Sure, drag me into this part. ;) I've met Leyton so probably won't fall for the tears. Now I don't know Ken so maybe your (Mark) tactic will work?
I'm satisfied I didn't miss something in armovers do not require restraint. I won't make this an issue with the contractor. This has moved in the realm of logic/curiosity/there are no dumb questions but a lot of inquisitive idiots. And I'd point out Mark brought it in this direction, lol. But will admit I'm an inquisitive idiot at times and Mark just beat me to it. So logically why are we restraining 1" BL that has two heads for a total length of say 6' but not a ridiculous example of a 2" armover 100' long? Note I didn't suggest high pressure or upright or pendant heads. Issue seems to be related to the label on the pipe. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell [email protected] 952-656-3652 "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E." wrote: This is true. Steve has and will again a lie to me. Like when he said he answered my question, "Why do we restrain branch lines of 8 ft. length in EQ zones, but not 8 ft. long arm-overs?" His answer (paraphrased) was 'because sprinklers can move during earthquakes.' And then he accused me of not bathing. Earlier he noted that 'arm-overs aren't by definition branch lines.' Now, Steve AND Ken, please don't misunderstand me: I am not mad about this; but I am a bit disappointed. That's because this isn't about just me. There's another P.E. out there who initiated this thread who is likely as eager as I to know the reasoning behind this. He looks up to both of you and is checking his Forum emails regularly to learn the answer to this question. So far, he has come up empty - and you can bet feels as bad as a kid who's dad didn't get home from work as promised to take him to that big league game. So, c'mon, guys. If you won't answer this one for me, then do if for Chris Cahill, P.E.* (*Registered in MN) Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint Thank you Ken - your kind words yesterday were the greatest endorsement of my skills since ... well, since the last 27 emails I've received from LinkedIn. And, in spite of his apparent skepticism, I'd like to express my respect for Mark Sornsin, P.E. He has letters after his name after all, so I know that he has at least shown an aptitude for scholastic binge drinking and standardized tests. But I want to be perfectly clear that as much as I value the relationships made and fostered on the Forum and in the Association, I would most definitely lie to him. Sometimes, I look for opportunities to lie to Mark. Mr. Muncy, I apologize for straying off of technical topics and making questionable comments about a member's character and be with the starving pygmies down in New Guinea. Amen. SL -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of Ken Sent: Mon 10/21/2013 6:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint He answered it perfectly, Mark. He deals with this kind of issue every single day, as I do. His answer was right out of the book, as was the notation on the drop ceilings. Pay attention to him, he wouldn't lie to you. Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax http://www.parsleyconsulting.com On 10/21/2013 6:20 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. wrote: > Ken - are you out there? I don't think Steve really answered my question.... > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Steve Leyton > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > Because in EQ land there's stuff going on in the Building Code and ASCE 7 > that you unwashed people in non-EQ land can't see. Like, you either have to > use a swing joint or flexible hose connection on your pendent drops to lay-in > tile ceilings that aren't rigidly braced, or provide an oversized hole in the > ceiling tile to prevent damage to the sprinkler. (For those who have never > seen them, "filler" rings are available to enclose the annular space in these > holes, which are larger diameter than the escutcheons. And they look like > crap.) It is intended that there be some measure of movement in the drop > piping that is independent of the main and branch piping, which are hung and > braced and restrained to the roof or floor assembly above. > > > Steve Leyton > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint > > Well... I guess a Ken Wagoner power point hand-out will work. > > But I think the real question hidden in Chris' original query is why? Why is > an 8' arm-over not required to be restrained in EQ land, but an 8' branch > line with two heads on it would be? Does one NOT see the movements in an > earthquake that the other would? Or is it just an oversight in the rule > making process? > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3222/6270 - Release Date: > 10/21/13 > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
