r normal conditions. Deletion of file criteria for 500 W lights was d e e m e d necessary since these types of lights are no t c o m m o n to residential occupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

~Log #3) 13D- 8 - (4-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-17 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. SUBSTANTIATION: Tile 7 psi m i n i m u m is inappropriate since die performance criteria required to become listed by UL has been achieved by sprinklers using less than 7 psi. To require 7 psi would unfairly excluded these sprinklers which have meet tile per tormance criteria established by the listing agencies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee wishes to rmdntain some level of s~ffety in the system design no mat ter wbat type of sprinkler is used. The margin for error in die design of an NFPA 13[) system is minimal. Maintaining an across die board, m i n i m u m pressure limit will alleviate some of die concerns ,associated with die operat ion of residential sprinklers including having e n o u g h pressure available to pop off tile orifice cap once tire sprinkler has operated. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON 12OMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #4) 13[)- 9 - (4-1.1 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Gene V. Paolucci, Amer ican Insurance Service Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-17 RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to read as follows:

"except for those sprinklers listed for pressures less dl~m 7 psi." SUBSTANTIATION: The 7 psi m i n i m u m is inappropriate since file per formance criteria required to become listed by I IL has been achieved by sprinklers us ing less d'uan 7 psi. To require 7 psi would unfairly exclude daese sprinklers which have meet the per formance criteria established by tile listing agencies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See die Commit tee Action on 13D-8 (Log #3). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NEGATIVE: 2 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: HU(.;HEY: There are listed residential sprinklers wifl~ pressures

less than 7 psi. () 'NEILL: The Commit tee has not provided technical justification

for no longer permit t ing currently listed residential sprinklers which are listed for operat ing pressures less darn 7 psi. Currently listed residential sprinklers with m i n i m u m pressures less than 7 psi have passed the s tandard residential fire test as part of die listing process and d~erefore mee t fire objectives of tiffs s~mdard. EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

SHAW: According to die OLS residential sprinkler incident study, there have been over 800 successful residential sprinkler activations.

These activations included bodi NFPA 13[) and NFPA 13R systems. ()vet ninety percent of these incidents have successful widl only one sprinkler activating.

Additionally, the UL tests indicate sprinklers with less than 7 psi mee t the requi rements of the UL Test ing Standard.

Further, even if we lower tire K factor to 3.0 f rom 3.9 or 4.2 we will require addit ional system pressure ,and therefore more g p m when this chmage is included in die NFPA 13D standard. This will also be true for the NFPA 13R standard. Adding pressure and gpm would have a negative impact on cost and apparent ly would no t improve tile success rate.

Tile original th inking for NFPA 13D in 1980 was to have as n m c h of a per formance s tandard as possible. This decision paid big dividends widl die advancemen t of sprinkler technology. Now, it appears we are going backwards.

Is the reason for dfis change really in the best interests of a lower cost reliable system?

To fire best of my knowledge daere has been no failures wida NFPA 13[) and NFPA 13R systems to require dfis change. Basically, there is no tedmica l justification for the proposed change

to establish a m i n i m u m pressure of 7 psi for residential sprinklers. Perhaps dais shou ld be l imited to die use of residential sprinklers in

NFPA 13 systems.

(Log #9) 13[)- 10 - (4-1.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Ismma, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1311-17 RECOMMENDATION: In addition to dm cbange to 4-1.1 also put this sentence into 4-1.6. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 4-1.6 serves as an exception to 4-1.1. If riffs sentence is no t ,also added to 4-1.6, it has no meaning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #13) 1311- 11 - (44.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Shaw, Harry Shaw & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13[)-20 RECOMMENDATION: As shown in the R()P 13[)-20 (Log #10), r e c o m m e n d acceptance by Commit tee . SUBSTANTIATION: See my substantiat ion as shown in die A96 ROP 13-20 (Log #10).

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

Revise Section 4-4.2 as follows: 4-4.2 Min imum Pipe Size. (Text f rom cur ren t 4-4.2) Exception No. 1: Min imum size of steel pipe shMl be 1 in. (no

ch,'mge). Add: Exception No. 2 : 1 / 2 in. non-metall ic pipe ,and 1/2 in. copper

pipe a long with listed special fittings ~ball be permit ted to be used only in network systems unde r file following conditions:

1. Each sprinkler shall be supplied th rough a m i n i m u m of three separate padls f rom the supply shutoffvalve assembly within die dwelling unit .

2. Sprinkler supply lines shall no t terminate in a dead end. 3. Hydraulic calculations shall be prepared for each sprinkler

flowing individually widfin die system and for eacb pair of sprinklers within the same compar tment . The location of die mos t d e m a n d i n g single sprinkler and pair of sprinklers a long with dleir pressure :rod flow requi rements shall be indicated on die plan review documents .

4. The system shall be hydraulically calculated in accordance wida the provisions of NFPA 13. Friction loss straight t h rough the fitting shall be included.

5. The system shall be suppl ied f rom a potable water source or it shall be equ ipped widi a strainer at tile connect ion to the supply line.

6. The m e t h o d of jo in ing die pipe to fittings or to o ther pipe shall be covered by die listing.

7. Insert fittings shall no t be installed between sprinkler fitting inlet ports.

8. The piping to the p lumbing fixtures will be copper or listed pipe. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: An allowance for us ing pipe or tube with a d iameter as small as 1 /2 in. nominal has been permit ted when a n u m b e r of certain condit ions are specified. These include:

- at least 3 flow paths mus t be provided to supply each sprinkler. - copper tube as well as non-metall ic pipe is permi t ted to be used. - various selected combinat ions of sprinklers mus t be evaluated as a

part o f die hydraulic analysis of die installed system. When these precautions, as well ,as die otiaer caveats manda ted by

die c o m m e n t are followed, the Commit tee is of die opinion that such a system can be installed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LINDEI~ I have always felt d i r t die use of 1 /2 in. pipe, while

technically feasible would lead to problems. I originally was willing to let the market place decide if 1 /2 in. sprinkler pipe in residential systems made sense. However, I have seen several articles on the proposed change since I originally sent in nay ballot and none have men t ioned any of file limitations the commit tee placed on this design to insure d i r t it would work correctly. 1 cont inue to believe

207

N F P A 1 3 D ~ A 9 6 R O C

that while the system is technically feasible, there is too great a potential that the systems us ing 1 /2 in. pipe will be incorrectly installed and will result in the failure of d~e sprinkler system to control the fire. I agree with Jack Walsh's commeqts mid change my vote to negative on this item.

MADRZYKOWSKI: The Commit tee connnen t does not speci fya m i n i m u m a/lowable internal d iameter for tlle pipe (tubing) or the fittings. The copper insert fittings nsed with tlle tubing are closet" to 5 /8 in. ID dmn to 1/2 in. ID. I find the Commit tee ' s action contradictory since approval was not given to proposa/ 131,)-14 (Log #(X;I) which requested the use of an insert fitting for 3 / 4 in. pipe.

The Commit tee asked for a fidl investigative repor t by a reputable . laboratory on die rise of a "network system". This w;ts never done.

Instead trial installations were conducted. While dlese insta/lations have been useful and informative, I do no t believe that we unders tand what is needed to safely install tbese systems. For example, dnr ing tile most recent installation, Mr. Shaw discovered that :l m i n i n m m of three supply lines are needed for each sprinkler. The, 'elbre, a grid system which requires only two snpplies to a sprinkler could not be used. How many other nnances are left to discover? Tbe U.S. Fire Administrat ion currently has a research project with Factory Ml, tual Research Corp. examin ing the use of 1/2 in. tnbing in residential sprinkler systems. I believe that it is impor tan t to wait for die results before accepting die use of 1 /2 in. tubing.

MARUSKIN: Lack of research and developmental testing th rongh a ~ationa/ly recognized laboratory.

WALSH: While die 8 requi rements specified by the Commit tee unde r Exception 2 to 4-4.2 will, when ,all are complied widl, provide a re~*sonable basis to anticipate successfiti system operation, one need only read the I-}ecember 1995 issue of the U.S. Fire Sprinkler Reporter to nnde r s t and that we have opened Pandora ' s box. Not once in ;in eight page ,article which is hea.dlined NFPA Gommit tee ok's 1/2 Inc.ll Pipe, were the Commit tee ' s requ i rements ment ioned .

I unders tand that, when tile failnres occur, we cim correctly state that the systems were not inst~dled in accordmlce with the s tandard. I don ' t think the news media will pay a whole lot of a t tent ion to that nuance and I know it will be no solace to the occupants of daose residences or their families. COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

SHAW: Seve ra /member s of the Gommit tee expres~sed sincere concerns a long with their negative ballots. With all due respect I wimt to take this opportuni ty to c o m m e n t on tlleir concerns to all members of t l le NFPA 13 Gommittee. I have sent replies to each m e m b e r wbo submit ted a negative comment . However, I see no reason, if possible, to leave any doubt or quest ions abont the network system dlat was approved by the Gommittee.

I have a t tempted to capture the in tent of each negative c o m m e n t and to offer counter com men t s to snppor t he action taken by the ( ;ommittee.

1. Tbe Commit tee c o m m e n t does not specify a m i n i m u m a/Iowable in t e rna /d i ame te r for the pipe (tubing) or fittings.

t',()MMENT: Dnr ing die listing process the equivalent foot lengths tot pipe and fittings will be established. The compute r hydraulic plans'will use tile established nnmbers . The pipe and fittings will be made to ASTM Standards and o ther s tandards which have identified m i n i m m n internals diameters.

2. Tbe Commit tee action shows inconsistency for the action taken for tile 1 /2 in. fitting vs. tile 3 / 4 in. fitting.

( ' ()MMENT: 11L will complete . the Commit tee reques ted speci,'d investigation concern ing the 3 / 4 in. fitting by February 15, 1996. It is p lanned to have tlais special investigation sent to Gommit tee inembers. Hopefully, tile repor t will allow tile Commit tee to be consistent with their apprnval of the 3 / 4 insert fittings at the NFPA May meeting.

In addition, a compar ison of a special insert fonr por t fitting with a 3 / 4 in. insert fitting is no t a meaningfu l comparison. A Factory Mun ia / r epo r t covering the four por t fitting was provided to the C, ommit tee members .

3. There wzts a discovery of a r equ i r emen t for a m i n i m n m of three supply lines to each sprinkler.

( ',( )MMENT: The Al tamonte Springs demons t ra t ion per formance ~Ls excellent even with only two supply lines to several sprinklers. However, the data showed sprinklers with only two supply lines bec,'une die more d e m a n d i n g sprinklers. The decision to require three supply lines was based upon improvemen t of hydraulic per formance not system failnre.

The Commit tee action to reqnire a m i n i m u m of three supply lines will improve tile reliability o f the combined network system.

I believe the use of a m i n i m u m of three supply lines cont r ibnted to the Gommit tee ' s decision not to add a domest ic flow requi rement .

4. A qnest ion was raised, "What are tile remain ing nuances?" COMMENT: The 1 /2 in. combined network system approved by

the Gommit tee will be modif ied many t imes dur ing each of flae next several NFPA cycles. Tbe Commit tee is still making cbanges to NFPA 13, NFPA 13, and NFPA 13R, The combined network system will no t be any different. There will be changes. However, .most required changes ,are not discovered in the laboratory. They are discovered by insta/lers, designers, audlorit ies having jurisdict ion and other with exper ienced use of the system. I believe the concept of tlle combined network system is ,as reliable if no t more reliable than any conventional NFPA 13][) system.

5. The results of the USFA/FM 1/2 in. pipe research and deve lopment program are needed.

COMMENT: Tile grid network laydraulic evaluation of this USFA/ FM research and develop.ment p rogram is just abont completed. The I JSFA shou ld expedite the hydraulic results to the members of the Connnit tee. The fire tests that are second part of die program should have no bearing on the hydraulir results. Primarily, the fire teses results will rea/ly be an evalnation of die sprinklers used in the system.

There is some confnsion about the fire tests in the USFA/FM program. In tile Chicago Residential C, onmaittee meeting, Larry Maruskin indicated there were no fire tests involved in the USFA/ FM research and development program. Perhaps, in tile interest of providing timely useful informat ion to tile Commit tee the FM report could be in two parts, namely, hydraulics results ,and fire test results.

6. There is need for a research mad deve lopmen~ l testing program through a nationally recognized testing laboratory.

COMMENT: Same as 5. 7. The I_LS. Fire Sprinkler Reporter Article did no t list the eight

requ i rements ,associated with tile use of 1 /2 in. pipe ,and fittings as established by the Committee. Thiswill lead to misuse of the network system.

COMMENT: The U.S. Fire Sprinkler Reporter article was in tended to cover the Al tamonte Springs demonst ra t ion . The article was comple ted prior to tile affirmative Commit tee vote in Apopka. Tile a r m o u n c e m e n t of file results of tile Commit tee ballot was a "flash" m m o u n c e m e n t similar to article publ ished ,after Prince George 's County demonstra t ion. The March, 1990 issue of the U.S. Fire Sprinkler Reporter will cover tile details of tile Commit tee action. Hopefitily, this may help prevent misuse of the s tandard leading to faulty installations. Edncation of installers and authori t ies having jurisdict ion is a mus t for tile network system and its well ,as all o ther systems.

8. Tile negative ,anticipated media attack following tile first failure. COMMENT: With millions of systems, there will be a failure.

There may be several fa!lures timt will be b lamed on something . Tha t is tile negative side. Ultimately, there will be hund red s if no t thousands saved. It is my belief, we mus t look at the ~5 thous~md deaths each year and recognize residential sprinkler systems can do more. In order to do more tile cost obstacle can be successfully addressed. The major contr ibut ion of the network system is very low costs. Tbe NAHB, a maior barrier for sprinkler systems has suppor ted and will cont inue to suppor t the network system as long its it is no t mandated .

9. Solace to members of the family of file victims, GOMMENT: There will be less "solace" if there are less victims. 10. The complexity o f t "webbed" or "netted" system makes field

changes impossible without a computer . COMMENT: There is no suppor t for tllis s ta tement . Much will

d e p e n d on file type of change. It is conceivable that file hydraulic flexibility of tlle network ~ystem may ,allow it to be more able to make field changes than a s tandard tree or loop system.

11, Tile Commit tee ignored domest ic flows. COMMENT: W h e n tlle results of t l le USFA/FM research study are

known it will be evident that domest ic flows will have less impact on a network system than a normal NFPA 13D tree or loop system, I believe fl~e Commit tee recognized that file hydraulic per formance of the combined network system will be as good as a conventional NFPA 13[) system. Based npon this under s t and ing any change t o domest ic flows should include all NFPA 13D systems.

There are several ways to address domest ic flow in addit ion to adding a required gpm. For example, larger d iameter u n d e r g r o u n d pipe ~ttl be used or the r equ i r emen t for the back flow preventer can be el iminated or tlle system can be des igned for m i n i m u m psi radler than available psi. This problem would make an excellent USFA research project. It is anticipated network systems will be designed for, let us slay, a base of riser pressure of 25 psi or for 30 psi with 20 gpm flowing even if the base of riser psi is 40 psi or 50 psi, with 90 g p m flowing.

208

N F P A 1 3 D ~ A 9 6 R O C

(Log #5) 131-)- 12- (Table 4-4.3(d)): Hold for Fur ther Study SUBMITTER: J o h n M. Foehl, Medway, MA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: N / A RECOMMENDATION: Revise the equivalent length values in Table 4-4.3(d) to reflect the correct internal d iameters for copper tube. SUBSTANTIATION: Tile equiwdent ler, gth values fro copper fittings shown in Table 4-4.3(d) resuh fi'om tile multiplication of tile equivalent length values in Tahle 6-4.3.1 by the factor 1.51 given for ("=150 in Table 6-4.3.2 of NFPA 13. These ~tllles are incorrect, since they are Ixt~ed upon sumdard iron pipe size internal diameters not copper tube internal diameters. Furflaer modification of d~ese values th rough the application of the relative diameter factor (pm-agraph 64.3.1 of NFPA 13) is, dmrefore required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t introduces a new concept which h:Ls no t been subiect to prior public review. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE M~VIBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #l ) 13D- 13- (4-6): Reject SUBMITTER: (;errv Harrington, West Vancouver Fire Dept., BC COMMENT ON PR()POSAL NO: RECOMMENDATION: Revise text,

"Parking gacages and carports at tached to, or included in dTe residential occupancy, sanTe to he sprinklered with Quick/F~Lst Response Sprinklers. In a r e ~ wbere cold climate is experienced, Quick/Fas t Response Dry Sidewall Sprinklers may be used." SUBSTANTIATION: Our depa r t men t has exper ienced dlree recent fires within this l~ t year, that have originated in the garage or open cm'port areas, d m n traveled into dae dwelling units.

Sidewall sprinklers, located in the garages or carports, would control any fire that does occur, plus give an alarm to notify the ocru paros and fire depar tment .

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 131-) is in tended to provide a h igh level of life safety to the occupants of flTe bouse. The Commit tee is no t aware of a large n u m b e r of inst:mces where fires which originated in a garage resuhed in one or more fatalities. It is recognized that tile technology now exists which would allow the types of sprinklers men t ioned to be utilized, b u t that no memsurable life safety benefit is achieved. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #CC1) 13[)- 14- (A43.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Automat ic Sprinklers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13D-27 RECOMMENDATION: Add file following figure in the appendix of NFPA 13D which illustrate several suggested me thods for protect ing pipe f rom freezing. Place dae figures in Section A-4-3.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The addit ion of these figures will :Lssist tlae system designer and installer with various me thods of mitigating )otential scenarios where freezin of tile )i e is ~ossihle. The

Pgaires provide up t o 5 ¢ pti~ ns f~gr acco,)lPlPshin~ dfis type of FC)rotection in freezing climates or environments .

OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

Insulation recommendations

.:!~!ii~?:...~i; i "::".~V-.~:7:!: :~7i!~":

' ! - : . ' . i I Caution: It is important that the insulation be installed tight against the joists. In unheated areas, any spaces or voids between the insulation and the joists will cause the water in the fire sprinkler piping to freeze.

Figure 1.

209

N F P A 1 3 D / 1 3 R I A 9 6 R O C


Caution: For areas having temperatures of O°F or lower, an additional batt of insulation covering the joist and the life sprinkler piping is recommended. If this is not done, freeze-ups may occur in the sprinkler piping.

Figure 2.

P ~ T H I

(Log #4) 13R- 1 - (1-3 Residential Sprinkler): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEIb Larry Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Company Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13R-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definition for a Residential Sprinkler to read:

"A type of fast response sprinkler that meets the criteria of 1- 4.5.1 (a) of NFPA 13 and which has been specifically investigated for its ability to enhance survivability in the room of fire origin and listed for use in the protection of dwelling units." SUBSTANTIATION: Since NFPA 13 proposes to drop the definition of a Fast Response Sprinkler, this revised wording would be more explicit and is more in line with that of NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

No additional action required. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The ch`anges in NFPA 13, paa-t of which deleted a separate definition for fast response sprinkler, has ret~fined a description for a fast response sprinkler. The current definition is in line with the definitions and descriptions of NFPA 13. NUMBER OF COMMII3"EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #3) 13R- 2- (1-5.7, A-1.5.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Rick Burris, Van Guard Plastics, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13R-3 RECOMMENDATION: Add to 1-5.7 reference to ASTM F 1380 Standard Specification for Metal Insert Fittings for Polybutylene (PB) or other ASTM F 1380 standards when the fittings ,are tested ,'rod listed by recognized and approved testing laboratory.

Add to A-I-5.7 "Fittings made to ASTM F 437, F 438, F 439, F 1380 ar, d other ASTM standards when the fittings are tested and listed by recognized `and approved testing laboratory as described in..."

Other changes to the NFPA 13D standard should be made to be consistent with tttis change if approved by the committee. It is the intent of this proposal to ,allow fittings with a measured ID less than 3 / 4 of an inch (.750) providing file hydraulic performance of systems utilizing such fittings is in accordance with NFPA 131-) requirements. SUBSTANTIATION: Corrosion resistant fittings manufactnred in accordance with ASTM standards for 3 /4 in. size tubing have measured ID wltich is less than 3 /4 of an inch (.750). The use of these connections in flexible tubinl~ sprinlder.systems enhances system affordability over other 3 /4 re . jo ining methods such as fusion.

Fittings for use witla 3 / 4 in. pipe having a measured ID of 3 /4 of an inch (.750) or larger ,are currently used in rigid pipe systems. Rigid pipe systems require more fittings than flexible pipe system. These rigid pipe fittings, as required by NFPA 13, are assigned an equivalent feet of pipe rating for hydraulic calculations purposes. Vanguard is proposing connect ions used with 3 /4 in. nominal

flexible tubing. Fittings are manufactured in accordance with ASTM standard. Since these fittings will be limited to flexible tubing, few ells or couplings will be required in a sprinkler system. Additional

210

N F P A 13D/13R ~ A96 R O C


.? .'1.'. ' : : : . : : : ;33? 'L' ." -2Z.? ' : : . i ' : :~ . : ' . ' v" . : : : : i : U<::iP'~:

Caution: Boring holes in the joist is one of the methods for locating the fire sprinkler piping in the ceiling. As an alternative, when temperatures are expected to be O°F or lower, stuffing loose pieces of insulation in the bored holes around the piping is recommended.

Figure 3.

pressure drop ,associated with these fittings, compared to fittings widl a measured ID of 3 /4 of an inch (.750) or larger, could be offset by the use of fewer fittings. Tee's ,'rod ells will generally be used for sprinkler drops.

The proposed connection will be tested and listed hy a recognized, accepted testing laboratory. Each fitting will have an equivalent feet . f tubing rating for hydraulic calculation purposes. The appro~d of a 3 /4 in. comlection with :m I1-) less than 3 /4 ofma

inch (.750) with an assigned equiwdent foot;tge will allow the use of 3 /4 in. approved flexible mhing with such fittings sul~iect to listing . r appro~d by an accepted testing laboratory. As requested by the committee, a special investigation initiated and

f imded by Vanguard will be undertaken at UL to determine the following on fittings made to ASTM F 1380.

(a) Effects on sprinkler discharge coefficient (b) Effects on sprinkler discharge pattern (c) Empiric:d comparison of velocities in fittings (d) Flow limits for fittings (e) High velocity flow for potential erosion It is assumed d~at the results of this investigation will be compared

widl similar results for 3 /4 in. fittings wida a measured ID of .750 in. or larger which are acceptable for use in NFPA 13D systems.

The equiwdent foot [engdrs of coiled pb pipe ~ straight lengths will ~e provided by Vanguard. It is our contention that if the insert fitting does not change tile

sprinkler operation characteristic% is a mechanically sound connection and has been assigned an equivalent fooutge of tubing, it should be allowed by the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The report which w:~s requested by the Cominittee w:Ls not provided. No additional action-is contemplated until some type of study is accomplished. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 27 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: SIEGFRIED: It is anticipated die study requested by die Committee

will be completed by Underwriters Laboratories before the end of February 1996.

If the results of dais UL study indicate insert fittings for 3 /4 in. pipe with ID's less than .750 do not present hydraulic problems the submitter will request NFPA member appro~d at the Technical Committee session in May 1996.

Since file use of insert fittings for 3 /4 in. pipe will provide :in opportunity for lower cost systems and optional <lesigns it is mv choice to abstain on dlis comment.

(Log #6) 13R-3- (2-3.2(a) Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: James D. Lake, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13R-4 RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception as follows:

Exception: Non-listed pumps shall be permit ted for use in residential occupancies containing not more than 12 dwelling units. SUBSTANTIATION: Tile performance of nonlisted pumps in NFPA 13D systems has been satisfactory. Small residenti,'d units should be permit ted tiffs same economic~al alternative. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 13R is applied to :t broad range of facilities and buildings. It has been the intent 'of dfis document that a higher level of reliahility he I)uilt into the system design features including the type of pump that is permit ted lot use. This increase in reliability is in tended to be achieved through the use of a listed fire pump ~md controller which complies with NFPA 20. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

211

N F P A 1 3 D / 1 3 R I A 9 6 R O C


Caution: Care should be taken to avoid compressing the insulation. This will reduce its R value. To prevent potential freeze-ups of the sprinkler piping, the insulation should be installed tight against the joists.

Figure 4.

(Log #2) 13R-4- (2-4.5.4): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 13R-7 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 2-4.5.1, 2-4.5.2, 2-4.5.3, 2-4.5.4, and 2-4.5.5 .and replace with the following (also r e n u m b e r existing 2-4.:~.6, 2-4.5.7, and 2-4.5.8 as 2-4.5.2, 2-4...3 and 2-4.5.4):

2-4.5.1 Location of sprinklers with respect to hea t sources. The following practices sil;dl e observed when installing residenti:d sprinklers. Exception: Ordinary tempera ture sprinklers shall be permi t ted to

be used in any posit ion relative to a heat source when hea t t ransfer calculations show that tile tempera ture of file sprinkler (under n o n fire conditions) will no t get closer than 50°F to the operat ing tempera ture of tile sprinkler when tile hea t source is in use at i n a x l m u m o u t p u t .

2-4.5.1.1 Residential sprinklers shall be installed such that file m a x i m u m ambien t ceihng tempera tu re is at least 50°F lower than the tempera ture rat ing of-the sprinkler.

2-4.5. I.2 ,Sprinklers u n d e r glass or plastic skylights exposed to direct rays of the sun shall be of in termediate t empera ture classifi c~atio n.

2-4.5.1.3 Sprinklers in an unvent i la ted concealed space u n d e r an uninsula ted roof, in an unvent i la ted attic, or in an unvent i la ted compa r tmen t conta in ing a furnace or water heater, shall be of imermedia te t empera ture classification.

2-4.5.1.4 Sprinklers shall be posi t ioned with respect to specific beat sources in accordance wifla Table 3-5.2.4. Table 3-5.2.4 is shown on page 214.

2-4.5.1,5 Sprinkler system pipe shall no t be run th rough heat ing ducts.

2-4.5.1.6 Sprinkler system pipe shall no t be connec ted to the domest ic ho t water systems. Exception: Where calculations or laboratory tests demons t ra ted that the sprinkler will no t be heated to a t empera tu re closer til,'ua 50°F to its operat ing temperature , connect ion to tile hot water system shall be permit ted. SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize p lacement of sprinklers with respect to heat sources. All of this data can currently be fo u n d in manufac ture rs literature, but many people do not have ready access to this literature. While some of file distances in the Table are the same for all mamffacturers , others are not, even though the actuat ing link is tile same. Standardization is needed.

The basic phi losophy of us ing ordinary t empera tu re sprinklers in areas where the ambien t t empera tu re does no t exceed 100°F has been replaced with a r equ i r emen t for a 50°F differential between ambien t t empera ture and the sprinkler operat ing temperature . This has been done because 165~F sprinklers should be treated differently t haa 135°F sprinklers, ff 155°F sprinklers can be used

o o where the ambien t t empera tu re is 100 F, then wily can ' t 165 F sprinklers be used where slightly h igher ,ambient tempera tures exist.

212

N F P A 1 3 D / 1 3 R ~ A 9 6 R O C


!;: : ' .~ -.

Caution: Care should be taken to a~oid compressing the insulation. This will reduce its R value. To prevent potential freeze-ups of the sprinkler piping, the insulation should be installed tight against the joists.

Figure 5.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Revise those sections of NFPA 13R which address tile p lacement of

sprinklers near hea t sources as follows: 2-4.5 Sprinklers. 2-4.5.1 Listed residential sprinklers shall be used. Tbe basis of such

a listing shall be tests to establish the ability of file sprinklers to control residential fires u n d e r s tandardized fire test conditions. The s tandardized room fires shall be based on a residential array of furnishings and finishes.

Exception No. 1: Residential sprinklers shall no t be used in dry systems unless specifically listed for that purpose.

Exception No. 2: Other types of listed sprinklers shall be permi t ted to be instaUed in accordance widl their listing in dwelling units met ing tile definit ion of a compa r t men t (as def ined in 2-5.1.1.1 ) provided no more than 4 sprinklers are located in tile dwelling uni t and at least 1 smoke detector is provided in each sleeping room.

2-4.5.2. Tempera tu re Ratings. The requi rements of 2-4.5.2.1 th rough 2-4.5.2.3 shall be used for selection of sprinkler tempera ture ratings.

2-4.5.2.1 Ordinary-temperature-rated residential sprinklers [ 135 to 170°F (57 to 77°(;) ] sha l lbe installed where m a x i m u m ambien t ceiling tempera tures do not exceed 100°F (38°(3).

2-4.5.2.2 Intermediate- temperature-rated residential sprinklers [ 175 to 225°F (79 to 107°(.;) ] sha | l be installed where m a x i m u m ,'unbient ceiling tempera tnres are between 101 and 150°F (39 :rod 66°(2).

2-4.5.2.3 Tlle following practices shall be observed when installing residential sprinklers, unless m a x i m u m expected mnbient tempera tures are oflaerwise de termined.

(a) Sprinklers unde r glass or plastic skylights exposed to direct rays of the sun shall be of in termediate t empera tu re classification.

(b) Sprinklers in ml unvent i la ted concealed space u n d e r un insu la ted roof, or in ma unvent i la ted attic, shall be of in termediate t empera ture classification.

(c) Sprinklers installed near specific heat sources which are identified in Table 2-4.5.2.3 shall be of the ordinary or in termediate t empera ture rating as indicated.

Exception to (c): When sprinklers are tisted for posi t ioning closer to a heat source dmn the m i n i m u m distance shovaa in Table 2-4.5.2.3, these closer m i n i m u m distances shall be permit ted to be used.

2-4.5.3 Opera ted or damaged sprinklers shall be replaced witll sprinklers having dae same per formance characteristics as die original equipment .

Insert Table 2-4.5.2.3 shown on page 214. All entries of tile submi t ted Table will be added except for the last two sub-entries unde r "Light Fixtures". (Criteria for light fixtures of 5 0 0 W a n d greater).

R e n u m b e r cur ren t 2-4.5.5 th rough 2-4.5.8 as needed.

213

N F P A 13R - - A 9 6 R O C

Heat Source

Side of open or recessed fireplace

Front of recessed fireplace

Coal or wood burning stove

Kitchen Range

Wall Oven

Table 3-5.2.4



36 inches

84 inches

42. inches

18 inches i

18 inches


Intermediate TempemUwe Sprinkler

12 in che~s

36 inches

12 inches

9 inches

9 inches

Hot Air Flues 18 inches 9 inches

9 inches Uninsulated Heat Ducts

I In insulated Hot Water Pipes

18 inches

12 inches

Side of ceiling or 24 inches 12 inches wall monn tedhot air diffusers

Front of wall 36 inches 18 inches moun ted hot air diffusers

Hot water heater 6 inches 3 inches of furnace

6 inches 12 inches 24 inches 36 inches

Light fixture 0-250W 250~99W 500-999W 1000W or more

3 inches 6 inches

12 inches 18 inches

COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: T h e c h a n g e s a c c e p t e d by the c o m m i t t e e a d d r e s s t h e o r ig ina l i n t e n t o f t h e p r o p o s a l w h i c h was to p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e o n the p l a c e m e n t o f s p r i n k l e r s n e a r p o i n t b e a t sou rces . S o m e e l e m e n t s o f th is c o m m e n t w o u l d have r e s u l t e d in fl~e de - l i s t ing o f s o m e r e s i d e n t i a l s p r i n k l e r s b a s e d n p o n d i e 5 0 o F a m b i e n t d i f f e r e n c e r u l e d l a t was p r o p o s e d . T h e c o m ~ t t e e d o e s n o t see w h e r e file c u r r e n t l a n g u a g e is n o t a d e q u a t e wi th r e s p e c t to p r o p e r u se o f s p r i n k l e r s u n d e r n o r m a l c o n d i t i o n s . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 28 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

(Log #1 ) 13R- 5 - (2-6): H o l d f o r F n r t h e r S t u d y SUBMITTER: G e r r y H a r r i n g t o n , Wes t V a n c o u v e r Fire Dept . , BC C O M M E N T ON PROPOSAL NO: N / A RECOMMENDATION: Revise text .

" P a r k i n g g a r a g e s a n d c a r p o r t s a t t a c h e d to, o r i n c l u d e d in t h e r e s iden t i a l o c c u p a n c y , s a m e to b e s p r i n k l e r e d wi th Q u i c k / F a s t R e s p o n s e Spr ink le r s . In a r e a s w h e r e co ld c l i m a t e is e x p e r i e n c e d , s ~ i c k / F a s t R e s p o n s e D r y Sidewal l S p r i n k l e r s m a y be u s e d . "

BSTANTIATION: O u r d e p a r U n e n t has e x p e r i e n c e d t h r e e r e c e n t f i res wid f in tiffs last year , d l a t have o r i g i n a t e d in t h e g a r a g e o r o p e n 9 a r p o r t a r ea s , t h e n t r a v e l e d in to flae d w e l l i n g uni ts .

S idewal l sp r ink le r s , l o c a t e d in t h e g a r a g e s o r c a r p o r t s , w o u l d c o n t r o l a n y f i r e t h a t d o e s o c c u r , p lus give ,an a l a r m to no t i fy t h e o c c u p a n t s a n d f i re d e p a r t m e n t .

N O T E : S u p p o r t i n g m a t e r i a l is ava i lab le f o r review a t NFPA H e a d q u a r t e r s . COMMITTEE ACTION: H o l d f o r F u r t h e r S tudy. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t i n t r o d u c e s a n e w c o n c e p t w h i c h has n o t b e e n s u b j e c t to p r i o r p u b l i c review. It is n o t e d , howeve r , t h a t N F P A 13R a l r e a d y r e q u i r e s s p r i n k l e r s to b e ins t a l l ed in ga~ tges . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 28 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 28

Heat Source

Table 2-4.5.2.3







Co.'d or wood 42 inches 12 inches hurning stove

Kitchen Range 18 inches 9 inches

W.--dl Oven 18 inches 9 inches

Hot Air Fltles 18 inches 9 inches

I lninsulated Heat 18 inches 9 inches DueLs

17ninsulated Hot 12 inches 6 inches Water Pipes

Side of ceiling or 24 inches 12 inches wall mounted hot ,air diffusers

Front of wall 36 inches 18 inches mounted hot .air diffusers t Hot water heater 6 inches $ inches or furnace

6 inches 12 inches

Light fixture 0-250W 250-499W

3 inches 6 inches

2 1 4

Documents

Chair - NFPA...ISO 6182-1 limits C to 1.0. 2. Under proposal 13-129 (Log #CP7) you allow area reductions for the use of QR sprinklers. You don't want sprinklers operating slower tlian