I'm good.  Let me throw out there perhaps the committee consider removing the 1 
heads vs. 2 or more criteria and turn it into a weight or length issue.  I see 
where the committee could assume 10' armovers being a typical practical limit 
but one, there are many strange things in the real world and two, a three head 
4' branchline is probably better than a 10' armover.  I'd consider a code 
change amendment but being unwashed and all....

Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer 
Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone:  952.656.3652
Fax:  952.229.2923
[email protected]
www.burnsmcd.com

Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For
*Registered in: MN




-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. 
Sornsin, P.E.
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint

Tom,

Thank-you for your thoughtful and insightful reply.  It addressed our question 
and, therefore, should be a model for all of the Forum - especially Steve and 
Ken.

Bottom line is, yes, there are 8 ft. arm-overs that would not require restraint 
to meet seismic requirements; and there are 8 ft. branch lines feeding two 
sprinklers that would require restraint. It seems to be a bit of a cross-over 
in the rules, but ultimately doesn't happen much and thus isn't considered to 
be a real problem.

I can't speak for Chris (despite having done so before), but I feel satiated.

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 Tom Wellen
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: NFPA 13 '10 9.3.6 BL Restraint

Mark and Chris,


I'll take a stab at this.  The west coast is still grinding the coffee beans.

The length of an armorer is not expected to be very long.  The adjacent branch 
lines cannot exceed 20 feet apart for extended coverage sprinklers and 15 ft 
for standard spray sprinklers.  If the armorer is over 10 ft long coming off a 
cross main or branch line, it should be considered to be piped from the 
adjacent branch line.  The main objective is to use less pipe, correct?  Why 
waste pipe length?

So, if that is the case, the committee is not worried about a line with a 
single sprinkler and provided the definition of an armover.  A line with two or 
more sprinklers is defined as a branch line where they can be of considerable 
length.  The longer the line, the more it will have a whipping action. Thus, 
Table 9.6.3.4(a) specifies the spacing needed for restraints based on the Cp in 
that area and the pipe size ranging from 26 ft to 53 ft.  An armorer shouldn't 
whip around so much due to its short length so restraint is not required.  Can 
there be instances where there are long armorers?  Sure, especially if there is 
a drop from a 40 ft ceiling to a ceiling at an 8 ft level.  9.3.6.7 Drops and 
armorers shall not require restraint.  What a mess that would be to restrain a 
drop located 32 ft from the ceiling.  Steve commented that ceiling grids should 
be rigidly braced.  If not, then the oversized hole for the sprinkler is 
necessary in the ceiling to keep the ceiling from bre  aking the fusible 
element.  Will fusible elements still still break during an earthquake from the 
ceiling?  Probably.  The cost benefit of providing restraints on every drop 
does not warrant them to be installed.

NFPA 13 is full "lines in the sand" that we don't know the true history behind 
them but it seems mostly just to give a warm fuzzy (i.e. 4 ft obstruction rule, 
area limitations of 52,000 sf, etc....) and armorers and branch lines is just 
one of them.  It doesn't fit all applications, but the baseline requirement is 
established.


Tom Wellen
AFSA
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to