I have always been under the impression that roof manifolds were for testing the adequacy of the supply to the standpipe and that hose valves on roofs were only necessary when there exists a structure there such as a small building or penthouse.
Ron -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Roof manifolds it certainly makes more sense to treat the spacing of connections differently on the roof since the fuel load is a tad lighter than the occupied floors and its application can different. Sounds like a great proposal. If only someone would write it. I bet a standpipe guru would jump on this (if only he wasn't off fishing)- lol. Roland On Aug 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, R Richardson wrote: > And just to confound the discussion, though I did indeed find the code > section, oddly enough here in Seattle, we have ammendeded that section > to only require one of the standpipes to have roof connections, unless > the roof size requires more than 200 ft. of hose distance from that > connection, in which case additional hose connections on the roof are > required. We also changed the requirement to require the roof > connection to include two 2 ½ in. hose connections. > > There are lot's of opinions as to the purpose of roof connections, > very > little consensus on this issue in my experience. > > Rich Richardson > Seattle Fire Department > >>>> Roland Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/09/07 9:36 AM >>> > PLEASE NOTE: Internet email sent to @ci.seattle.wa.us addresses > will no > longer be accepted and delivered starting AUGUST 31, 2007 at Noon. > > This email was sent to your old @ci.seattle.wa.us email address. > > IF THIS IS A VALID EMAIL FROM A REAL PERSON OR SOURCE: > 1) If from a Person, please contact them and have them update your > email address from @ci.seattle.wa.us to @Seattle.Gov > > 2) If this is an important newsletter or relayed email from a > ListServ, > please either update your email address with that service or start a > new subscription using your @Seattle.Gov email address. > > IF THIS IS UNIMPORTANT OR JUNK EMAIL, please do nothing. It will stop > being delivered after August 31, 2007 > > For more information, please contact your Service Desk. > ============================================================ > > the way to envision it is that you have to be able to cover the roof > just like an occupied floor (excluded steeply pitch areas as > identified in 14) so a single connection can NOT be used based on > having 500 ft of hose. Fortunately, Rich guided us to explicit > criteria. > > To summarize, IF a stairwell has access to the roof, then the highest > > landing in that stairwell will suffice otherwise extend it to the > roof as identified in the Annex. > > Roland > > On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:11 AM, Russell wrote: > >> The buildings in the area in which I live rarely, if ever, are more > >> than >> three stories high, so my experience and knowledge of standpipes is > >> limited >> to the contents of NFPA14 and that is the source of my question. I >> have a >> four story motel with two standpipes with a combined system. I must > >> install >> a roof manifold per code but Im not sure if it should be one off > each >> standpipe. I would say yes because the standpipe pipe is sized by > the >> required hydraulic calculation procedure which utilizes both >> standpipes >> which share the required flow, so if there is only one roof >> manifold at the >> remote standpipe then the total flow could require larger pipe >> which in turn >> would make the initial calc procedure null and void. How many roof >> manifolds >> should I install? >> >> >> >> Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, >> >> Ron >> >> >> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: >> 6/10/2007 >> 1:39 PM >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
