>From 2010 NFPA 13, though this has been required previously. 9.3.2.1 Listed flexible pipe couplings joining grooved end piping shall be provided as flexure joints to allow individual sections of piping 2-1/2" or larger to move deferentially with the individual sections of the building to which it is attached.
9.3.2.2 Couplings shall be arranged to coincide with the structural separations within a building. 9.3.2.3 (4), Expansion joints require flexible couplings within 24" of the joint. A.9.3.2.3(4) A building expansion joint is usually a bituminous fiber strip used to separate blocks or units of concrete to prevent cracking due to expansion as a result of temperature changes. where building expansion joints are used the flexible couplings is required on one side of the joint by 9.3.2.3.(4). For seismic separation joints, considerably more flexibility is needed, particularly for piping above the first floor. Figure A9.3.3(a) shows a method of providing additional flexibility through the use of swing joins. So, under 2010 NFPA 13 9.3.2.3 (4), Expansion joints require a flexible coupling within 24" of the joint. I've had some AHJ's suggest that we needed to use a metraflex or similar flexible pipe, but once it was pointed out that it was an "expansion joint" and not a seismic separation, the point was conceded. This should be labeled clearly on the architectural plans... Jamie Seidl On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Aaron Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > I seem to remember there's no difference. Except on this project I have an > irregular expansion line and the USACoE plans only indicate expansion > joints on the mains, allowing branch lines to cross it without a problem. > > This project doesn't require seismic bracing. So any thoughts if I should > bring it up about the branch lines crossing it? They are 2" in size to 1". > > Sent from my iPhone > Aaron M. Peck, SET Fire Protection > Skype +1(202)407-9079 > Cambodia +855(0)78700407 > > > On Oct 18, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Bob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jerry, > > Looking at the 2010 ed. 6.6.6 (yikes), crawl spaces are specifically > omitted > > from requiring sprinklers. Also, a "test" is provided to determine if > > sprinklers are required or not, "other concealed spaces that are not > used or > > intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired > > equipment". > > Your situation meets the crawl space omission so there should be no > reason > > to sprinkle it. I'm working instead of hunting, my weekend is shot! > Hope > > you have a good weekend. > > > > Thank You, > > > > Bob Knight, CET III > > 208-318-3057 > > www.Firebyknight.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] > > On Behalf Of MFPC > > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 7:46 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Sprinklers underneath a struture > > > > I'm working on a 13r bungalow type building that is built on a hillside. > > Would the exposed crawlspace under the build need to be sprinklered. Or > > could that be considered balcony type situation? > > > > Jerry Van Kolken > > MFPC (760) 722-2722 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- \ \ (o> -- If life were easy... \ \_/ /) It'd be called your mom... \_/_) _|_ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
