Yes sir. Saw that and thank you. So reading that, as long as a 4" main serves an ajacent 4" main, I am in compliance. "?"
I was just curios, if we ARE to add the additional loading, then size would not matter. Wondering why the commitee would not just have added wording like, "The brace can serve as the other as long as the combined loads are good." Worded a bit btter of course.. 🙂 If we follow the hard line and ignore the annex, then.. ? Thanks again for guiding me these many times! R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis, C.E.T. Ferguson Fire Design, LLC D: (602) 337-0721<(602)%20337-0721> C: (307) 236-8249<(307)%20236-8249> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ From: Ken Wagoner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2024 12:18 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: To add or not to Add That is the question Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender. ________________________________ Matthew, I looked back into the 2016 edition of the handbook where it discusses the use of a lateral brace within 24" of a change in direction to serve as a longitudinal brace, and found the following just below §9.3.5.5.8: Where a lateral brace also acts as a longitudinal brace, care must be given to address the combined total seismic load from both lateral and longitudinal pipe being braced. The lateral braces on smaller diameter mains should not be expected to serve as longitudinal bracing for adjacent mains of larger diameter. This could create too much load on the smaller diameter sway brace assembly And there is relatively identical text below §9.3.5.6.2 regarding longitudinal bracing: Where a longitudinal brace also acts as a lateral brace, care must be given to address the combined total seismic load from both longitudinal and lateral pipe being braced. As in 9.3.5.5.8, the longitudinal brace should be on a pipe of equal or greater size than the pipe being braced laterally. A longitudinal brace on a smaller diameter main should not be expected to serve as lateral brace for an adjacent main of larger diameter. This arrangement could create too much load on a smaller diameter sway brace assembly. As I am a member of the hanging and bracing committee of NFPA 13, please see the disclaimer below. sincerely, Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 500 West Mechanic Street Harrisonville, Missouri 64701-2235 Phone: (760) 745-6181 Visit the website<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.parsleyconsulting.com%2f&c=E,1,Y5zKJKPEh1mBEBqSR-VE9cUKl5y-eyP8BpvmE_5j9ZqW2eJbNphYzrCMBZ-2YuX6d-RRkHI4gQ1FV-cvOeCfRC58uZS9NiToZv2mx7909oCqLvCW_n5hDHeK&typo=1> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services. It should be noted that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA Automatic Sprinkler System Hanging and Bracing Committee and the Hanging and Bracing for Fire Suppression Systems Committee in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the NFPA or its Committees
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
