Im not qualified to answer but my opinion is that much of these standards were 
put In place for industry before internet, etc.  
So that every job does not need to be reviewed by an engineer.  

I was told the 250 lb requirement was to support the weight of the fitter 
hanging the pipe. I don't know why the 5X rule was added. 

The standard always has allowed for equivalency in product or requirement.  


Sent from my Galaxy S®III

-------- Original message --------
From: "Hinson, Ryan" <rhin...@burnsmcd.com> 
Date: 10/29/2013  2:38 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org,k...@parsleyconsulting.com 
Cc: "Leahy, Andrew P" <aple...@burnsmcd.com>,"Reene,    Kevin" 
<kre...@burnsmcd.com>,"Eberly,   M. David" <mebe...@burnsmcd.com>,"Jordan, 
David" <djor...@burnsmcd.com> 
Subject: Pipe supports revisited (Pipe support spacing requirements for
        structural supports) 
 
I'm getting tired of going toe-to-toe with every structural and piping engineer 
regarding fire protection related pipe support and spacing requirements on 
every time I work on a refinery-type project and hoping a hanging and support 
committee member might weigh in here.  The spacing limitations and required 
loading per pipe support in conformance with NFPA is actually driving a 
potential $200K cost increase just for the pipe supports (of which FW piping is 
but one of several supported systems) on a single project.

Two questions:

1.       Does anyone know why the safety factor is 5X the weight of the 
water-filled pipe exists or from where it originates?  The 2013 edition of NFPA 
13 has been revised from the 2010 edition and commentary has been included 
requiring structural engineers to also design for 5X....  Section 9.1.1.2 
requires SE's to design supports to include:

-          5X the weight of the water-filled pipe plus 250 lbs

2.       Why is spacing limited to 15 ft...with one known exception?  NFPA 13 
(2013) Section 9.1.1.2 further limits SE's to:

-          Spacing of supports cannot exceed 15 ft per Tables 9.2.2.1(a & b) 
...which only includes piping through 8".
Some supporting Code:

-          NFPA 13 Section 9.1.1.3.1.1 allows pipe support design to use 5X... 
based on ultimate stress while Section 9.1.1.3.1.2 allows it to be done using 
5X... and 1.5X the weight of the other supported systems.  Both these sections 
require reference back to Section 9.1.1.2 only allowing spacing to 15 ft.

-          It appears that NFPA forcing pipe support design through a pretty 
small window through which can be designed though not its primary function.

-          It should also be noted that NFPA 15 (2012) Section 6.3.2.2.2 allows 
a limited extension of support spacing with the addition of diagonal 
bracing...again, only pipe sizing up through 8" is addressed.

-          NFPA 24 (2013) and NFPA 13(2013), both Sections A.10.4.1(3), refers 
to AWWA M11 for applicable documents for the installation of pipe and fittings 
which allows distances exceeding those in NFPA 13 Tables 9.2.2.1(a & b) or NFPA 
15 Table 6.3.2.2.2 (though this is specifically for depth of cover subject 
matter).

o   AWWA M11 Chapter 7 states the load is determined to be the weight of the 
water filled pipe.

o   AWWA M11 Chapter 7 gives several spanning maximums which far exceeds those 
allowable in NFPA.

§  Take 8" Schedule 40 pipe as an example:

·         The wall thickness is .322 inches.

·         Per Table 7.1, this approximately nominal 5/16" wall thickness can 
have supports 45 ft apart...compare to 15 ft.

Follow-up questions:

1.       How can this; or can it be - reconciled in the refinery industry where 
most all piping is standard weight as a minimum, welded or weld-flanged, and 
all piping supports are calculated to at least 20 ft spacing?  While 
hydrocarbon product piping is not life safety related, surely, sufficient 
safety considerations have been factored into the 1.5X... safety factor for 
this type of pipe.

2.       Why does firewater (life safety) piping require safety factors and 
limit support spacing to much more conservative values  than that of piping 
systems actually containing flammable and hazardous products with little or no 
allowance for 'structural engineering' to take place?

Thank you,

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Federal Group,
P&I GP Liaison
Burns & McDonnell
Minneapolis-St. Paul Office
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300
Bloomington, MN 55437
Direct: 952-656-3662
Mobile: 320-250-5404
Fax: 952-229-2923
www.burnsmcd.com<BLOCKED::www.burnsmcd.com>
*Registered in MN


Proud to be #18 of FORTUNE'S 100 Best Companies to Work For

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to