2012 Annual Revision Cycle Report on Proposals · 2012 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Contents by NFPA...

Report onProposals

2012 Annual Revision Cycle

NOTE: The proposed NFPA documents addressed in this Report on

Proposals (ROP) and in a follow-up Report on Comments (ROC) will only be

presented for action when proper Amending Motions have been submitted to

the NFPA by the deadline of April 6, 2012. The June 2012 NFPA Conference

& Expo will be held June 11–14, 2012, at the Mandalay Bay Convention

Center, Las Vegas, NV. During the meeting, the Association Technical

Meeting (Tech Session) will be held June 13–14, 2012. Documents that

receive no motions will not be presented at the meeting and instead will be

forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. For more

information on the rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and

deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website

(www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Standards Administration.

ISSN 1079-5332 Copyright © 2011 All Rights Reserved

NFPA and National Fire Protection Association are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02169.

National Fire Protection Association®1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, QUINCY, MA 02169-7471

A compilation of NFPA® TechnicalCommittee Reports on Proposals for public review and comment

Public Comment Deadline: August 30, 2011

Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development

I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.”

The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.

II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document consisting of the ROP and ROC.” A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.

III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.

IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.

V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.

VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.

VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.

VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).

IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs.

X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at (617) 984-7246.

2012 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Contents

by NFPA Numerical Designation

Note: Documents appear in numerical order.

NFPA No. Type Action Title Page No.

13 P Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems ......................................................................................... 13-1 13D P Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes ............................................................................................................................ 13D-1 13R P Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height ................................................................................................. 13R-1 20 P Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection ........................................................... 20-1 24 P Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances ................................ .24-1 51 P Standard for the Design and Installation of Oxygen-Fuel Gas Systems for Welding, Cutting, and Allied Processes………………………………………………………………………………51-1 55 P Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code…………………………………………………………….55-1 61 P Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities………………………………………………………………………...……61-1 72® P National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code® ..................................................................................................... 72-1 80 P Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives ................................................................................ 80-1

101A P Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety ...................................................................................... 101A-1 105 P Standard for the Installation of Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives ...................................................................................................................................... 105-1 110 P Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems ................................................................................. 110-1 111 P Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems......................................... 111-1

291 P Recommended Practice for Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants ................................................... 291-1 301 P Code for Safety to Life from Fire on Merchant Vessels .............................................................................. 301-1 400 P Hazardous Materials Code ............................................................................................................................ 400-1 402 P Guide for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Operations ............................................................................. 402-1 415 P Standard on Airport Terminal Buildings, Fueling Ramp Drainage, and Loading Walkways ..................... 415-1 424 P Guide for Airport/Community Emergency Planning .................................................................................. 424-1 450 P Guide for Emergency Medical Services and Systems .................................................................................. 450-1 472 P Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents ...................................................................................................................... 472-1 473 P Standard for Competencies for EMS Personnel Responding to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents ...................................................................................... 473-1 555 P Guide on Methods for Evaluating Potential for Room Flashover…………………………………………555-1

654 P Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids………………………………………………………………654-1 1001 P Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications……………………………………………………1001-1 1122 P Code for Model Rocketry…………………………...………………………………………………….…1122-1 1124 P Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles………………………………………………………………………1124-1 1127 P Code for High Power Rocketry………………………………………………………………………...…1127-1 1128DS N Draft Standard for Standard Method of Fire Test for Flame

Breaks…………………………………………………………………………………………………1128DS-1 1129DS N Draft Standard for Standard Method of Fire Test for Covered Fuse on Consumer

Fireworks………………………………………………………………………………………………1129DS-1 1144 P Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire ……….…………………………1144-1 1221 P Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems…….……………………………………………………1221-1 1500 P Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health

Program……………………………………………..……………………………………………………1500-1 1582 P Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments……………………………………………………………………………1582-1 1801 P Standard on Thermal Imagers for the Fire Service….……………………………………………………1801-1 1917 N Standard for Automotive Ambulances……………..…………………………………………..…………1917-1

TYPES OF ACTION

P Partial Revision C Complete Revision N New Document R Reconfirmation W Withdrawal

iii

Agricultural Dusts 61 Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities P 61-1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 402 Guide for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Operations P 402-1 424 Guide for Airport/Community Emergency Planning P 424-1 Airport Facilities 415 Standard on Airport Terminal Buildings, Fueling Ramp Drainage, and Loading Walkways P 415-1 Ambulances 1917 Standard for Automotive Ambulances N 1917-1 Automatic Sprinkler Systems 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems P 13-1 Residential Sprinkler Systems 13D Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes P 13D-1 13R Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height P 13R-1 Private Water Supply Piping Systems 24 Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances P 24-1 291 Recommended Practice for Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants P 291-1 Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing Equipment Electronic Safety Equipment 1801 Standard on Thermal Imagers for the Fire Service P 1801-1 Emergency Medical Services 450 Guide for Emergency Medical Services and Systems P 450-1 Fire Doors and Windows 80 Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives P 80-1 105 Standard for the Installation of Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives P 105-1 Fire Pumps 20 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection P 20-1 Fire Service Occupational Safety and Health 1500 Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program P 1500-1 1582 Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments P 1582-1 Forest and Rural Fire Protection 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire P 1144-1 Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases 654 Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids P 654-1 Hazard and Risk of Contents and Furnishings 555 Guide on Methods for Evaluating Potential for Room Flashover P 555-1 Hazardous Chemicals 400 Hazardous Materials Code P 400-1 Hazardous Materials Response Personnel 472 Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/ Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents P 472-1 473 Standard for Competencies for EMS Personnel Responding to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents P 473-1 Industrial and Medical Gases 51 Standard for the Design and Installation of Oxygen-Fuel Gas Systems for Welding, Cutting, and Allied Processes P 51-1 55 Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code P 55-1 Merchant Vessels 301 Code for Safety to Life from Fire on Merchant Vessels P 301-1

iii

National Electrical Code Emergency Power Supplies 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems P 110-1 111 Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems P 111-1 Professional Qualifications Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications P 1001-1 Public Emergency Service Communication 1221 Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems P 1221-1 Pyrotechnics 1122 Code for Model Rocketry P 1122-1 1124 Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles P 1124-1 1127 Code for High Power Rocketry P 1127-1 1128DS Draft Standard for Standard Method of Fire Tests for Flame Breaks N 1128DS-1 1129DS Draft Standard for Standard Method of Fire Test for Covered Fuse on Consumer Fireworks N 1129DS-1 Safety to Life Alternative Approaches to Life Safety 101A Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety P 101A-1 Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property 72 National Fire Alarm Code P 72-1

v

COMMITTEE MEMBER CLASSIFICATIONS1,2,3,4

The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof,

that is affected by the standard. 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the

standard. 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product,

assembly, or system affected by the standard. 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace. 5. RT Applied Research/Testing Laboratory: A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent

applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards. 6. E Enforcing Authority: A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces

standards. 7. I Insurance: A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency. 8. C Consumer: A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the

standard, but who is not included in (2). 9. SE Special Expert: A person not representing (1) through (8) and who has special expertise in the scope of the

standard or portion thereof. NOTE 1: “Standard” connotes code, standard, recommended practice, or guide. NOTE 2: A representative includes an employee. NOTE 3: While these classifications will be used by the Standards Council to achieve a balance for Technical Committees, the Standards Council may determine that new classifications of member or unique interests need representation in order to foster the best possible Committee deliberations on any project. In this connection, the Standards Council may make such appointments as it deems appropriate in the public interest, such as the classification of “Utilities” in the National Electrical Code Committee. NOTE 4: Representatives of subsidiaries of any group are generally considered to have the same classification as the parent organization.

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2012 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, August 30, 2011

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date 8/1/200X Name John B. Smith Tel. No. 253-555-1234

Company Email

Street Address 9 Seattle St. City Tacoma State WA Zip 98402

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any) Fire Marshals Assn. of North America

1. (a) NFPA Document Title National Fire Alarm Code NFPA No. & Year NFPA 72, 200X ed.

(b) Section/Paragraph 4.4.1.1

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 72-7

3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

Delete exception.

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

A properly installed and maintained system should be free of ground faults. The occurrence of one or more ground faults should be required to cause a ‘trouble’ signal because it indicates a condition that could contribute to future malfunction of the system. Ground fault protection has been widely available on these systems for years and its cost is negligible. Requiring it on all systems will promote better installations, maintenance and reliability.

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: [email protected]

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2012 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, August 30, 2011

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date Name Tel. No.

Company Email

Street Address City State Zip

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any)

1. (a) NFPA Document Title NFPA No. & Year

(b) Section/Paragraph

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP):

3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: [email protected]

Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new document or new edition of an existing document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Association Technical Meeting

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Association Technical Meeting. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Association Technical Meeting and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Association Technical Meeting and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Association Technical Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Association Technical Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

The Association Technical Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Association Technical Meeting that takes place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Association Technical Meeting provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs), which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at an Association Technical Meeting. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at an Association Technical Meeting, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Association Technical Meeting.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be noncontroversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Association Technical Meeting and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining documents are then forwarded to the Association Technical Meeting for consideration of the NFPA membership.

What Amending Motions Are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments, and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the NFPA Conference & Expo, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Committee Report Session now runs once each year at the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. NFPA rules also define those authorized to make amending motions. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, the NFPA Regs should be consulted.

Action on Motions at the Association Technical Meeting. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA Regs. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the Association Technical Meeting and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents, it also hears any appeals related to the document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance.

13-1

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Report of the Technical Correlating Committee on

Automatic Sprinkler Systems

Edward K. Budnick, ChairHughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE]

Jose R. Baz, JRB Associates Group Inc., FL [M] Rep. NFPA Latin American Section Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., NY [M] Scott T. Franson, The Viking Corporation, MI [M] Michael J. Friedman, Friedman Consulting, Inc., MD [SE] Raymond A. Grill, Arup Fire,DC [SE] Luke Hilton, Liberty Mutual Property, NC [I] Alex Hoffman, Viking Fire Protection Inc., Canada [IM] Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TX [IM] Sultan M. Javeri, SC Engineering, France [IM] Charles W. Ketner, National Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669, MD [L] Rep. United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Andrew Kim, National Research Council of Canada, Canada [RT] Russell B. Leavitt, Telgian Corporation, AZ [U] Rep. Trinity Health John G. O’Neill, The Protection Engineering Group, PC, VA [SE] Garner A. Palenske, Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [I] J. William Sheppard, Sheppard & Associates, LLC, MI [SE] Robert D. Spaulding, FM Global, MA [I] Douglas Paul Stultz, US Department of the Navy, VA [E] Lynn K. Underwood, Axis US Property, IL [I]

Alternates

Donald D. Becker, RJC & Associates, Inc., MO [IM] (Alt. to Roland J. Huggins) Thomas C. Brown, The RJA Group, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to Raymond A. Grill) David B. Fuller, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to Robert D. Spaulding) Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., NY [M] (Alt. to Russell P. Fleming) George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Kerry M. Bell) Scott T. Martorano, The Viking Corporation, MI [M] (Alt. to Scott T. Franson) Ernest (Russ) Mower, Telgian Corporation, TX [U] (Alt. to Russell B. Leavitt) Donato A. Pirro, Electro Sistemas De Panama, S.A., Panama [M] (Alt. to Jose R. Baz) J. Michael Thompson, The Protection Engineering Group, PC, VA [SE] (Alt. to John G. O’Neill)

Nonvoting

James B. Biggins, Global Risk Consultants Corporation, IL [SE] Rep. TC on Hanging & Bracing of Water-Based Systems Robert M. Gagnon, Gagnon Engineering, MD [SE] Rep. TC on Foam-Water Sprinklers William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] Rep. Safety to Life Correlating Committee Kenneth W. Linder, Swiss Re, CT [I] Rep. TC on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria Joe W. Noble, Noble Consulting Services, LLC, NV [E] Rep. TC on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria Maurice M. Pilette, Mechanical Designs Ltd., MA [SE] Rep. TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems Chester W. Schirmer, Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation, NC [I] (Member Emeritus)Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting Engineers, CA [SE] Rep. TC on Private Water Supply Piping Systems John J. Walsh, UA Joint Apprenticeship Committee, MD [SE] (Member Emeritus)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have overall responsibility for documents that pertain to the criteria for the design and installation of automatic, open and foam-water sprinkler systems including the character and adequacy of water supplies, and the selection of sprinklers, piping, valves, and all materials and accessories. This Committee does not cover the installation of tanks and towers, nor the installation, maintenance, and use of central station, proprietary, auxiliary, and local signaling systems for watchmen, fire alarm, supervisory service, nor the design of fire department hose connections.

Report of the Committee on Hanging and Bracing of

Water-Based Fire Protection Systems (AUT-HBS)

James B. Biggins, ChairGlobal Risk Consultants Corporation, IL [SE]

Richard W. Bonds, Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association, AL [M] Antonio C. M. Braga, FM Global, CA [I] Samuel S. Dannaway, S. S. Dannaway Associates, Inc., HI [SE] John Deutsch, City of Brea Fire Department, CA [E] Daniel C. Duggan, Fire Sprinkler Design, MO [M] Thomas J. Forsythe, Hughes Associates, Inc., CA [SE] John D. Gillengerten, State of California, CA [E] Rep. Building Seismic Safety Council/Code Resource Support Committee Jeffrey E. Harper, The RJA Group, Inc., IL [SE] Kraig Kirschner, AFCON, CA [M] Alan R. Laguna, Merit Sprinkler Company, Inc., LA [IM] George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Philip D. LeGrone, Risk Management Solutions, Inc., TN [SE] Norman J. MacDonald, III, FlexHead Industries, Inc., MA [M] Wayne M. Martin, Wayne Martin & Associates Inc., CA [SE] David S. Mowrer, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services, LLC, TN [U] Randy R. Nelson, VFS Fire and Security Services, CA [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association Marco R. Nieraeth, XL Global Asset Protection Services, CA [I] Janak B. Patel, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, GA [U] Michael A. Rothmier, UA Joint Apprenticeship Committee, CO [L] Rep. United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc., FL [IM] Zeljko Sucevic, Vipond Fire Protection, Canada [IM] Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association James Tauby, Mason Industries, Inc., NY [M] Jack W. Thacker, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of So. California, CA [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Glenn E. Thompson, Liberty Mutual Property, CA [I] Rep. Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., NY [M] Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TX [IM]

Alternates

Robert E. Bachman, Robert E. Bachman, Consulting Structural Engineer, CA [M] (Alt. to Norman J. MacDonald, III) Charles W. Bamford, Bamford Inc., WA [IM] (Alt. to Randy R. Nelson) Sheldon Dacus, Security Fire Protection Company, TN [M] (Alt. to Victoria B. Valentine) Christopher I. Deneff, FM Global, RI [I] (Alt. to Antonio C. M. Braga) Todd A. Dillon, XL Global Asset Protection Services, OH [I] (Alt. to Marco R. Nieraeth) Matthew W. Donahue, The RJA Group, Inc., CA [SE] (Alt. to Jeffrey E. Harper) Donald L. Dutra, Liberty Mutual Insurance, CA [I] (Alt. to Glenn E. Thompson) George Von Gnatensky, Tolco, CA [M] (Voting Alt. to NFSA Rep. (Mfr) Charles W. Ketner, National Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669, MD [L] (Alt. to Michael A. Rothmier) Michael J. Madden, Hughes Associates, Inc., CA [SE] (Alt. to Thomas J. Forsythe) Emil W. Misichko, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to George E. Laverick) J. Scott Mitchell, B & W Technical Services Pantex, TX [U] (Alt. to David S. Mowrer) Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting Engineers, CA [IM] (Alt. to Thomas G. Wellen) Ronald N. Webb, S.A. Comunale Company, Inc., OH [IM] (Alt. to Jack W. Thacker)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have the primary responsibility for those portions of NFPA 13 that pertain to the criteria for the use and installation of components and devices used for the support of water-based fire protection system piping including protection against seismic events.

13-2

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Report of the Committee on

Private Water Supply Piping Systems (AUT-PRI)

Kenneth W. Wagoner, ChairParsley Consulting Engineers, CA [SE]

Richard W. Bonds, Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association, AL [M] Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TX [IM] James A. Charrette, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of So. California, CA [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Flora F. Chen, City of Hayward, CA [E] Stephen A. Clark, Jr., Allianz Risk Consultants, LLC, GA [I] Jeffry T. Dudley, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, FL [U] Byron E. Ellis, Entergy Corporation, LA [U] Rep. Edison Electric Institute Brandon W. Frakes, XL Global Asset Protection Services, NC [I] David B. Fuller, FM Global, MA [I] Robert M. Gagnon, Gagnon Engineering, MD [SE] William J. Gotto, Global Risk Consultants Corporation, NJ [SE] LaMar Hayward, 3-D Fire Protection, Inc., ID [IM] Luke Hilton, Liberty Mutual Property, NC [I] Alan R. Laguna, Merit Sprinkler Company, Inc., LA [IM] John Lake, City of Gainesville, FL [E] Michael T. Larabel, Alticor/Amway Inc., MI [U] George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] James M. Maddry, James M. Maddry, P.E., GA [SE] Kevin D. Maughan, Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, RI [M] Bob D. Morgan, Fort Worth Fire Department, TX [E] David S. Mowrer, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services, LLC, TN [U] Dale H. O’Dell, National Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669, CA [L] Rep. United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Adam P. Olomon, Aon/RRS/Schirmer Engineering, TX [I] Sam P. Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc., IL [SE] James R. Schifiliti, Fire Safety Consultants, Inc., IL [IM] Rep. Illinois Fire Prevention Association Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc., FL [IM] J. William Sheppard, Sheppard & Associates, LLC, MI [SE] Scott M. Twele, The RJA Group, Inc., CA [SE] Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [M]

Alternates

James B. Biggins, Global Risk Consultants Corporation, IL [SE] (Alt. to William J. Gotto) Mark A. Bowman, XL Global Asset Protection Services, OH [I] (Alt. to Brandon W. Frakes) Joshua Davis, The RJA Group, Inc., GA [SE] (Alt. to Scott M. Twele) Steve L. Escue, TK Engineering Company, TN [M] (Alt. to Karl Wiegand) Tanya M. Glumac, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I] (Alt. to Luke Hilton) Cliff Hartford, Tyco Fire & Building Products, NY [M] (Alt. to Kevin D. Maughan) Andrew C. Higgins, Allianz Risk Consultants, Inc., GA [I] (Alt. to Stephen A. Clark, Jr.) Charles W. Ketner, National Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669, MD [L] (Alt. to Dale H. O’Dell) Michael G. McCormick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to George E. Laverick) Martin Ramos, Environmental Systems Design, Inc., IL [SE] (Alt. to Sam P. Salwan) Jeffrey J. Rovegno, Mr. Sprinkler Fire Protection, CA [IM] (Alt. to Phillip A. Brown) Austin L. Smith, Babcock & Wilcox Y-12, LLC, TN [U] (Alt. to David S. Mowrer) Ronald N. Webb, S.A. Comunale Company, Inc., OH [IM] (Alt. to James A. Charrette)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have the primary responsibility for documents on private piping systems supplying water for fire protection and for hydrants, hose houses, and valves. The Committee is also responsible for documents on fire flow testing and marking of hydrants.

Report of the Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems (AUT-RSS)

Maurice M. Pilette, ChairMechanical Designs Ltd., MA [SE]

Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Fred Benn, Advanced Automatic Sprinkler, Inc., CA [IM] Jonathan C. Bittenbender, REHAU Incorporated, VA [M] Frederick C. Bradley, FCB Engineering, GA [SE] Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TX [IM] Thomas G. Deegan, The Viking Group, Inc., MI [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Jeffrey Feid, State Farm Insurance Company, IL [I] Jeffrey S. Grove, The RJA Group, Inc., NV [SE] Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Department of Fire Services, MA [E] Tonya L. Hoover, CAL Fire, Office of the State Fire Marshal, CA [E] Mark Hopkins, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE] Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., NY [M] Gary L. Johnson, Lubrizol, FL [M] Rep. Committee for Firesafe Dwellings Charles W. Ketner, National Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669, MD [L] Rep. United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Ronald G. Nickson, National Multi Housing Council, DC [U] Michael O’Brian, Brighton Area Fire Authority, MI [E] Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs Steven Orlowski, National Association of Home Builders, DC [U] Milosh T. Puchovsky, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA [SE] Steven R. Rians, Standard Automatic Fire Enterprises, Inc., TX [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association Chester W. Schirmer, Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation, NC [I] Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc., FL [IM] Harry Shaw, Fail Safe Safety Systems Inc., MD [M] Matt Sigler, International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials, CA [E] Eric J. Skare, Uponor, Inc., MN [M] Sandra Stanek, Fire Code Consultants, CA [E] Rep. California Fire Chiefs Association George W. Stanley, Wiginton Fire Systems, FL [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Ed Van Walraven, Aspen Fire Protection District, CO [E] Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnell, MD [M] Hong-Zeng Yu, FM Global, MA [I]

Alternates

David W. Ash, Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to Gary L. Johnson) Robert S. Blach, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA [E] (Alt. to Michael O’Brian) Lawrence Brown, National Association of Home Builders, DC [U] (Alt. to Steven Orlowski) Edward K. Budnick, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to Mark Hopkins) Bradford T. Cronin, Newport Fire Department, RI [E] (Alt. to Dana R. Haagensen) Mark E. Fessenden, Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, RI [M] (Alt. to Terry L. Victor) David B. Fuller, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to Hong-Zeng Yu) Jerry R. Hunter, Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation, TX [I] (Alt. to Chester W. Schirmer) Thomas L. Jacquel, Thomas L. Jacquel Automatic Fire Sprinkler Consulting Services, MA [IM] (Alt. to Phillip A. Brown) Marshall A. Klein, Marshall A. Klein & Associates, Inc., MD [U] (Alt. to Ronald G. Nickson) George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Kerry M. Bell) Stephen M. Leyton, Protection Design and Consulting, CA [IM] (Alt. to Steven R. Rians) Paul McCulloch, Uponor, Inc., MN [M] (Alt. to Eric J. Skare) Thomas L. Multer, Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc., SC [M] (Alt. to Thomas G. Deegan) Matthew Osburn, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, Canada [IM] (Voting Alt. to CASA Rep.) Richard M. Ray, Cybor Fire Protection Company, IL [M] (Alt. to Kenneth E. Isman) Ronald N. Webb, S.A. Comunale Company, Inc., OH [IM] (Alt. to George W. Stanley)

13-3

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Nonvoting

Rohit Khanna, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, MD [C] M. Larry Maruskin, US Department of Homeland Security, MD [C] (Alt. to Lawrence A. McKenna, Jr.) Lawrence A. McKenna, Jr., US Department of Homeland Security, MD [C]

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems in dwellings and residential occupancies up to and including four stories in height, including the character and adequacy of water supplies, and the selection of sprinklers, piping, valves, and all materials and accessories.

Report of the Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria (AUT-SSD)

Kenneth W. Linder, ChairSwiss Re, CT [I]

Carl P. Anderson, Tacoma Fire Department, WA [E] Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM Global, MA [I] Charles O. Bauroth, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I] Rep. Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian Corporation, GA [U] Rep. The Home Depot Thomas C. Brown, The RJA Group, Inc., MD [SE] Thomas G. Deegan, The Viking Group, Inc., MI [M] John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc., MD [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association James E. Golinveaux, Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, RI [M] Bo Hjorth, AlbaCon AB, Sweden [SE] Alfred J. Hogan, Winter Haven, FL [E] Rep. New England Association of Fire Marshals Donald Hopkins, Jr., Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE] Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TX [IM] Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., NY [M] Sultan M. Javeri, SC Engineering, France [IM] Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection, Canada [IM] Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] A. Christine LaFleur, Sandia National Laboratories, NM [U] Thomas L. Multer, Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc., SC [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Garner A. Palenske, Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [I] Richard Pehrson, Pehrson Fire PC, MN [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Michael D. Sides, XL Global Asset Protection Services, FL [I]Jack W. Thacker, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of So. California, CA [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association

Alternates

Mark J. Aaby, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to William E. Koffel) Gordon Bates, Minneapolis Fire Department, MN [E] (Alt. to Richard Pehrson) Mark A. Bowman, XL Global Asset Protection Services, OH [I] (Alt. to Michael D. Sides) Edward K. Budnick, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to Donald Hopkins, Jr.) John A. Carbone, Victaulic Company, PA [M] (Alt. to Thomas L. Multer) Pravinray D. Gandhi, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Kerry M. Bell) Tanya M. Glumac, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I] (Alt. to Charles O. Bauroth) Kerry L. Madigan, Scandaliato Design Group, Inc., CO [IM] (Alt. to John August Denhardt) Thomas McNamara, United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry, MI [L] (Voting Alt. to UA Rep.) Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc., MD [IM] (Alt. to Roland J. Huggins) Daniel J. O’Connor, Aon Fire Protection Engineering Corporation, IL [I] (Alt. to Garner A. Palenske) Matthew Osburn, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, Canada [IM] (Alt. to Larry Keeping) Thomas Prymak, The RJA Group, Inc., TX [SE] (Alt. to Thomas C. Brown)

Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc., FL [M] (Alt. to Kenneth E. Isman) George W. Stanley, Wiginton Fire Systems, FL [IM] (Alt. to Jack W. Thacker) Peter W. Thomas, Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, RI [M] (Alt. to James E. Golinveaux) William J. Tomes, Telgian Corporation, CA [U] (Alt. to Tracey D. Bellamy) Martin H. Workman, The Viking Corporation, MI [M] (Alt. to Thomas G. Deegan)

NonvotingBarry M. Lee, Tyco International, Australia [M]

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for those portions of NFPA 13 that pertain to the classification of various fire hazards and the determination of associated discharge criteria for sprinkler systems employing automatic and open sprinklers, sprinkler system plans and calculations, and water supplies.

Report of the Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria (AUT-SSI)

Joe W. Noble, ChairNoble Consulting Services, LLC, NV [E]

Rep. International Fire Marshals Association

Hamid R. Bahadori, Hughes Associates, Inc., FL [SE] Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM Global, MA [I] Pat D. Brock, Oklahoma State University, OK [SE] Robert G. Caputo, East Coast Fire Protection, CA [SE] Del Dornbos, Viking Group, Inc., MI [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Ralph D. Gerdes, Ralph Gerdes Consultants, LLC, IN [SE] Rep. American Institute of Architects Donald G. Goosman, The RJA Group, Inc., IL [SE] Luke Hilton, Liberty Mutual Property, NC [I] Rep. Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Elwin G. Joyce, II, Eastern Kentucky University, KY [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection, Canada [IM] Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association Charles W. Ketner, National Automatic Sprinkler Fitters LU 669, MD [L] Rep. United Assn. of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Michael D. Kirn, Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE] James D. Lake, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., MA [M] George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Kenneth W. Linder, Swiss Re, CT [I] Ausmus S. Marburger, Fire Protection Industries, Inc., PA [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council, Canada [U] Michael F. Meehan, VSC Fire & Security, VA [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association Thomas H. Miller, Glen Ellyn Volunteer Fire Company, IL [E] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section David S. Mowrer, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services, LLC, TN [U] Thomas A. Noble, City of Henderson, Building & Fire Safety, NV [E] Janak B. Patel, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, GA [U] Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc., FL [IM] LeJay Slocum, Aon Fire Protection Engineering, GA [I] Paul A. Statt, Eastman Kodak Company, NY [U] Leonard R. Swantek, Victaulic Company of America, PA [M] Lynn K. Underwood, Axis US Property, IL [I] Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnell, MD [M]

AlternatesKerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to George E. Laverick) Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TX [IM] (Voting Alt. to AFSA “IM” Rep.) John A. Carbone, Victaulic Company, PA [M] (Alt. to Leonard R. Swantek) James A. Charrette, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of So. California, CA [IM] (Alt. to Ausmus S. Marburger) Todd A. Dillon, XL Global Asset Protection Services, OH [I] (Alt. to Kenneth W. Linder) David B. Fuller, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to Weston C. Baker, Jr.) James E. Golinveaux, Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products, RI [M] (Alt. to Terry L. Victor) Mark Hopkins, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to Hamid R. Bahadori)

13-4

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Belynda Miranda, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE] (Alt. to Donald G. Goosman) Matthew Osburn, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, Canada [IM] (Alt. to Larry Keeping) Michael A. Rothmier, UA Joint Apprenticeship Committee, CO [L] (Alt. to Charles W. Ketner) Steven J. Scandaliato, SDG, LLC, AZ [IM] (Alt. to Michael F. Meehan) Austin L. Smith, Babcock & Wilcox Y-12, LLC, TN [U] (Alt. to David S. Mowrer) William B. Smith, Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE] (Alt. to Michael D. Kirn) Glenn E. Thompson, Liberty Mutual Property, CA [I] (Alt. to Luke Hilton) Steven M. Tomlin, Aon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation, Canada [I] (Alt. to LeJay Slocum) Robert Vincent, Shambaugh & Son, L.P., IN [M]

NonvotingBarry M. Lee, Tyco International, Australia [M]

Staff Liaison: Matthew J. Klaus

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have the primary responsibility for those portions of NFPA 13 that pertain to the criteria for the use and installation of sprinkler systems components (with the exception of those components used for supporting of piping), position of sprinklers, types of systems, and acceptance testing.

These lists represent the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

The Report of the Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems is presenting five Reports for adoption, as follows:

The Reports were prepared by the:

• Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems (AUT-AAC) • Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems (AUT-HBS) • Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems (AUT-PRI) • Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems (AUT-RSS) • Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria (AUT-SSD) • Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria (AUT-SSI)

Report I: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2010 edition. NFPA 13 is published in Volume 2 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.The report on NFPA 13 has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

This Report on Proposals has also been submitted to the Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems (TCC) in two parts. Part 1 is a letter ballot on the TCC Actions, if any; and Part 2 is an informational letter ballot on the Report as a whole. The TCC, which consists of 20 voting members, voted as follows:

Since there were no TCC Actions there is no ballot on part 1.

Part 2: 18 voted affirmatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (C. Ketner and R. Spaulding).

Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, 2010 edition. NFPA 13D is published in Volume 2 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pam-phlet form.

The report on NFPA 13D has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.




Report III: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height, 2010 edition. NFPA 13R is published in Volume 2 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 13R has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.




Report IV: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2010 edition. NFPA 24 is published in Volume 3 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 24 has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.




Report V: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 291, Recommended Practice for Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants, 2010 edition. NFPA 291 is published in Volume 16 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 291 has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.




13-5

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-1 Log #189 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Remove all metric (SI) unit values referenced in NFPA 13 and create a new document entitled NFPA 13M with metric (SI) units of measure, tables and values throughout. Substantiation: As noted during recent attempts to “metrify” NFPA 13, metric conversions provided throughout the document are often inaccurate in terms of actual units used outside of the USA, a primary example of this is found in the pressure of elevation conversion where we identify Pe as 0.433 psi/ft (0.0979 bar/meter) whereas metric users round up to units divisible by 10. The normally used Pe is 0.1 bar/meter. A separate Metric version of the standard would allow users outside of the USA more opportunity to normalize values throughout the document, thus making the standard more user friendly. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is a Manual of Style issue. A new document in SI units is not warranted. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: LINDER, K.: While I don’t think a separate version of the standard is needed, I agree that the metric conversions still need work. We have a metrics task group and staff to deal with this and hopefully most of the issues can be fixed between now and the ROC meeting. ________________________________________________________________ 13-2 Log #CP3 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-3 Log #CP5 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-4 Log #CP6 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-5 Log #20 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Fleenor, Johnson’s Automatic Sprinkler, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Sprinklers on an exceeding system, in a building renovation, shall be allowed to be a maximum six in. beyond the half distance for a wall but not exceed 7 ft 6 in. when over 130 sq ft. for ordinary hazard or 200 sq ft for the pipe and 225 sq ft for calculated light hazard systems. This allowance shall be along a single

wall only and not include adjoining walls. Substantiation: This would allow the existing sprinkler system to accommodate the additional maximum seven and a half square feet generated by the revised wall placement. In most cases to add an additional row of sprinklers to cover the floor space would create a hydraulic problem in over discharge due to the additional sprinkles and can cause complete redesign and costly changes to the sprinkler system. It does not change the square footage between sprinklers such that multiple rows of sprinkler discharge are not affected. Should a fire break out along the wall utilizing the spacing stated above, only one row of sprinklers would activate and would have the additional pressure to cover the additional size inches of floor space generated by the revised wall. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Rules for spacing are based on occupancy hazard classification without regard to temporary or permanent occupancy. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-5a Log #572 AUT-AAC Final Action: Accept(Readily Accessible (New))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Recommendation: Where and when the TC’s use the term “Readily Accessible”, the TC’s are directed to better define their intent on a case by case basis. Substantiation: The AUT-PRI TC reviewed a proposal that used the term “Readily Accessible” and rejected the proposal as the term is not enforceable. The term shows up multiple times in the 2010 edition and should be reviewed and modified for clarity where appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept[The TCC ballot results were 20 voting members; of whom 19 voted affirmatively and 1 ballot was not returned (R. Spaulding).]________________________________________________________________ 13-6 Log #36 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(1.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety AmericaRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:1.1.2 This standard is written with the assumption that the sprinkler system shall be designed to protect against a single fire originating within the building or along the exposure.Substantiation: The scope of the document is not limited to buildingsCommittee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The specific description of the building identifies the scope of the source of fire. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: MCPHEE, R.: Since the reference to ‘within the building’ in the current wording doesn’t necessarily cover exterior ignitions arising from exposure fires, it would seem more appropriate if the proposal were accepted in principle and the wording revised to read: “1.1.2 This standard is written with the assumption that the sprinkler system shall be designed to protect against a single fire originating within or on the exterior of the building.” ________________________________________________________________ 13-7 Log #225 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(1.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 1.5.1 Technical documentation or proof of listing by a nationally recognized test laboratory shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency. Substantiation: Water Mist systems have been approved and installed in a wide range of sprinkler applications globally. They’ve been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: FM (Light Hazard, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines and other agencies. These installations demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction. The addition of the wording will give the AHJ a clear option to accept the proof of listing of a nationally recognized test laboratory as well as technical documentation to demonstrate this equivalency. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Proof of Listing may not be adequate technical documentation. Water mist systems are adequately described in NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-6

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-8 Log #22 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(1.6 and 1.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Reverse the number of section 1.6 New Technology and section 1.7 Units and Symbols so that it would read: 1.6 Units and Symbols. 1.7 New Technology. Substantiation: This ordering is consistent with the manual of style and also makes the numbering consistent with NFPA 13D and NFPA 13R so the same paragraph numbers will be applicable to the same topics. This will improve ease of use. As an FYI, an “application” section has been proposed to both 13D and 13R which would bring their numbering and paragraphs into consistency with NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-9 Log #264 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Table 1.7.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add:K = K-factorSubstantiation: K hydraulic symbol is used in formulas in Chapter 22. There is no hydraulic symbol in Table 1.7.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-10 Log #CP411 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Table 1.7.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Add definitions for C-factor to the table as follows: C-factor Friction loss Co-efficient Substantiation: Definition was needed as it’s used in the calculations.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-11 Log #226 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection SystemsSubstantiation: Water Mist has been approved and installed in a wide range of sprinkler applications globally and for clarity NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems should be included in NFPA 13 as a Referenced Publication. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, is not used in NFPA 13 and therefore a reference cannot be added if it is not used in the standard. In addition Water mist systems are addressed in NFPA 750. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-12 Log #78 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(2.3.3 and Table 6.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:ASTM B687-99 Standard Specification for Brass, Copper and Chromium-Plated Nipples Add new text to Table 6.3.1.1 as follows: Standard Specification for Brass, Copper and Chromium-Plated Nipples ASTM B687-99Substantiation: Brass is an acceptable material per Section 6.9.3.3 and 6.9.3.4 for alarm devices. If it is good enough for alarm piping it should be acceptable for all system piping. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Table 6.3.1.1 is the incorrect reference. Fittings are referenced in Table 6.4.1. The proposal does not provide guidance for installation and pressures as other types of fittings. The only reference to brass fittings is the piping to water motors. The Committee does not agree on the substantiation that if it is acceptable for alarm piping it should be acceptable for system piping. The

submitter is urged to provide information that the fittings in ASTM B687 are suitable for this application. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-13 Log #77 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(2.3.3 and Table 6.3.1.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:ASTM B43-09 Standard Specification for Seamless Red Brass Pipe Add new text to Table 6.3.1.1 as follows: Standard Specification for Seamless Red Brass Pipe ASTM B43-09Substantiation: Brass is an acceptable material per Section 6.9.3.3 and 6.9.3.4 for alarm devices. If it is good enough for alarm piping it should be acceptable for all system piping. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal does not provide guidance for installation and pressures as other types of pipe. The only reference to brass piping is the piping to water motors. The Committee does not agree on the substantiation that if it is acceptable for alarm piping it should be acceptable for system piping. The submitter is urged to provide information that the pipes in ASTM B43 are suitable for this application. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-14 Log #396 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(2.3.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Stempo, Victaulic CompanyRecommendation: Add new reference standard:ANSI / AWWA C-606, Grooved and Shouldered Joints, 2006.Substantiation: ANSI / AWWA C-606, Grooved and Shouldered Joints, was first published in 1978, and has since been used as the guiding industry reference for roll grooving and cut grooving of pipe that is used in conjunction with mechanical bolted couplings. Since AWWA Standards are widely referenced in NFPA-13, it would be prudent to include ANSI / AWWA C-606 as an important reference for those systems utilizing grooved piping and related components as described in Section 6.5.3 of NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee feels that the AWWA C-606 does not cover all of the applications. See action on 13-94 (Log #202). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-15 Log #153 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(2.3.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows: 2.3.7 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2008, Revised 2010.Substantiation: Update referenced standards to most recent revision.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-16 Log #CP407 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.X, A.3.X)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Add new definition 3.x. Shadow Area. The dry floor area created by the portion of sprinkler discharge that is blocked by an obstruction or building architectural feature. A.3.x.x It is not required that water fall on every square inch of floor space of the occupancy. This definition addresses some of the rules for acceptable dry spaces that occur when obstruction or architectural features interfere with the sprinkler’s spray pattern. Columns, angled walls, wing walls, slightly indented walls, and various soffit configurations can disrupt water discharging from a sprinkler, which does not travel only in an absolute straight line, as if it were beams of light. Where small (typically triangular) shadowed areas are formed on the floor adjacent to their referenced architectural features, these shadowed areas are purely on paper and do not take into account the dynamic variables of sprinkler discharge. Substantiation: The definition was added as the term was used in the standard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-7

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that, in the last sentence of the Annex text, the term “architectural features” should be revised to “structural and architectural features”, since many obstructions which can cause shadow areas, such as the referenced building columns, are structural elements. MCPHEE, R.: A scan of NFPA 13-2010 reveals no references to ‘shadow area’, but a number of references are made to ‘dry shadow’ and ‘floor area on the other side of the obstruction’. It is only through the changes proposed this cycle, i.e., Logs #358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, and 364, that such a concept is established and applied within the standard. However, a scan of the proposed new text to be added (see referenced Logs) uses the new term ‘shadowed area’, not ‘shadow’ area’, to designate the concept. In Clause 3.x, the preferred term should be revised to read ‘shadowed area’. Further, the wording of the definition should be revised to reflect that the shadowed area is what is expected to be the dry area during sprinkler activation. Consider: ‘3.x Shadowed area. The portion of floor area that is expected to remain dry due to blockage of sprinkler discharge by an obstruction or building architectural feature.’ And with this concept established, the term ‘shadowed area’ should be substituted for the number of references made to ‘dry shadow’ and ‘floor area on the other side of the obstruction’ in other current parts of the text. ________________________________________________________________ 13-17 Log #CP311 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(3(x))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Update the referenced standards as follows: ASTM E-84 (2004), ASTM E-119 (2000), and ANSI/UL 723 (2008) should be updated to 2010. Substantiation: Newer versions are available and the committee wanted to update the standards. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-18 Log #127 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.2.3 Listed)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ausmus S. Marburger, Fire Protection Industries, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.2.3* Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is approved or certified by a nationally recognized regulatory authority, OSHA Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory “NRTL” or equal, acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and is concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose. 3.2.3.1. In addition to being evaluated as products, system components and hardware and water supply treatments listed for use in a sprinkler system shall be evaluated as integral components of a fire sprinkler system. System components and hardware and water supply treatments shall not be listed for use in a sprinkler system if the product under evaluation is determined to be incompatible, impairs or reduces the normal service life of other system components; or reduces the overall system performance required by this standard. 3.2.3.1.1 The manufacturer or producer of the product submitted for listing evaluation shall expressly warranty compliance with 3.2.3.1. 3.2.3.1.2 In the interest of public safety and as a matter of public policy, the manufacture’s or producer’s responsibility to warrant in 3.2.3.1.1 shall not be transferable by any means, including but not limited to indemnity agreements and manufacturer’s instructions.Substantiation: The importance of listing cannot be overstated. The standard delegates by reference significant responsibility to listing agencies without qualifying capability except to the extent acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The AHJ is without guidance in the standard and enabling legislation in many jurisdictions does not grant authority beyond enforcement of the standard itself. The “NRTL” program, 29CFR1910.7, provides fundamental minimum requirements in certification of laboratories for the testing of safety products. These include in part: 1910.7(b) “Laboratory requirements.” The term “nationally recognized testing laboratory” (NRTL) means an organization which is recognized by OSHA in accordance with Appendix A of this section and which tests for safety, and lists or labels or accepts, equipment or materials and which meets all of the following criteria: 1910.7(b)(1) For each specified item of equipment or material to be listed, labeled or accepted, the NRTL has the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities, trained staff, written testing procedures, and

calibration and quality control programs) to perform: 1910.7(b)(1)(i) Testing and examining of equipment and materials for workplace safety purposes to determine conformance with appropriate test standards; or 1910.7(b)(1)(ii) Experimental testing and examining of equipment and materials for workplace safety purposes to determine conformance with appropriate test standards or performance in a specified manner. 1910.7(b)(3) The NRTL is completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials being tested for these purposes; and, 1910.7(b)(4) The NRTL maintains effective procedures for: 1910.7(b)(4)(i) Producing creditable findings or reports that are objective and without bias; and 1910.7(b)(4)(ii) Handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system.” 3.2.3.1 adds the requirement that products be evaluated for their intended use as part of a sprinkler system. Not all appropriate test standards include compatibility requirements allowing the listing of products with the potential to impair a system when used in combination. The inclusion of system listing performance criteria provides guidance to correct this shortcoming. 3.2.3.1.1 and 3.2.3.1.2 have been included to codify the principle that responsibility for product safety not be transferable. Products will be less safe if the manufacturer or producer, who is most knowledgeable, has the ability to limit or transfer the responsibilities of product merchantability to anyone other than themselves. It is in the public interest regarding product safety and reasonable fire protection to restrain any means of responsibility transfer for the principles that a product will perform properly and is fit for its ordinary purpose. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The term “Listed” is an NFPA Official Definition and found in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. As such it is not appropriate for it to be submitted to the Technical Committee. According to the NFPA Manual of Style modifications to official definitions appearing in the Regulations Governing Committee Projects shall be submitted to the Standards Council. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: LAKE, J.: While this particular action is beyond the scope of the Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation, it is worthy of consideration at the Standards Council level, and the proponent is encouraged to provide a Public Comment in order to complete the process and allow for an appeal. ________________________________________________________________ 13-19 Log #227 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.2.3 Listed)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Revise definition to read as follow: 3.2.3* Listed. Equipment, materials, systems or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products, systems or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment, systems or materials, systems or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the equipment, material, systems or service meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose. Substantiation: Since many Water Mist applications are tested, approved and/or listed as “systems” along with their equipment and material, it’s important to acknowledge this category (systems) of approval for fire protection systems. Water Mist “systems” have been approved and installed in a wide range of sprinkler applications globally to include: FM (Light Hazard, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines. The addition of the word “systems” into the definition will provide the AHJ with more options of listed solutions for fire protection. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The term “Listed” is an NFPA Official Definition and found in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. As such it is not appropriate for it to be submitted to the Technical Committee. According to the NFPA Manual of Style modifications to official definitions appearing in the Regulations Governing Committee Projects shall be submitted to the Standards Council. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-8

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-20 Log #190 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.3.x Continuous Obstruction, Non-Continuous Obstruction (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Continuous Obstruction. A continuous obstruction is an obstruction located at or below the level of sprinkler deflectors which affect the discharge pattern of two or more adjacent sprinklers. Non-Continuous Obstruction. A non-continuous obstruction is an obstruction at or below the level of the sprinkler deflector which affects only discharge pattern of a single sprinkler.Substantiation: These terms are used throughout section 8.5.5 without any definition of the terms. These definitions are needed for clarity of the committee intent as it relates to sprinkler spacing and location. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal does not describe the physical characteristics of the obstruction and does not provide adequate guidance. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: The proposal does describe the main aspect of the obstruction and these terms are used pervasively throughout Chapter 8. CAPUTO, R.: Proposal does in fact describe the pertinent aspect of the obstruction and these terms are used pervasively throughout Chapter 8. Definition and clarity are needed beyond that which is provided by Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. ________________________________________________________________ 13-21 Log #247 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.1.2 Hazardous Area and A.3.3.12 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new definition and renumber the remaining sections:3.3.12* Hazardous Area. An area of a structure or building that poses a degree of hazard greater than that normal to the general occupancy of the building or structure. A.3.3.12 Hazardous Area. Hazardous areas include areas for the storage or use of combustibles or flammables; toxic, noxious, or corrosive materials; or heat-producing appliances.Substantiation: The definition and annex will clarify the application of 8.16.4.3. The definition and annex are from the 2009 Life Safety Code, 3.3.19.4. At times, fire sprinkler supply piping is located in unsprinklered portions of buildings that feed remodeled areas, new additions, or small areas such as a paint booth. It is ruled by AHJs for occupancies without sprinklers are considered hazardous areas. AHJs are requiring the piping to be enclosed with fire rated enclosures or that localized sprinkler protection provided to protect the pipe from fire. This will clarify that a given occupancy does not become a hazardous area due the lack of fire sprinklers. New annex material is also proposed for 8.16.4.3. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add to Annex to 8.16.4.3 as follows: A.8.16.4.3 Protection should be provided in any area of a structure or building that poses a degree of hazard greater than that normal to the general occupancy of the building or structure. These areas include areas for the storage or use of combustibles or flammables; toxic, noxious, or corrosive materials; heat-producing appliances or unprotected areas. Do not add the definition, just add annex language as shown above. Committee Statement: This information is better served as Annex material since it would be restrictive as a definition. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-22 Log #450 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.3.5.4 Smooth Ceiling)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise definition to read as follows: 3.3.5.4 Smooth Ceiling. A continuous ceiling free from significant irregularities, lumps, or indentations 3 inches or less in depth.Substantiation: “Significant” irregularities, lumps, or indentations is ambiguous and open to interpretation. A 3 inch depth would seem reasonable since Section 8.5.4.1.2 allows for a corrugated metal deck up to 3 inches to be measured to the sprinkler from the bottom of the deck. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Specific guidance is currently provided under Section A.3.7.2 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: A.3.7.2 provides examples for unobstructed construction. These definitions are useful but the proposal is needed for clarity to differentiate

smooth ceiling with acceptable irregularities. This also correlates to the 3 in. used in Section 8.5.4.1.2 to establish deflector distance. CAPUTO, R.: A.3.7.2 provides examples for unobstructed construction. These definitions are useful but the proposal is needed for clarity to differentiate smooth ceilings with acceptable irregularities. ________________________________________________________________ 13-23 Log #372 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.3.6 Compartment and 4.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.3.6 Compartment. A space completely enclosed by walls and a ceiling. Each wall in the compartment is permitted to have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m). A single opening of 36 in. (900 mm) or less in width without a lintel is permitted when there are no other openings to adjoining spaces. 4.5 Compartments. 4.5.1 Openings to an adjoining space shall be permitted in each wall of a compartment Each wall in the compartment is permitted to have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m). 4.5.2 Compartments shall be permitted to have a A single opening of 36 in. (900 mm) or less in width without a lintel is permitted when there are no other openings to adjoining spaces. Substantiation: This is not meant to be a technical change. The NFPA Manual of Style doesn’t permit requirements within definitions. Therefore, requirements must be identified elsewhere in the Standard. I’m suggesting Chapter 4, but it I have no preference where this goes, since the term as defined in Chapter 3.3.6 isn’t used in Chapter 4 (it’s used in Chapters 8.3.3.2, 8.4.5.3, 8.6.7.2, 8.8.7.2 and 8.10.3.3). Note: the term “compartment” is used elsewhere in the Standard but not as defined in Chapter 3.3.6 (e.g. Chapters 21.17/A.21.17, 21.35, 25.2.4.10.3, A.25.1.3(4), A.25.1.4, A.25.7.3.12.2(1)). It’s also used in Chapters 3.3.2/A.3.3.2, 22.4.4.6.2, 22.4.4.6.2, A.3.10.4,A.11.2.3.1.4(4)(d and j), A.12.9.2(4), A.12.9.2(10) where it’s not clear whether the definition of 3.3.6 in meant to apply. Therefore, work beyond this proposal may be necessary. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The information in the definition is descriptive and not requirements. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-24 Log #CP406 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.3.6 Concealed Spaces, Small Openings, Cloud Ceilings, 8.15, A.8.15)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Add new definitions as follows: 3.3.6 Concealed Spaces 3.3.6.1 Concealed Space. An area of or space within a building that is not accessible for storage purposes and is not normally occupied by people but could be entered occasionally for brief periods. The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings as defined in 3.3.6.2. A.3.3.6.1 The concealed space most commonly referred to in this context is the space above a ceiling. This definition should not be limited to these spaces. Concealed spaces can be found inside buildings between rooms and between ceilings and floors. They can also be found outside buildings in eaves and overhangs. 3.3.6.2 Small Openings. Openings in the ceiling or construction features of a concealed space that allow limited amounts of heat to enter the concealed space. Small openings with any dimension greater than 4 feet may not have a least dimension greater than 8 inches. Small openings may not have a combined total area of more than 20% of the ceiling, construction feature, or plane used to determine the boundaries of the concealed space. A.3.3.6.2 A return air diffuser may be 4 feet by 2 feet and meet the definition of a small opening. A linear diffuser may be longer than 4 feet but is then limited to 8 inches in width (or least dimension). Spaces between ceiling panels of architectural features that create a concealed space must meet the same criteria. 3.3.6.2 Cloud Ceilings. Any ceiling system installed in the same plane with horizontal openings to the structure above on all sides. This does not include sloped ceilings as defined in 3.3.5.3.Add new 8.15.1.2.3 and renumber 8.15.1.2.3 Concealed spaces of non-combustible and limited combustible construction formed by cloud ceilings with openings meeting the definition of small openings shall not require sprinkler protection. Unless permitted by 8.15.1.1 or 8.15.1.2, where ceilings are installed in only a portion of a compartment or area, sprinklers shall be required at the structure level throughout the compartment or area and below the partial ceiling areas based upon the provisions of 8.5.5. (See 8.15.23) 8.15.23 Cloud Ceilings 8.15.23.1* Cloud Ceilings. Except as provided in 8.15.23.2 through 8.15.23.7, sprinkler protection shall be required above and below cloud ceilings.

13-9

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 8.15.23.2* Sprinklers are permitted to be omitted below the cloud ceiling when the clearance and obstruction rules for the applicable sprinkler type are met. A.8.15.23.2 The cloud ceiling should be located to maintain the clearances to allow the spray pattern to fully develop. The panel should be less than 4 ft wide or as required for each type and style of sprinkler used. Openings should be provided between each cloud ceiling panel to allow water spray to reach the hazard. Cloud ceilings that do not meet the requirements of an open ceiling should have sprinklers above and below the panels. 8.15.23.3* Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from the above ceiling space when the ceiling openings meet the definition of small openings per 3.3.6.2. A.8.15.23.3 These architectural features are also referred as decorative ceiling clouds. These ceilings are suspended from a roof deck or ceiling to create an architectural effect and may obstruct sprinkler spray patterns. An opening may be located along a wall or may occur between a row of sprinklers to give an architectural effect such as a floating ceiling. Fire modeling results have shown that there will be heat loss to the space above the ceiling when these openings are present. The modeling results indicate that sprinklers should activate on the lower ceiling level when the opening is 8 inches or less in width. Likewise, modeling indicates that sprinklers below the ceiling will take longer to activate when the opening is larger than 8 inches and there is heat collection above the ceiling. It is not the intent to limit the opening width if fire modeling shows acceptable sprinkler activation results for that specific application. When opening in cloud ceilings are in excess of the dimension listed in 8.15.23.3, the ceiling should be treated as a ceiling cloud. Substantiation: The use of gaps and openings in ceilings is very common. This language provides clarification on when sprinklers are and are not required above ceilings that contain openings and gaps. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is soliciting comments on this proposal. There are issues that need to be resolved such as requirements in the definitions and others. The TG on Cloud Ceilings will submit revisions during the ROC period. The committee is in favor of this concept but needs to clean up the proposal for the comment. The committee is waiting for a formal report on this subject as well as any fire tests results that may be available. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: BROWN, P.: Testing in support of the computer modeling should be performed to allow us to base this on solid scientific data. In particular, I am concerned about defining small openings without knowing how heat below the ceiling will operate sprinklers above wit small openings. CAPUTO, R.: This is a huge amount of new material which will have a significant and valuable impact on design and installation practices... it would be nice to see some actual testing in support of the computer modeling so we may base this on solid scientific data. In particular, I am concerned about defining small openings without knowing how heat below the ceiling will operate sprinklers above with small openings. Currently, the standard allows a sprinkler to be located 18” above the center of a 48” cloud ceiling panel with limited openings along all four walls. I can’t imagine this providing fire control or good fire protection practice. (Shielding?) GERDES, R.: This is a great start in addressing the issue. I intend to support this proposal with further refinement. KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, based on the task group’s report, I must point out that the report on the fire modelling, that is referenced in the new A.8.15.23.3, was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. LAKE, J.: Presently the support for this proposed change is only a series of fire modeling. The modeling process was not completed at the time of the ROP meeting and no report was submitted to the committee. This is a significant change to the document and will require not only fire modeling but successful full scale fire testing in order to convince me that changes proposed will not negatively impact the overall protection provided by the sprinkler system. ________________________________________________________________ 13-25 Log #44 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.7 Control Valve (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 3.3.7 Control Valve. A valve controlling flow to water based fire protection systems. Control valves do not include hose valves, inspector’s test valves, drain valves, trim valves for dry pipe, preaction and deluge valves, check valves, or relief valves. [25, 2008]Substantiation: Actually I am surprised that this definition is not already in the standard as it is used multiple times. It needs to be added via extraction. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 3.3.7 Control Valve. A valve controlling flow to water based fire protection systems. A.3.3.7 Control valves do not include hose valves, inspector’s test valves, drain valves, trim valves for dry pipe, preaction and deluge valves, check valves, or relief valves. Committee Statement: This is the 2011 edition of NFPA 25.

Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: BROWN, P.: NFPA 13 should not have to provide commentary on what types of valves are not control valves. Perhaps a definition in the body is useful but the annex material is not needed in the installation standard just because the NFPA 25 TC added it to clarify inspection, testing and maintenance requirements. CAPUTO, R.: NFPA 13 should not have to provide commentary on what types of valves are not control valves. Perhaps a definition in the body is useful but the annex material is not needed in the installation standard just because the NFPA 25 TC added it to clarify inspection, testing and maintenance requirements. ________________________________________________________________ 13-26 Log #93 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.3.7 Draft Curtain (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Sultan M. Javeri, SC EngineeringRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:3.3.7 Draft Curtain. A solid material, beam, girder, or similar material or construction that is attached to the underside of the ceiling in accordance with NFPA 204 and that protrudes downward and creates a reservoir for collecting smoke.Substantiation: There is confusion in different countries outside the USA as to what constitutes a draft curtain in NFPA 13. NFPA 13 refers to Draft curtains but does not have a definition. The proposed definition has been taken from NFPA 204, Standard for Smoke and Heat Venting, 2007 edition.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Draft curtains are not necessarily a solid material similar to a beam or girder. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-27 Log #27 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.8 Dwelling Unit)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Glossary of Terms Technical Advisory Committee, Recommendation: Revise the current definition of:Dwelling Unit. One or more rooms arranged for the use of one or more individuals living together, as in a single housekeeping unit normally having cooking, living, sanitary, and sleeping facilities. For purposes of this standard, dwelling unit includes hotel rooms, dormitory rooms, apartments, condominiums, sleeping rooms in nursing homes, and similar living units.Substantiation: The second sentence in this definition should be listed in an appendix, because definitions must be in a single sentence. Your technical committee has the following options: a) Adopt the preferred definition b) Modify the term to make it unique c) Request that the Standards Council reassign responsibility for the term d) Request that the standards council authorize a second preferred definitionCommittee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 3.3.8 Dwelling Unit. One or more rooms arranged for the use of one or more individuals living together, as in a single housekeeping unit normally having cooking, living, sanitary, and sleeping facilities that include, but are not limited to. For purposes of this standard, dwelling unit includes hotel rooms, dormitory rooms, apartments, condominiums, sleeping rooms in nursing homes, and similar living units. Committee Statement: Revised definition addresses submitter’s’ concerns of having an examples in a definition. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-28 Log #CP321 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(3.3.11 High Volume Low Speed Fan)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Add new definition: 3.3.11 High Volume Low Speed Fan. A ceiling fan which is approximately 6 -24 feet in diameter with a rotational speed of approximately 30-70 revolutions per minute. Add new section: 12.1.4* High Volume Low Speed (HVLS) Fans12.1.4.1 The installation of HVLS fans in buildings equipped with sprinklers, including ESFR sprinklers, shall comply with the following: 1) The maximum fan diameter shall be 24 feet. 2) The HVLS fan shall be centered approximately between four adjacent sprinklers. 3) The vertical clearance from the HVLS fan to sprinkler deflector shall be a minimum of 3 feet. 4) All HVLS fans shall be interlocked to shutdown within 90 seconds of water

13-10

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 flow from the first operating sprinkler. The waterflow alarm system shall be in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72, The National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.A.12.1.4 A series of 10 full scale fire tests and limited scale testing were conducted to determine the impact of HVLS fan operation on the performance of sprinkler systems. The project, sponsored by the Property Insurance Research Group (PIRG) and other industry groups, was coordinated by the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF). The complete test report, titled High Volume/Low Speed Fan and Sprinkler Operation – Ph. 2 Final Report (2011), is available from the FPRF. Both Control Mode Density Area and Early Suppression Fast Response sprinklers were tested. Successful results were obtained when the HVLS fan was shut down upon the activation of the first sprinkler followed by a 90 second delay. Other methods of fan shutdown were also tested including shut down by activation of air sampling type detection and ionization type smoke detectors. Earlier fan shut down resulted in less commodity damage.Substantiation: HVLS fans are commonly used in storage facilities. There are presently no guidelines for the installation of HVLS fans in sprinklered buildings because the effect these fans have on sprinkler performance was unknown. Due to the concerns raised by the insurance industry and regulatory agencies, the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), embarked on a research project to explore this issue. The FPRF project included 10 full scale fire tests, as well as limited scale testing. The results of this research showed that the shut down of HVLS fans upon water flow of the first activating sprinkler plus a 90 second delay resulted in acceptable sprinkler system performance. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-29 Log #45 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.16 Raw Water Source and A.3.3.16 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:3.3.16 Raw Water Source. A water source where organic or foreign material can accumulate freely and possibly enter the sprinkler system.A.3.3.16 Examples of raw water sources are mill ponds, lakes, streams, open top reservoirs, etc. Examples of non raw water sources can include city water supplies, cisterns, pressure tanks, gravity tanks, break tanks, aquifers, etc. Water sources that are closed or protected from direct contact with the environment should not be considered raw.Substantiation: Many AHJ’s consider a raw water source as one that is non potable or non-drinkable. There are many situations where non potable sources are not raw water sources. NFPA 13 should create its own definition. Webster’s online defines it as “Raw water is water taken from the environment, and is subsequently treated or purified to produce potable water in a water purification works.” Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposal as follows: 3.3.16 A water supply taken from the environment that has not been treated and may contain foreign material that could accumulate freely and enter the sprinkler system. A3.3.1 Examples of raw water sources are millponds, lakes, streams, open top reservoirs, etc. Examples of non-raw water sources can include city water supplies, cisterns, pressure tanks, gravity tanks, break tanks, aquifers, etc. Water sources that are closed or protected from direct contact with the environment should not be considered raw. Committee Statement: The proposal was editorially revised since purified is considered treated and foreign material includes organic. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-30 Log #373 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.17 Small Room and 4.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.3.17 Small Room. A room of light hazard occupancy classification having unobstructed construction, and a floor area not exceeding 800 ft2 (74.3m2) that is enclosed by walls and a ceiling. Each wall in the small room is permitted to have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m).A single opening of 36 in. (900 mm) or less in width without a lintel is permitted.4.6 Small Rooms. 4.6.1 Small rooms shall be permitted to have openings to and adjoining space in each wall Each wall in the small room is permitted to have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m). 4.6.2 Small rooms shall be permitted to have a A single opening of 36 in. (900

mm) or less in width without a lintel is permitted.Substantiation: This is not meant to be a technical change. The NFPA Manual of Style doesn’t permit requirements within definitions. Therefore, requirements must be identified elsewhere in the Standard. I’m suggesting Chapter 4, but it I have no preference where this goes, since the term as defined in Chapter 3.3.17 isn’t used in Chapter 4 (it’s used in Chapters 8, 11, 12 and 22, and in some of the annex). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 3.3.17 Small Room. A compartment room of light hazard occupancy classification having unobstructed construction, and a floor area not exceeding 800 ft2 (74.3m2). that is enclosed by walls and a ceiling. Each wall in the small room is permitted to have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft. (2.4 m).A single opening of 36 in. (900 mm) or less in width without a lintel is permitted. 4.6 Small Rooms. 4.6.1 Small rooms shall be permitted to have openings to and adjoining space in each wall Each wall in the small room is permitted to have openings to an adjoining space if the openings have a minimum lintel depth of 8 in. (200 mm) from the ceiling and the total width of the openings in each wall does not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m). 4.6.2 Small rooms shall be permitted to have a A single opening of 36 in. (900 mm) or less in width without a lintel is permitted.Committee Statement: The definition of compartment includes the proposed limitations. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-31 Log #CP415 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.3.18)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.18* Sprinkler System. For fire protection purposes, a An integrated system network of underground and overhead piping designed in accordance with fire protection engineering standards that includes a water supply source, a water control valve, a water flow alarm, and a drain. The installation includes at least one automatic water supply that supplies one or more systems. The portion of the sprinkler system above ground is a network of specially sized or hydraulically designed piping installed in a building, structure, or area, generally overhead, and to which sprinklers are attached in a systematic pattern. Each system has a control valve located in the system riser or its supply piping. Each sprinkler system includes a device for actuating an alarm when the system is in operation. The size of a sprinkler system is limited by the hazard classification. The system is usually activated by heat from a fire and discharges water over the fire area. Substantiation: The revisions proposed more accurately defines a system as intended by this standard. The current definition doesn’t adequately define the limitations of a system or the components required on one. The revised definition helps when applying the requirements of NFPA 25 which requires the installation standard to define a system. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is new information which was received late in the process. As such the committee was unable to complete an adequate review of the subject material. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: VICTOR, T.: This revised definition is necessary as it will help clarify the limitations of a system as it applies to NFPA 13 and 25. ________________________________________________________________ 13-32 Log #28 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.4.1 Antifreeze Sprinkler System)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Glossary of Terms Technical Advisory Committee, Recommendation: Move the second sentence in the definition of Antifreeze Sprinkler System to an annex note. Antifreeze Sprinkler System. A wet pipe sprinkler system employing automatic sprinklers that are attached to a piping system that contains an antifreeze solution and that are connected to a water supply. The antifreeze solution is discharged, followed by water, immediately upon operation of sprinklers opened by heat from a fire.(move to annex)Substantiation: The second sentence should be provided as an annex note because definitions should be in a single sentence. In this case, the second sentence describes the functions of the system, and not the system itself. Changing to this definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project. Your technical committee has the following options: a) Adopt the preferred definition b) Modify the term to make it unique c) Request that the Standards Council reassign responsibility for the term d) Request that the standards council authorize a second preferred definitionCommittee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle

13-11

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Revise the definition of Antifreeze System as follows: Antifreeze Sprinkler System. A wet pipe sprinkler system employing using automatic sprinklers that are attached to a pipingsystem that contains an antifreeze a liquid solution to prevent freezing of the system, intended to discharge the solution upon sprinkler operation and that are connected to a water supply. The antifreeze solution is discharged, followed immediately by water from a water supply. , immediately upon operation of sprinklers opened by heat from a fire.(move to annex)Committee Statement: Revise wording addresses the submitters concernsNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-33 Log #CP404 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.4.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution, 7.6)________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC directs the TC to review the need to specify the purity of antifreeze solutions, since field mixing is no longer permitted.Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: 1. Add a new definition as 3.4.1.1 to read as follows:3.4.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution. A mixture of an antifreeze material with water that is prepared by the manufacturer with a quality control procedure in place that ensures that the antifreeze solution remains homogeneous. 2. Remove the new section 7.6.1 that was added by issuance of TIA No. 10-1 (Log #1000) and renumber sections. 3. Revise 7.6.1.5 to read as follows: 7.6.1.5 A placard shall be placed on the antifreeze system main valve that indicates the manufacture type and brand of the antifreeze solution, the concentration by volume of the antifreeze solution used, and the volume of the antifreeze solution used in the system. 4. Revise 7.6.2.1 to read as follows: 7.6.2.1* Where sprinkler systems are supplied by potable water connections, the use of antifreeze solutions other than water solutions of pure glycerine (C.P. or U.S.P. 96.5 percent grade) or propylene glycol shall not be permitted. Antifreeze solutions shall be limited to premixed antifreeze solutions of glycerin (chemically pure or United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%) at a maximum concentration of 48% by volume, or propylene glycol at a maximum concentration of 38% by volume.5. Add a new 7.6.2.1.2 to read: 7.6.2.1.2 Premixed antifreeze solutions of propylene glycol exceeding 40% concentration by volume shall be permitted for use with ESFR sprinklers where the ESFR sprinklers are listed for such use in a specific application. 6. Add new 7.6.2.1.3 to read as follows: 7.6.2.1.3 Premixed antifreeze solutions other than those described in 7.6.2.1 that are listed for use in sprinkler systems shall be permitted to be used. 7. Add a new 7.6.2.1.4 to read as follows: 7.6.2.1.4 All premixed antifreeze solutions shall be provided with a certificate from the manufacturer indicating the type of antifreeze, concentration by volume, and freezing point. 8. Delete current Table 7.6.2.2 and replace it with the following table in the annex renumbered as Table A.7.6.2.1 A.7.6.2.1 See Table A.7.6.2.1. See Table A.7.6.2.1 on the next page 8. Delete 7.6.2.3 and Table 7.6.2.3. 7.6.2.3 If potable water is not connected to sprinklers, the commercially available materials indicated in Table 7.6.2.3 shall be permitted for use in antifreeze solutions. Table 7.6.2.3 Antifreeze Solution to Be Used if Nonpotable Water Is Connected to Sprinklers 9. Revise 7.6.2.4 to read as follows: 7.6.2.4 An premix antifreeze solution with a freezing point below the expected minimum temperature for the locality shall be prepared provided. 10. Delete existing 7.6.2.5 as well as the Figures 7.6.2.5(a), 7.6.2.5(b), and 7.6.2.5(c) and Annex A.7.6.2.5. 7.6.2.5* The specific gravity of the prepared solution shall be checked by a hydrometer, in accordance with Figure 7.6.2.5(a), Figure 7.6.2.5(b), and Figure 7.6.2.5(c), with suitable scale or a refractometer having a scale calibrated for the antifreeze solution involved. FIGURE 7.6.2.5(a) Densities of Aqueous Ethylene Glycol Solutions (Percent by Weight). FIGURE 7.6.2.5(b) Densities of Aqueous Propylene Glycol Solutions (Percent by Weight). FIGURE 7.6.2.5(c) Densities of Aqueous Glycerine Solutions (Percent by Weight). A.7.6.2.5 The following are data sources for Figure 7.6.2.5(c): (1) Density data for 100 percent water was taken from Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry, Revised Tenth Edition, page 1199. Temperatures have been converted from Celsius to Fahrenheit units, and data points at 10 degree

Fahrenheit multiples have been determined by linear interpolation. Conversion from relative to absolute density was achieved by multiplying by 0.999973. (2) Densities of glycerine–water solutions at 0°C and above were taken from Table III (p. 6) in Glycerol by Anthony Armin Newman, C.R.C. Press, 1968, Densities for temperatures below 0°C were taken from Table IV. Temperatures have been converted from Celsius to Fahrenheit units, and data points at 10 degree Fahrenheit multiples have been determined by linear interpolation. (3) Density data for pure glycerine was taken fromTable II (p. 6) in Glycerol by Anthony Armin Newman, C.R.C. Press, 1968, and derived from the thermal expansion data in Table 7–9 in Glycerol by Carl S. Miner and N. N. Dalton, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1953 (American Chemical Society Monograph Series #117) using the density for 0°C as a base point. Temperatures have been converted from Celsius to Fahrenheit units, and data points 10 degree Fahrenheit multiples have been determined by linear interpolation. (4) Freezing points were taken from the article, “Freezing Points of Glycerol and its Aqueous Solution” by Leonard B. Lane in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, volume 17 (1925), number 9, page 924. Temperatures have been converted from Celsius to Fahrenheit units. 11. Delete 7.6.2.6. 7.6.2.6 The concentration of antifreeze solutions shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the anticipated minimum temperature. 12. Add an asterisk to Section 7.6 and a new Annex A.7.6 to read as follows: A.7.6 In cold climates and areas where the potential for freezing of pipes is a concern, options other than antifreeze are available. Such options include installing the pipe in warm spaces, tenting insulation over the piping (as illustrated in NFPA 13D), listed heat tracing, and the use of dry pipe systems and preaction systems. 13. In A.7.6.2, delete the second paragraph. A.7.6.2 Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe and fittings should be protected from freezing with glycerine only. The use of diethylene, ethylene, or propylene glycols is specifically prohibited. Laboratory testing shows that glycol-based antifreeze solutions present a chemical environment detrimental to CPVC. The use of premixed antifreeze solutions is not required by this standard but can be required for certain specially listed equipment or systems. Thoroughly mixed antifreeze is less likely to drop out of solution. When antifreeze solutions are mixed on-site, the solution should be thoroughly mixed before being pumped into the piping. Prior to pumping solution that is mixed on-site into system piping, several samples should be tested from the batch to ensure that the concentration of the solution is uniform. 14. Delete existing A.7.6.2.4 and Figure A.7.6.2.4. A.7.6.2.4 Beyond certain limits, an increased proportion of antifreeze does not lower the freezing point of solution (see Figure A.7.6.2.4). Glycerine, diethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol should never be used without mixing with water in proper proportions, because these materials tend to thicken near 32°F (0°C). FIGURE A.7.6.2.4 Freezing Points of Water Solutions of Ethylene Glycol and Diethylene Glycol. Substantiation: Recommendations were primarily based on test results in the Phase 1 and 2 fire tests conducted at Underwriters Laboratories.Recommendations cover all occupancies in new with few exceptions since the fire test results indicate concerns previously limited to dwelling units would apply to all occupancies. Test data indicate that under certain conditions antifreeze solutions would increase the heat release rates in fires that could adversely affect the benefits of sprinkler protection for both life safety and property protection. Test data indicated that as concentrations of antifreeze solutions are increased above 50% glycerin by volume or 40% propylene glycol by volume the heat release rates increased as the tested sprinklers discharged at higher operating pressures. The lower concentration of 48% glycerin by volume and 38% propylene glycol by volume limits were set to allow for variations in actual field conditions that could affect performance that may not have been covered in the scope of the recent fire tests. These conditions include different sprinkler types and deflector designs. Test data indicate that the impact of higher concentration solutions was significant regarding heat release rates following sprinkler operation. Therefore, to avoid high concentration of antifreeze solutions in low elevations and in sprinkler drops, antifreeze solutions would be limited to factory mixed, certified by manufacturers according to industry standards. Factory mixed solutions should remain homogeneous in the systems. Specific exceptions for ESFR sprinklers for both new and existing systems are included since the other test data associated with the listings support their continued use at higher percent volume antifreeze solutions. When considering systems used in freezing areas, other types of (non- antifreeze) systems should be encouraged since there remain areas that should be further investigated to assess the impact of antifreeze type systems on fire control. Allowances are permitted for other types of antifreeze solutions when fully investigated consistent with the listing process. This is consistent with current NFPA standards encouraging new technologies. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30

13-12

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: This proposal eliminates the historical small antifreeze systems that have been in this standard for over 50 years. The committee should have never permitted the installation of large antifreeze systems that were not specifically tested and listed. This change about 10 years ago is what lead to the present problem. Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While this proposal is absolutely needed in lieu of the current TIA No. 10-1 (Log #1000) and I generally agree with the substance, I remain uncomfortable with some of the elements: - The properties of 48% glycerin and 38% propylene glycol are not represented in Table A.7.6.2.1, so information that is needed for design and for out in the field is still missing. - The need for the premixed solutions to be prepared by a manufacturer, rather than by any other agency remains unconvincing. To date questions that have been asked remain unanswered and the information provided on this subject has been all anecdotal, whereas as a definitive technical report is needed. - Further testing and/or research using standard spray sprinklers, rather than just the residential types, is needed. ________________________________________________________________ 13-34 Log #446 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.4.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution (New) and 7.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: 1) Add a new definition as section 3.4.1.1 as follows:

3.4.1.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution. A mixture of an antifreeze material with water that is thoroughly mixed by the manufacturer or distributor with a quality control procedure in place that assures that the antifreeze material will not drop out of solution after standing in system piping for long periods of time.

2) Delete all of section 7.6 on antifreeze systems and replace it with the following new section 7.6 as well as the associated annex material:

7.6 Antifreeze Systems.

7.6.1* General.

7.6.1.1 The use of antifreeze solutions shall be in conformity with state and local health regulations.

7.6.1.2* Antifreeze solutions shall be limited to Premixed Antifreeze Solutions of glycerine (chemically pure or United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%) at a maximum concentration of 50% by volume or other solutions listed specifically for use in fire protection systems.

7.6.1.3 Where pendent sprinklers are used and hydrostatic testing is conducted with water, the water shall be drained from the entire system after hydrostatic testing is complete.

7.6.1.4 Where pendent sprinklers are used and hydrostatic testing is conducted with properly mixed antifreeze solutions permitted by NFPA 13, the system is not required to be drained after hydrostatic testing.

7.6.1.5 Where antifreeze systems are remote from the system riser, a placard shall be mounted on the system riser that indicates the number and location of all remote antifreeze systems supplied by that riser.

7.6.1.6 A placard shall be placed on the antifreeze system main valve that indicates the type and manufacturer brand of the antifreeze solution, the concentration of the antifreeze solution used, and the volume of the antifreeze solution used in the system.

7.6.1.7* The antifreeze solution used in a system shall have a freezing point below the expected minimum temperature to which the pipe containing the solution will be exposed.

13/LCP404/Tb A.7.6.2.1/A2012/ROP

Table A.7.6.2.1 Properties of Glycerin and Propylene Glycol Table 7.6.2.2 Antifreeze Solution to Be Used if Potable Water Is Connected to Sprinklers

MaterialSolution

(by volume) Specific Gravity at

77ºF (25ºC) Freezing Point

ºF ºC Glycerin (C.P. or U.S.P.

grade) 0% 1.000 32 0

5 1.014 31 -0.5

10 1.029 28 -2.2

15 1.043 25 -3.9

20 1.059 20 -6.7

25 1.071 16 -8.9

30 1.087 10 -12

35 1.100 4 -15.5

40 1.114 -2 -19

45 1.130 -11 -24

50% 1.141 -19 -28

Propylene glycol 0 1.000 32 0

5 1.004 26 -3

10 1.008 25 -4

15 1.012 22 -6

20 1.016 19 -7

25 1.020 15 -10

30 1.024 11 -12

35 1.028 2 -17

40 1.032 -6 -21 C.P.: Chemically Pure; U.S.P.: United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%.

13-13

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 7.6.1.8* The concentration of the antifreeze solution shall not exceed the concentration necessary for the anticipated minimum temperature.

7.6.1.9 Prior to filling a system with antifreeze solution, the specific gravity of the solution shall be checked by a hydrometer with a suitable scale or a refractometer having a scale calibrated for the antifreeze solution involved.

7.6.2 Arrangement of Supply Piping and Valves

7.6.2.1 The connection between the water supply piping and the antifreeze portion of the system shall be arranged in accordance with one of the following:

(1)* An antifreeze loop and a check valve with a 1/32 inch hole drilled in the clapper as shown in Figure 7.6.2.1(1).

(2)* A backflow preventer and a listed expansion chamber as shown in Figure 7.6.2.1(2). The expansion chamber shall be properly sized taking into account the precharge air pressure and precharge air temperature. The size of the expansion chamber shall be such that the maximum system pressure does not exceed the rated pressure for any components of the antifreeze system.

(3) Where the antifreeze system volume does not exceed 40 gallons, a backflow preventer and a listed pressure relief valve as shown in Figure 7.6.2.1(3).

(4) A check valve with an arrangement of equipment that keeps the pressure on the system side of the check valve higher than on the supply side. The arrangement shall comply with all three of the following provisions:

(a) A pressure pump or other apparatus automatically keeps the pressure on the system side higher than on the water supply side of the check valve separating the antifreeze system from the water supply.

(b) Provision is made to automatically release solution to prevent overpressurization due to thermal expansion of the solution.

(c) Provision is made to automatically supply premixed solution as needed to restore system pressure due t thermal contraction.

Figure 7.6.2.1(1) Arrangement of Supply Piping and Valves

Figure 7.6.2.1(2) Arrangement of Supply Piping with Backflow Device

Figure 7.6.2.1(3) Arrangement of Supply Piping with Relief Valve and Backflow Device

7.6.2.2* A drain/test connection shall be installed at the most remote portion of the antifreeze system.

7.6.2.3 For systems with a capacity larger than 150 gal (567.8L), an additional test connection shall be provided for every 100 gal (378.5L).

A.7.6.1 The definition of an antifreeze system states that water will discharge after the antifreeze leaves the pipes. Systems that are all antifreeze, including tanks of antifreeze solution that will not discharge plain water, are not considered antifreeze systems. Such systems should not be used without consideration to issues such as the combustibility of the antifreeze solution and the friction loss in the piping during cold conditions.

A.7.6.1.2 Antifreeze solutions have been limited to glycerine for several reasons. First, glycerine is the only antifreeze that has been found so far to be compatible with CPVC piping, although other solutions may be developed in the future. Second, other antifreeze solutions such as propylene glycol would need to be limited to concentrations of 40% or less to insure that they do not contribute to the heat release of a fire. Such a low concentration has a freezing point much higher than glycerine, making the use of propylene glycol impractical. The use of premixed solutions is required because concentrations

13-14

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 of glycerine of 55% or more have been shown to contribute to the heat release of fires. Having the solution premixed insures that the glycerine will not drop out of solution and collect in drops or low points of the system at concentrations in excess of 50%. The properties of glycerine are shown in Table A.7.6.1.2.

Due to the fact that 55% glycerine has been shown to be a problem in some circumstances, it is recommended that when 50% glycerine is used, sprinklers with k-factors of at least 4.7 be used and water supply pressures only up to 70 psi be used in order to create a better safety factor.

A.7.6.1.7 See Figure A.10.5.1 for expected minimum air temperatures in 48 of the United States and parts of Canada where the lowest one-day mean temperature can be used as one method of determining the minimum reasonable air temperature. In situations where the piping containing the antifreeze solution is protected in some way from exposure to the outside air, higher minimum temperatures can be anticipated.

A.7.6.1.8 Since glycerine solutions have been shown to contribute to the heat release rate of fires above 55% concentrations, only the amount of glycerine that is necessary to keep the fluid in the pipe from freezing should be used. If the goal of keeping the pipe from freezing can be accomplished with 40% glycerine, then NFPA 13 requires the use of 40% glycerine instead of 50% glycerine.

A.7.6.2.1(1) Glycerine antifreeze solutions are heavier than water. The loop allows the heavier liquid to drop below the lighter liquid and prevents the diffusion of water into the unheated areas.

A.7.6.2.1(2) An expansion chamber is necessary to compensate for thermal expansion of the antifreeze solution. To properly compensate for thermal expansion, the chamber needs to be sized correctly and precharged to an appropriate pressure. One formula for sizing the chamber and determining the precharge pressure is as follows. Other methods exist.

where:ΔL = change in antifreeze solution volume (gal) due to thermal expansionSV = volume (gal) of antifreeze system, not including the expansion chamberDL = density (gm/ml) of antifreeze solution at lowest expected temperatureDH = density (gm/ml) of antifreeze solution at highest expected temperatureThis method is based on the following information:

where:VEC = minimum required volume (gal) of expansion chamberV0 = air volume (gal) in expansion chamber at precharge (before installation)V1 = air volume (gal) in expansion chamber at normal static pressureV2 = air volume (gal) in expansion chamber at post-expansion pressure (antifreeze at high temperature)P0 = absolute precharge pressure (psia) on expansion chamber before installationP1 = absolute static pressure (psi) on water (supply) side of backflow preventerP2 = absolute maximum allowable working pressure (psi) for antifreeze systemT0 = temperature (°R) of air in expansion chamber at prechargeT1 = temperature (°R) of air in expansion chamber when antifreeze system piping is at lowest expected temperatureT2 = temperature (°R) of air in expansion chamber when antifreeze system piping is at highest expected temperature

This equation is one formulation of the ideal gas law from basic chemistry. The amount of air in the expansion chamber will not change over time. The pressure, temperature, and volume of the air at different times will be related in accordance with this formula:

The antifreeze in the system is essentially incompressible, so the air volume in the expansion chamber will decrease by an amount equal to the expansion of the antifreeze.

It is assumed that there is no trapped air in the system piping, so the only air in the system is in the expansion chamber. This is a conservative assumption, since more air is better. In reality, there will be at least some trapped air. However, only the air in the expansion chamber can be relied upon to be available when needed.

VEC = V0

At the precharge, the chamber will be completely full of air.

In cases where the normal static pressure on the sprinkler system is close to the maximum working pressure, antifreeze systems are not advisable if the connection to the wet pipe system will incorporate a backflow device. In these cases, expansion of the antifreeze solution during warm weather will cause the antifreeze system to exceed the maximum working pressure, regardless of the size of the expansion chamber. The normal static pressure is too close to the maximum working pressure if the preceding formula for VEC yields a negative result. If this occurs, use a dry pipe system instead or install a pressure reducing valve before the backflow preventer.

A.7.6.2.2 Systems larger than 40 gal (151L) are required by NFPA 25 to check the concentration levels at the supply inlet to the antifreeze system and at a remote point of the system.Substantiation: Regardless of what happens with all of the TIA’s on this subject, the whole section on antifreeze needs to be rewritten. The standard mixes up percentage concentrations by weight and by volume (we should pick one method and stick with it, by volume seems to make the most sense) and the standard expresses some options in awkward ways. These problems have been fixed by crating lists. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-345 (Log #404). The committee realizes there are differences between this proposal and 13-345 (Log #404). The public is encouraged to submit comments on 13-345 (Log #404) to resolve any outstanding issues. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-35 Log #500 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.4.3 Combined Dry Pipe - Preaction Sprinkler System)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Operation of the detection system actuates tripping devices that open the dry pipe valves simultaneously and without the loss if air pressure in the system. Operation of the detection system also opens listed air exhaust valves at the end of the feed main, which usually precedes the opening of the sprinkler.Substantiation: Section 7.4.3 does not require a listed air exhaust valve to be installed. In addition, there are no list exhaust valves currently being manufactured. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: LAKE, J.: While this particular issue is still very much in a state of change, the committee would do well not to simply accept or reject a particular

Table A.7.6.1.2 Properties of Glycerine

MaterialSolution

(by volume) Specific Gravity at

60ºF (15.6ºC) Freezing Point

ºF ºC Glycerine (C.P. or U.S.P.

grade) 50% water 1.145 -20.9 -29.4 Hydrometer scale 1.000 to 1.200

C.P. = Chemically Pure: U.S.P.: United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%.

∆ = −

L S

DDV

L

H

1

P VT

PVT

P VT

0 0

0

1 1

1

2 2

2

= =

V V L2 1= − ∆

VPT P L

P P T PTEC =−( )

1 0 2

0 2 1 1 2

∆

13-15

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 proposal or wait for the public to submit comments. A task group should be established to review all of the variations of language between the TIAs, ROP and what is sure to be numerous public comments and provide one coherent document for the technical committee to consider at the ROC stage. ________________________________________________________________ 13-36 Log #499 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.4.4 Deluge Sprinkler System)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A sprinkler system employing open sprinklers or nozzles that are attached to a piping system that is connected to a water supply through a valve that is opened by the operation of a detection system installed in the same areas as the sprinklers or the nozzles. When this valve opens, water flows into the piping system and discharges from all sprinklers or nozzles attached thereto.Substantiation: Nozzles are occasionally used on a deluge sprinkler system but by definition they are not mentioned. This proposal would correct this oversight. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-37 Log #472 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.4.9 Preaction Sprinkler System)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A sprinkler system employing automatic sprinklers that are attached to a piping system that contains air or nitrogen that might or might not be under pressure. Substantiation: Nitrogen is allowed for dry pipe systems and paragraph 7.3.2.4.2 allows nitrogen for preaction systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-38 Log #228 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.4.11 Water Mist System)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Add new definitions to read as follows: 3.4.11 Water Mist System. A distribution system connected to a water supply or water and atomizing media supplies that is equipped with one or more nozzles capable of delivering water mist intended to control, suppress, or extinguish fires and that has been demonstrated to meet the performance requirements of its listing and this standard. 3.4.11.1 Dry Pipe Water Mist System. A water mist system using automatic nozzles attached to a piping system containing air, nitrogen, or inert gas under pressure, the release of which (as from an opening of an automatic nozzle) allows the water pressure to open a dry pipe valve. The water then flows into the piping system and out through any open nozzles. 3.4.11.2 Engineered Water Mist Systems. Those systems that need individual calculation and design to determine the flow rates, nozzle pressures, pipe size, area, or volume protected by each nozzle, discharge density of water mist, the number and types of nozzles, and the nozzle placement in a specific system. 3.4.11.3 Local-Application Water Mist System. A water mist system arranged to discharge directly on an object or hazard in an enclosed, unenclosed, or open outdoor condition. 3.4.11.4 Preaction Water Mist System. A water mist system using automatic nozzles attached to a piping system that contains air that might or might not be under pressure, with a supplemental detection system installed in the same areas as the mist nozzles. The actuation of the detection system opens a valve that allows water to flow into the piping system and discharges through all opened nozzles in the system. 3.4.11.5 Pre-engineered Water Mist Systems. Those systems having predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and water quantities. 3.4.11.6 Wet Pipe Water Mist System. A water mist system using automatic nozzles attached to a piping system containing water and connected to a water supply so that water discharges immediately from nozzles operated by the heat from a fire.Substantiation: Water Mist Systems have been approved and installed in a wide range of sprinkler applications globally and for clarity the definitions of each type should be included in NFPA 13 Sprinkler System Type Definitions. The definitions have been taken from NFPA 750 to harmonize the two standards. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, allows this application. Water Mist systems are not sprinkler systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-39 Log #515 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.5 Various Definitions, 9.3.3, and A.9.3.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC Rejects this proposal Current products marketed as “seismic loops” are not evaluated for their ability to accommodate seismic movement, this action could have the unforeseen consequence of not allowing current products to use the term. The HBS TC should evaluate whether such products require listing and and whether, independent of listing requirements, the term “seismic loop” is desirable to differentiate from a seismic separation assembly comprised of traditional fittings. This proposal will be reviewed by the HBS TC at the ROC meeting.Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Provide new definitions in Section 3.5. Seismic Separation Assembly - An assembly of fittings, pipe and couplings, or an assembly of pipe and couplings that permits movement in all directions sufficient to accommodate calculated differential motions during earthquakes or, in lieu of calculations, movement at least twice the width of the seismic separation it is intended to address, at right angles to the separation as well as parallel to it. Seismic Loop - A special assembly listed for its capability to accommodate movement at least equivalent to a seismic separation assembly, listed for specific pipe diameter sizes and seismic separation widths. Revise the first sentence of Section A.9.3.3 by putting a period after Figure A.9.3.3(a). and replacing end of sentence with a new sentence as follows: An example of a listed seismic loop is shown in Figure A.9.3.3(b). Delete the second paragraph of Section A.9.3.3. Modify Sections 9.3.3.1,9.3.3.3, and 9.3.3.4 adding “or listed seismic loop” after “seismic separation assembly” in all three sections. Substantiation: The definition of a seismic separation assembly has been in the annex for several editions of NFPA 13 but should be moved up with the other definitions. A new term “seismic loop” is being proposed to differentiate between the traditional seismic separation assembly and the special assembly listed for this same purpose. This will aid in the specification of earthquake protection features. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: This proposal should go to the HBS committee. The TCC should review this and have the HBS committee address it at the ROC period. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: I agree with Mr. Lavericks statement on the loop having not been evaluated for seismic applications by UL and a search of the FM Approvals did not reveal any listings for the device. LAVERICK, G.: The proposed definition of a Seismic Loop specifies that the assembly is listed for its capability to accommodate movement and intend to bridge a seismic separation. These devices are Listed by UL specifically to accommodate movement due to thermal expansion of the piping and have not been evaluated by UL for seismic applications. The remainder of the revisions to the various sections in the proposal refer to a listed seismic loop. The Committee should be aware that this loop has not been evaluated for seismic applications by UL and a search of the FM Approvals did not reveal any listings for this device. For previous editions of the standard, the Committee was aware of this situation, they had reviewed seismic data provided, and accepted the product as a means to bridge the seismic separation. That is the reason for the current wording. Based on this, the proposal should not be accepted. ________________________________________________________________ 13-40 Log #496 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.5.1 Air Receiver)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: A chamber, compatible with an air compressor, that can store air under pressure that is higher in pressure than that in the dry pipe or preaction system piping. The minimum size of the chamber shall be such that the air compressor will operate for at least 1 minute after starting before shutting off or 2 gallons.Substantiation: There have been some contractors that have used a small piece of piping to meet the current requirement’s language. The air compressor short cycles and its life can be greatly reduced causing additional cost and maintenance to the user. The size and time are educated guess based on field experience. However, input from a manufacture of air compressors should be given consideration. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Requirements are not appropriated in a definitionNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-16

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-41 Log #402 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.5.5 Cross Mains)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The pipes supplying the branch lines, either directly or through risers nipples.Substantiation: A Riser Nipple is defined in section 3.5.8 Riser Nipple. Vertical piece of pipe between a main and a branch line.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-42 Log #403 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.5.9 Risers)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The vertical supply pipes portions of Feed Mains, Cross Mains, System Risers or Branch Lines in a sprinkler system.Substantiation: Adds clarification to the definition for reference within the standard. The proposed change identifies the portions of the system as to where this applies. This will clarify the intent of seismic bracing requirements for sections 9.3.2.3 and 9.3.5.5. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The TCC should also have the HBS committee review this proposal. The term branch line would create too much confusion for risers. Section 9.3 adequately addresses the need to brace branch line piping. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-43 Log #209 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.5.12 System Riser)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.5.12 System Riser. The above ground horizontal or vertical pipe between the water supply and the mains (cross or feed) that contains a control valve (either directly or within its supply pipe), pressure gauge, main drain and a waterflow alarm device. Substantiation: The definition of system riser should be expanded to include the pressure gauge required by Section 7.1.1.1. The main drain should also be included. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise proposal to delete the word Main.3.5.12 System Riser. The above ground horizontal or vertical pipe between the water supply and the mains (cross or feed) that contains a control valve (either directly or within its supply pipe), pressure gauge, main drain and a waterflow alarm device.Committee Statement: The main drain is not necessarily located at each system riser. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-44 Log #179 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.6.1 General Sprinkler Characteristics)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.6.1 …(b) Temperature rating. (c) Orifice size K-factor (see Chapter 6)…Same change in 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.6, 6.9.1, 7.10.6, 8.4.8.2(1), 22.4.4.8.2, 22.4.4.8.3, 22.4.4.8.4, A.6.2.2, A.12.6, and A.22.4.4.8 Substantiation: This correlates with the change from orifice size to K-factor that took place previously in the portions of NFPA 13 on discharge criteria. It seems appropriate to keep the old term in 6.2.2, Table A.6.2.3.1, A.8.15.15.2, C.22, and C23 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-45 Log #191 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.6.4.1 Control Mode Specific Application (CMSA) Sprinkler and CMSA references)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Rename Control Mode Specific Application (CMSA) Sprinklers to Control Mode Specific Storage Application (CMSSA) Sprinklers in 3.6.4.1 and throughout the standard. Substantiation: CMSA has caused confusion about what the specific

application is. The CMSSA designation makes clear the use of the device as being for storage applications only. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Current description matches current protocol.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-46 Log #215 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(3.8.1.4 Fire Department Connection)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ron Fletcher, Aero Automatic Sprinkler CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A connection through which the fire department can pump supplemental water into the sprinkler system, standpipe, or other system, furnishing water for fire extinguishment to supplement water supplies. (24,2010)Substantiation: Pumping into the FDC requires more pressure and flow than the incoming supply at the riser to open the FDC check valve. The greater pressure and flow should cause the riser check to close. The reason a riser check is required with a FDC is to prevent pumping back into the supply and just circulating water. There doesn’t appear to be any way for the FDC to be used to “supplement the pressure” of the incoming water supply it must replace the incoming supply as the sole source. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: FDC’s are intended to supplement the water supply and not necessarily the water pressure Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-47 Log #180 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.9.1.5 Clearance)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.9.1.5 Clearance. (a) For installation of sprinkelrs per 8.5.6,, the The distance from the top of storage to the ceiling sprinkler deflectors. (b) For design criteria, the distance from the top of storage to the ceiling.Substantiation: There are two separate definitions for clearance. Definition (a) is actually a general definition and is better suited elsewhere but the only definition is currently in 3.9: Storage. Within the storage chapters, the application of clearance as defined in 12.1.3.4 and the storage chapters is measured to the ceiling. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See the action on 13-48 (Log #266).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Abstention: MCPHEE, R.: Cannot vote on this item as another referenced Proposal (13-48) is not available, which would allow confirmation of Committee Action. ________________________________________________________________ 13-48 Log #266 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(3.9.1.6 Clearance to Ceiling,12.1.3.4, 12.12.1.2, 15.1.2, 15.2.3, 15.2.7.16.1.5.3.2, Table 16.3.1.1, Table 16.3.1.2, 17.2.1, 17.2.1.2.2, 17.2.1.2.3, Figure 17.2.1.2.1(b), Table 18.4(a), Table 19.1.2.1.3, A.14.2(5), A.15.1.2, A.15.2, A.15.2.6, A.17.2.1.1, A.19.1, Table A.19.1.2(a) and (b), B.2.1.2, and B.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.9.1.6 Clearance to Ceiling. The distance from the top of storage to the ceiling above. 12.1.3.4 Excessive Clearances Clearance to Ceiling12. 1.3.4.1* The clearance to ceiling shall be measured in accordance with 12.1.3.4.1.1 and 12.1.3.4.1..2 12.1.3.4.1.1 For corrugated metal deck roofs up to 3 in. (76 mm) in depth, the clearance to ceiling shall be measured from the top of storage to the bottom of the deck. For deeper decks, the clearance to ceiling shall be measured to the highest point on the deck. 12.1.3.4.1.2 For ceilings that have insulation attached directly to underside of the ceiling or roof structure, the clearance to ceiling shall be measured from the top of storage to the bottom of the insulation and shall be in accordance with 12.1.3.4.1.2.1 or 12.1.3.4.1.2.2. 12.1.3.4.1.2.1 For insulation that is attached directly to the ceiling or roof structure and is installed flat and parallel to the ceiling or roof structure, the clearance to ceiling shall be measured from the top of storage to the underside of the insulation. 12.1.3.4.1.2.2 For insulation that is installed in a manner that causes it to deflect or sag down from the ceiling or roof structure, the clearance to ceiling shall be measured from the top of storage to a point half of the distance of the deflection from the insulation high point to the insulation low point. If the deflection or sag in the insulation exceeds 6 in. (152 mm), the clearance to ceiling shall be measured from the top of storage to the high point of the

13-17

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 insulation. A.12.1.3.4.1 Batt insulation creates an effective thermal barrier and can be considered the ceiling/roof deck when determining the clearance to ceiling. The insulation needs to be installed in each pocket (not just above the sprinkler) and attached to the ceiling/roof in such a manner that it will not fall out during a fire prior to sprinkler activation. 12.1.3.4.12 For spray sprinkler criteria where the distance between ceiling height and top of storage clearance to ceiling exceeds the clearances those identified in this section, the requirements of 12.1.3.4.2 through 12.1.3.4.X shall apply. 12.1.3.4.23 Where the clearance to ceiling exceeds 20 ft (6.1 m) for Chapters 14 and 15, protection shall be based upon the storage height that would result in a clearance to ceiling of 20 ft (6.1 m) distance between the ceiling and top of storage.12.1.3.4.34 Where the clearance to ceiling exceeds 20 ft (6.1 m) for Table 12.12.1.2(a) or Section 16.2, protection shall be based upon the storage height that would result in a clearance to ceiling of 20 ft (6.1 m) distance between the ceiling and top of storage or providing one level of supplemental, quick-response in-rack sprinklers located directly below the top tier of storage and at every flue space intersection. 12.1.3.4.45 Where the clearance to ceiling exceeds 10 ft (3.1 m) for Section 16.3 and Chapter 17, protection shall be based upon the storage height that would result in a clearance to ceiling of 10 ft (3.1 m) distance between the ceiling and top of storage or providing one level of supplemental, quick-response in-rack sprinklers located directly below the top tier of storage and at every flue space intersection. 12.1.3.4.45.1 When applying the supplemental in-rack sprinkler option, the ceiling density shall be based upon the given storage height with an assumed acceptable clearance to ceiling. 12.1.3.4.45.2 If in-rack sprinklers are required for the actual storage height with an acceptable clearance to ceiling, in-rack sprinklers shall be installed as indicated by that criteria. 12.12.1.2* Wood pallets, where stored indoors, shall be protected in accordance with one of the following: (1) Control mode density/area sprinkler protection as specified in Table 12.12.1.2(a). (2) CMSA sprinkler protection in accordance with Table 12.12.1.2(b). (3) ESFR sprinkler protection in accordance with Table 12.12.1.2(c). (4) Control mode density/area sprinkler protection in accordance with the OH2 curve of Figure 13.2.1 existing with a hose stream demand of at least 250 gpm (946 L/min) for a duration of at least 60 minutes when pallets are stored no higher than 6 ft (1.8 m) and each pile of no more than four stacks shall be separated from other pallet piles by at least 8 ft (1.4 m) of clear space or 25 ft (7.6 m) of commodity. The maximum clearance to ceiling of 20 ft (6.1 m) specified in 12.1.3.4 shall not apply to arrangement 12.12.1.2(4). 15.1.2* Storage Conditions. The design of the sprinkler system shall be based on those conditions that routinely or periodically exist in a building and create the greatest water demand, which include the following: (1) Pile height (2) Clearance to ceiling (3) Pile stability (4) Array 15.2.3* Factors affecting protection requirements such as closed/open array, clearance to ceiling between storage and sprinklers, and stable/unstable piles shall be applicable only to storage of Group A plastics. This decision tree also shall be used to determine protection for commodities that are not wholly Group A plastics but contain such quantities and arrangements of the same that they are deemed more hazardous than Class IV commodities. 15.2.7 The ceiling-only protection criteria specified in Chapter 17 for rack storage of plastic and rubber commodities shall be permitted to be used for solid-piled and palletized storage of the same commodity, at the same height and clearance to ceiling.16.1.5.3.2 Ceiling detectors alone shall not be used where the ceiling/roof clearance to ceiling from the top of the storage exceeds 10 ft (3.1 m) or the height of the storage exceeds 25 ft (7.6 m). Table 16.3.1.1 - Revise Title of last Column as follows and delete footnote h:Ceiling Sprinkler Density Clearance to Ceiling Up to 10 ft (3.1 m)g,h,i

hClearance is distance between top of storage and ceiling.Table 16.3.1.2 - Revise Title of last Column as follows:Ceiling Sprinkler Density Clearance to Ceiling Up to 10 ft (3.1 m)17.2.1 Control Mode Density/Area Sprinkler Proteciton Criteria for Single-, Double-, and Multi-Row Racks for Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height, with a Clearances to Ceiling Up to and Including 10 ft (3.1 m). 17.2.1.2.2 Linear interpolation of design densities and areas of application shall be permitted between storage heights with the same clearances to ceiling.17.2.1.2.3 No interpolation between clearances to ceiling shall be permitted.Revise Figure 17.2.1.2.1(b) Note 2 2. Where sprinklers listed for storage use are installed at the ceiling only and the ceiling height in the protected area does not exceed 22 ft (6.7 m) and a minimum clearance to ceiling of 5 ft (1.53 m) and the storage height does not exceed 15 ft (4.6 m), the ceiling sprinkler discharge criteria shall be permitted to be reduced to 0.45 gpm/ft2 per 2000 ft2 (18.3 mm/min per 186 m2). Revise Table 18.4(a) Note (1) (1) Sprinkler discharge densities and areas of application are based on a

maximum clearance to ceiling of 10 ft (3.1 m) between sprinkler deflectors and with the maximum height of storage anticipated.Revise the Column Titled “Clearance” in Table 19.1.2.1.3(a) Clearance to Ceiling (ft)Revise the Column Titled “Clearance” in Table 19.1.2.1.3(b) Clearance to Ceiling (m)Revise A.14.2 (5) (5) Satisfy the minimum densities and areas. Example: Storage— greeting cards in boxes in cartons on pallets Height — 22 ft (6.7 m) Clearance to Ceiling — 6 ft (1.8 m) Sprinklers — ordinary temperature System type — dry A.15.1.2 An evaluation for each field situation should be made to determine the worst applicable height–clearance to ceiling relationship that can be expected to appear in a particular case. Fire tests have shown that considerably greater demands occur where the clearance to ceiling is 10 ft (3.1 m) as compared to 3 ft (0.9 m) and where a pile is stable as compared to an unstable pile. Since a system is designed for a particular clearance to ceiling, the system could be inadequate when significant areas do not have piling to the design height and larger clearances to ceiling exist between stock and sprinklers. This can also be true where the packaging or arrangement is changed so that stable piling is created where unstable piling existed. Recognition of these conditions is essential to avoid installation of protection that is inadequate or becomes inadequate because of changes. No tests were conducted simulating a peaked roof configuration. However, it is expected that the principles of Chapter 12 still apply. The worst applicable height–clearance to ceiling relationship that can be expected to occur should be found, and protection should be designed for it. If storage is all at the same height, the worst height–clearance to ceiling relationship creating the greatest water demand would occur under the peak. If commodities are stored higher under the peak, the various height–clearance to ceiling relationships should be tried and the one creating the greatest water demand used for designing protection. A.15.2 The densities and area of application have been developed from fire test data. Most of these tests were conducted with K-8 orifice sprinklers and 80 ft2 or 100 ft2 (7.4 m2 or 9.3 m2) sprinkler spacing. These and other tests have indicated that, with densities of 0.4 gpm/ft2 (16.3 mm/min) and higher, better results are obtained with K-8 orifice and 70 ft2 to 100 ft2 (7.4 m2 to 9.3 m2) sprinkler spacing than where using K-5.6 orifice sprinklers at 50 ft2 (4.6 m2) spacing. A discharge pressure of 100 psi (6.9 bar) was used as a starting point on one of the fire tests. It was successful, but has a 11/2 ft (0.5 m) clearance between the top of storage and ceiling sprinklers. A clearance to ceiling of 10 ft (3 m) could have produced a different result due to the tendency of the higher pressure to atomize the water and the greater distance that the fine water droplets had to travel to the burning fuel. Table A.15.2 explains and provides an example of the method and procedure to follow in using this standard to determine proper protection for Group A plastics. A.15.2.6 Test data are not available for all combinations of commodities, storage heights, and clearances to ceiling. Some of the protection criteria in this standard are based on extrapolations of test data for other commodities and storage configurations, as well as available loss data. For example, there are very limited test data for storage of expanded plastics higher than 20 ft (6.1 m). The protection criteria in this standard for expanded plastics higher than 20 ft (6.1 m) are extrapolated from test data for expanded plastics storage 20 ft (6.1 m) and less in height and test data for unexpanded plastics above 20 ft (6.1 m). Further examples can be found in the protection criteria for clearancesto ceiling up to 15 ft (4.6 m).Test data are limited for clearances to ceiing greater than 10 ft (3.1 m). It should be assumed that, if protection is adequate for a given storage height in a building of a given height, the same protection will protect storage of any lesser height in the same building. For example, protection adequate for 20 ft (6.1 m) storage in a 30 ft (9.1 m) building [10 ft (3.1 m) clearance to ceiling] would also protect 15 ft (4.6 m) storage in a 30 ft (9.1 m) building [15 ft (4.6 m) clearance to ceiling]. Therefore, the protection criteria in Table 15.2.6(a) for 15 ft (4.6 m) clearance to ceiling are based on the protection criteria for storage 5 ft (1.5 m) higher than the indicated height with 10 ft (3.1 m) clearance to ceiling. Table 15.2.6(a) is based on tests that were conducted primarily with high temperature–rated, K-8 orifice sprinklers. Other tests have demonstrated that, where sprinklers are used with orifices greater than K-8, ordinary-temperature sprinklers are acceptable. A.17.2.1.1 All rack fire tests of plastics were run with an approximate 10 ft (3.1 m) maximum clearance to ceiling between the top of the storage and the ceiling sprinklers. Within 30 ft (9.1 m) high buildings, greater clearances above storage configurations should be compensated for by the addition of more in-rack sprinklers or the provision of greater areas of application, or both. A.19.1 This section provides a summary of the data developed from the tissue test series of full-scale roll paper tests conducted at the Factory Mutual Research Center in West Glocester, RI. The test building is approximately 200 ft × 250 ft [50,000 ft2 (4.65 km2)] in area, of fire-resistive construction, and has a volume of approximately 2.25 million ft3 (63,720 m3), the equivalent of a 100,000 ft2 (9.29 km2) building 22.5 ft (6.86 m) high. The test building has two primary heights beneath a

13-18

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 single large ceiling. The east section is 30 ft (9.1 m) high and the west section is 60 ft (18.29 m) high. The tissue test series was conducted in the 30 ft (9.1 m) section, with a clearances from the top of storage to the ceiling of nominally 10 ft (3.1 m). Figure A.19.1 illustrates a typical storage array used in the tissue series of tests. Revise the Column Titled “Clearance” in Table A.19.1.2(a) Clearance to Ceiling (ft)Revise the Column Titled “Clearance” in Table A.19.1.2(b) Clearance to Ceiling (m)B.2.1.2 Selection of Density and Area of Application. Specifications for density and area of application are developed from NFPA standards and other standards. It is desirable to specify densities rounded upward to the nearest 0.005 gpm/ft2 (0.2 mm/min). Prudent design should consider reasonable-to-expect variations in occupancy. This design would include not only variations in type of occupancy but also, in the case of warehousing, the anticipated future range of materials to be stored, clearances to ceiing, types of arrays, packaging, pile height, and pile stability, as well as other factors. B.3 Effect of Clearance to Ceiling on Sprinkler Performance. The problems with large clearances to ceiling were well recognized by the 1970s in terms of the effect both on delayed sprinkler activation and on the effect on droplet penetration through the fire plume. The work of Alpert (1972, 1975), Heskestad and Delichatsios (1979), and Beyler (1984) clearly identified the effect of clearance to ceiling on detection and activation of sprinklers. This was supplemented by the work of Heskestad and Smith (1976) in which the thermal responsiveness of sprinklers was studied and modeled. Similarly, the effect of the strong plumes resulting from large clearances to ceiling and highly challenging fires was recognized in the 1970s through the work of Yao and Kalelkar (1970), Yao (1976), and Yao (1980). This understanding was reflected in the development of large drop sprinklers in the 1970s [Yao (1997)]. The inability of 1/2 in. and 17/32 in. standard sprinklers to penetrate high-challenging fires was well understood and demonstrated in the 1970s [Yao (1976)]. The effect of excessive clearance to ceiling was also demonstrated in the testing summarized in Annex C. This understanding of the role of clearance to ceiling on fire performance had a strong effect on the development of advanced sprinkler technologies. Substantiation: To avoid confusion between the defined term clearance as provided in 3.9.1.5 which should be applied to minimum required clearance to storage as prescribed in Chapter 8 and clearance to ceiling as applied to maximum allowable clearance between the top of storage and the ceiling above for storage applications in Chapters 12 through 20, a new definition of clearance to ceiling is proposed. Additionally, a clarification is provided to give guidance on the determination of such clearance to ceiling under common construction conditions that involve corrugated or insulated roof decks similar to that prescribed by 8.5.4.1. Finally, the utilization of the terms is revised throughout the standard to provide uniform application by revising various sections to make the application clear. Note: No changes were proposed to Annex C as the descriptions were based on actual tested conditions and could not readily be verified as to the usage of the applied terms. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: JAVERI, S.: 12.3.4.1.1. Is acceptable for when the upper and lower web widths are about the same. In Europe the web depth can be 76mm but the upper web width is ten times larger than the lower web width. Heat accumulation will be in the upper web channel. ________________________________________________________________ 13-49 Log #267 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.9.1.19 Open-Top Container and A.3.9.1.19)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.9.1.19* Open-Top Container. A container of any shape that is entirely or partially substantially open on the top. A.3.9.1.19 Open-Top Container. Open-top containers can prevent water from running across the top to storage and down the flues and can also collect water. The container will prevent water penetration to a fire in the lower levels where it is needed. Rack or flue collapse can also occur if too much water is collected. Consideration should be given to the potential degree of water collection possible within the container when applying the definition of an open-top container. Small openings at the top of containers containing such items as fresh produce are quite common and should not considered as an open top container. Additionally, containers having either wire mesh siding or large uniform openings along the bottom perimeter of each container, such that water enters the container at the same flow rate and discharge evenly into the flue spaces should not be considered as an open top container provided the contents of the container are not water absorbent and are not capable of blocking such container openings. The committee is unaware of fire tests, and no design guidance is furnished.Substantiation: The provisions of 3.9.1.19 provides an overly broad

application of the definition of an open top container resulting in the inclusion of any container with an opening in the top, no matter how small, as an open top container. This would directly disallow the use of the CMSA and ESFR protection provided within NFPA 13 as a protection option and leave the user without direct guidance when using CMDA protection criteria. Small openings at the top of containers containing such items as fresh produce are quite common and should not be considered as an open top container. Additionally, containers might include open mesh or open bottom configurations that limit the collection of water and should be excluded as well. The committee is aware of testing that was conducted with open top containers as cited in C.12 in conflict with the final statement provided in A.3.9.1.19 and requires correction. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 3.9.1.19* Open-Top Container. A container of any shape that is entirely or partially open on the top and arranged so as to allow for the collection of discharging sprinkler water cascading through the storage array. A.3.9.1.19 Open-Top Container. Open-top containers can prevent water from running across the top to storage and down the flues and can also collect water. The container will prevent water penetration to a fire in the lower levels where it is needed. Rack or flue collapse can also occur if too much water is collected. The committee is unaware of fire tests, and no design guidance is furnished.Consideration should be given to the potential degree of water collection possible within the container when applying the definition of an open-top container. The following conditions should be considered: 1) Small openings at the top of containers containing such items as fresh produce are quite common and should not considered as an open-top container. 2) Arrangements that include open-top containers that are all located on the bottom tier of rack storage do not prevent penetration of water and should not be considered an open-top container. 3) Containers having either wire mesh siding or large uniform openings along the bottom perimeter of each container, such that water enters the container at the same flow rate and discharge evenly into the flue spaces should not be considered as an open top container provided the contents of the container are not water absorbent and are not capable of blocking such container openings. 4) Open-top containers that are stored in fixed location on racks equipped with flat or domed-shaped fixed-in-place lids that are provided directly above the open-top containers and prevent water from entering the open-top container, as well as distribute water equally into all flue spaces should not be considered an open-top container. Committee Statement: Guidance is necessary in the appendix for when open top containers can be used without affecting the protection criteria Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-50 Log #201 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(3.9.3.8 Solid Shelving, 16.1.6.1, and 16.1.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Warde P. Comeaux, Jr., Fire Protection International Consortium, Inc. Recommendation: PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 3.9.3.8 AND 16.1.6.1 AND 16.1.6.2 3.9.3.8 Solid Shelving. Solid shelving is fixed in place, slatted, wire mesh, or other type of shelves located within racks. The area of a solid shelf is defined by the perimeter aisle or flue space on all four sides. Solid shelves having an area equal to or less than 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) shall be defined as open racks. Shelves of wire mesh, slats, or other materials more than 50 percent open and where the flue spaces are maintained shall be defined as open racks. 16.1.6.1 Where solid shelving in single-, double-, and multiple-row racks exceeds 20 ft2 (1.86 m2) but does not exceed 84 ft2 (7.81 m2) 64 ft2 (5.95 m2) sprinklers shall not be required below every shelf, but shall be installed at the ceiling and within the racking below shelves in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate tables in the standard at intermediate levels not more than 6 ft (2 m) apart vertically.Substantiation: Since the adoption of the 2002 NFPA 13 the requirement for solid shelving was established at a maximum of 20 square feet. A review of the tests data from the 1970’s shows that the area of a solid shelf was a question that the committee could not resolve. The tests conducted were for the most part solid shelving with ceiling only sprinklers. These tests were not successful. In reviewing the tests that had in-rack sprinklers we find that the tests were successful and with solid shelving some in-rack sprinklers must be installed. Since those tests there have been numerous tests involving solid shelving that have the data incorporated into the standard. Section 17.2.5.1.2 allows solid shelving with slats that are less than 50% open and transverse flues at 10 feet intervals. This is for plastic commodities and is based on testing. Section 20.3.1 allows slats to be less than 50% open and have 3-inch transverse flues at 10 feet intervals for plastic commodities. This is also based on testing. The records industry has several tests with solid shelving. The GSA and NARA tests had solid shelving that was in excess of 100 square feet with no

13-19

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 transverse flues. These tests were successful. The Iron Mountain tests used 50% open shelving but with transverse flues at 10 feet 6-inch intervals. The area of the shelf was 84 square feet. These tests were all successful. The results of these tests substantiate that the area of the solid shelf should be increased to 84 square feet. The current requirement in the code for a solid shelf if not greater than 20 square feet with flues or aisles on all sides is too restrictive as the testing and loss data do not support the requirement. Factory Mutual Loss Prevention Data Sheets 8-9 allows spacing of transverse flues on 9 feet centers without additional protection. The plastics and records storage tests confirm that spacing of transverse flues at 10 feet intervals and the use of solid shelving can be protected with in-rack sprinklers. The vertical spacing of the sprinklers in the standard is too restrictive and is not based on testing data. The standard has required spacing based on the tables as long as either the transverse or longitudinal flues are present. Again the loss data does not support the need for a decrease in the vertical spacing and an increase in the number of in-rack sprinklers. For a storage system to a height of 25 feet with a solid shelf area of 64 sq. ft., the current standard requires 4 levels of in-rack sprinklers. Prior to the introduction of this requirement the standard would have only required one level of in-rack sprinklers. Again neither the test data nor the loss history does not justify the increase in protection. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No data submitted to justify change.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-51 Log #128 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.11.1 Hanger)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Page 13-24 3.11 Hanging and Bracing Definitions. 3.11 Hanging and Bracing Definitions. 3.11.1 Hanger. An assembly intended to be attached to the system piping to provide support. 3.11.12 Sway Brace. An assembly intended to be attached to the system piping to resist horizontal earthquake loads in two directions. 3.11.23 Four-Way Brace Bracing. A Adjacent sway brace braces intended to resist differential movement of the piping system piping in all horizontal directions. 3.11.34 Lateral Brace. A sway brace intended to resist differential movement perpendicular to the axis of the system pipe piping. 3.11.45 Longitudinal Brace. A sway brace intended to resist differential movement parallel to the axis of the system pipe piping. 3.11.56 Fpw. The horizontal force due to seismic load acting on a brace at working stress levels. 3.11.67 Cp. The seismic coefficient that combines ground motion and seismic response factors from ASCE 7-05. 3.1178 Ss. The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for 0.2 sec Spectral Response Acceleration (5% of Critical Damping), Sire Class B for a specific site. Substantiation: We should define hanger in the definitions section. Bracing denotes methodology and enhances clarity. AHJ’s often misconstrue four- way as a single assembly or product. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise proposal to 3.11.1 as follows: 3.11.1 Hanger. A device used as part of an An assembly intended to be attached to the system piping intended to provide gravitational support. 3.11.8 Correct to read Ss 3.1178 Ss. The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for 0.2 sec Spectral Response Acceleration (5% of Critical Damping). Site Class B for a specific site. Correct spelling the word Site in the last line replace Sire Accept the remainder of the changes. Committee Statement: Hangers are part of an assembly and may not be an assembly. The TCC should also have the HBS committee review this proposal and particularly 3.11.8 at the ROC period. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-52 Log #CP101 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(3.11.3 and A.3.11.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.11.3 Four-Way Brace. A sway brace or sway brace assembly intended to resist differential movement of the piping system in all horizontal directions. A.3.11.3 - A sway brace assembly could include a lateral and longitudinal brace

in combination.Substantiation: This definition needed to be modified in order to properly address four-way bracing that is comprised of separate lateral and longitudinal braces. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: KIRSCHNER, K.: The word COMBINATION is problematic. Therefore suggest A.3.11.3 A sway brace assembly could include adjacent lateral and longitudinal braces. ________________________________________________________________ 13-53 Log #129 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(3.11.6 Fv (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Page 13-24 Hanging and Bracing Definitions 3.11.6 Fv. The net vertical force is a reactive vertical seismic force acting on a vertical sway brace at working stress levels, that is generated due to the angularity of a lateral sway brace. RE-NUMBER SEQUENCE Substantiation: We should define net vertical force in the definitions section.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The TCC should have the HBS review this proposal at the ROC period. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-54 Log #239 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Chapter 4, General Requirements 4.3* Owner’s Engineer’s Certificate. The Engineer of Record owner(s) of a building or structure where the fire sprinkler system is going to be installed or their authorized agent shall provide the sprinkler system installer with the following information prior to the layout and detailing of the fire sprinkler system (see Figure A.22.1(b)): (1) Intended use of the building including the materials within the building and the maximum height of any storage (2) A preliminary plan of the building or structure along with the design concepts necessary to perform the layout and detail for the fire sprinkler system (3) Any special knowledge of the water supply, including known environmental conditions that might be responsible for corrosion, including microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) Substantiation: The design and calculation of fire protection systems is the practice of engineering. The owners and their designated representatives are not qualified to fulfill this charge unless they are a duly qualified licensed professional engineer. See joint Position Statement published by the SFPE, NSPE, and NICET. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Owner can assign an Engineer of Record or another designee. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: BROWN, P.: The determination of who may perform these tasks is established by the individual states, municipalities or even nations as the standard becomes more widely used abroad. The NFPA designation of Certified Fire Protection Specialist should most certainly qualify one as much as being named the Engineer of Record as it applies to proven special knowledge of systems design and application. ________________________________________________________________ 13-55 Log #122 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new 4.3(4) as follows: 4.3.(4) An analysis of any recycled or reclaimed water that is going to be used in the sprinkler system that shows that there will be no contaminants in the water that are combustible or that will have a detrimental effect on the sprinkler system performance or the life of the sprinkler system. Substantiation: NFPA 13 needs to deal with the concept of recycled or reclaimed water. In the interest of constructing “green” buildings, architects and engineers are looking at a number of different ways that water can be reused for a sprinkler system rather than putting potable water into the fire protection system. While we applaud those concepts of water conservation, we

13-20

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 have concerns that contaminants in the water may be flammable, or may cause problems for the sprinkler system by rendering parts inoperative or accelerating corrosion. It should be incumbent on the architect or engineer proposing such use of water to prove that whatever source they are using will not be detrimental to the fire sprinkler system. This proposal has been approved by the NFSA Engineering and Standards committee and is one of a series of proposals on this subject that are submitted to Chapter 23, the Annex to Chapter 22 (Owner’s Certificate) and section 4.3 (Owner’s Certificate). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleMove proposal to Annex of A.4.3 (3)and revise to read as follows: A.4.3 (3) Recycled or reclaimed water used in a sprinkler system should not have contaminants in the water that are combustible or that will have a detrimental effect on the sprinkler system performance or the life of the sprinkler system. Committee Statement: This is guidance for existing systems with 4.3(3). There are numerous issues to consider which requires judgments for non-prescriptive requirements. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-56 Log #CP400 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(4.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Add a new 4.5 as follows: 4.5 Air, nitrogen or other approved gas- Where air is used to charge, maintain or supervise sprinkler systems, nitrogen or other approved gas shall also be permitted to be used. Substantiation: Revision would eliminate the need to repeat adding reference to nitrogen in individual sections. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-57 Log #441 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.5 and A.4.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new section 4.5 with an annex note as follows: 4.5 Sprinkler system components shall not be used to support non-sprinkler system components unless expressly permitted by this standard.” A.4.5 Non-system components can adversely affect the operation and long-term health of the fire sprinkler system. Objects connected to the sprinkler system can pull portions of the sprinkler system out of place, can obstruct the spray of sprinklers, can delay the activation of a sprinkler, and can cause chemical compatibility problems that cause the failure of sprinkler system components. All nonmetallic pipe and fitting materials can be damaged by contact with chemicals found in some construction products such as thread sealants, leak detectors, firestops, insulation, spray foams, cutting oils, insecticides, antifreeze, coupling lubes, communication cables, antimicrobial coatings and so forth. The chemical compatibility of such products with the particular pipe or fitting material must be verified prior to use. Otherwise, contact between the construction product and the pipe or fitting must be avoided. Substantiation: Currently, the only prohibition against connecting non-system devices to the sprinkler system is in section 9.1.1.7, which only applies to the sprinkler hangers and implies that the only concern is the weight of the object. But there are other concerns about connecting other objects to the sprinkler system that need to be dealt with in a general section of NFPA 13. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAccept proposal 4.5 and editorially revise A.4.5 as Follows: 4.5 Sprinkler system components shall not be used to support non-sprinkler system components unless expressly permitted by this standard.” A.4.5 Non-system components can adversely affect the operation and long-term health longevity of the fire sprinkler system. Objects connected to the sprinkler system can pull portions of the displace sprinkler system piping causing obstruction to out of place, can obstruct the spray pattern of sprinklers, can delay the activation of a sprinkler, and can or cause chemical compatibility problems that may cause the failure of sprinkler system components.Committee Statement: Committee agrees and provides editorial clarificationNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-58 Log #242 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(5.6.1.2.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William B. Smith, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:5.6.1.2.5 Designation based on engineering analysis. The designation of an area, or portion thereof, is allowed to be based on a lower hazard class than that of the highest class of commodity when a limited quantity of the higher hazard commodity has been demonstrated by engineering analysis to be adequately protected by the automatic sprinkler system provided. The engineering analysis shall consider the ability of the sprinkler system to deliver the higher density required by the higher hazard commodity. The higher density shall be based on the actual storage height of the pile or rack and the minimum allowable design area for sprinkler operation as set forth in the density/area figures provided in this standard. The contiguous area occupied by the higher hazard commodity shall not exceed 120 ft2 (11 m2) and additional areas of higher hazard commodity shall be separated from other such areas by 25 ft (7620 mm) or more. The sprinkler system shall be capable of delivering the higher density over a minimum area of 900 ft2 (84 m2) for wet pipe systems and 1,200 ft2 (111 m2) for dry pipe systems. The shape of the design area shall be in accordance with the requirements of this standard. Total area of the higher hazard commodity shall not exceed 2500 ft2. Substantiation: This section is proposed and intended to mirror the International Fire Code (IFC). It is similar to the language used in Chapter 23 of the IFC, when mixed commodities are introduced into an area. This allows a greater amount of the higher hazard commodity to be introduced when the overhead sprinkler system can provide protection for both the higher classification as well as the lower classification. The dual density concept is also seen in Chapter 20 of NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 13 allows for equivalent methods of design in Chapter 1, See also Section 5.6.1.2.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-59 Log #434 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.6.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new 5.6.4.4 as follows: 5.6.4.4 Group A plastics shall be further subdivided as either expanded or non-expanded. If the commodity is more than 40% (by volume) expanded plastic, it shall be protected as an expanded plastic. Substantiation: The criteria in NFPA 13 depends on a determination of whether the commodity is expanded or not. Guidance is needed for the user to determine how to classify a product that is part expanded and part non-expanded. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add “Cartoned” before Group A plastics and add “cartoned” before expanded plastic Committee Statement: The mix of commodity only applies to Cartoned commodity. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-60 Log #243 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Chapter 6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank J. Herrick, City of Leawood Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Materials: Materials used shall be free of defects that would adversely affect the performance or maintenance of individual components or of the overall assembly. Ball bearings shall be manufactured from a Non-ferrous metal that will not corrode or cause corrosion to occur. Couplings having parts other than high-strength yellow brass No. 8A as defined in ASTM B 30, Standard Specification for Copper-Brass Alloys in Ingot Form, or ASTM B 584, Standard Specification for Copper Alloy Sand Castings for General Applications, shall be capable of being coupled and uncoupled using accepted standard practices and shall not show any evidence of galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals after testing in accordance with ASTM B 117, Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus, for a period of 120 hours.Substantiation: During fire prevention inspections I have found numerous Fire Department Connection (FDC) wherein the hose swivel connection has been manufactured with steel or iron ball bearing, being a ferrous metal and constantly exposed to the weather, this has caused the hose swivel to become rusted and filled with corrosion debris. This will interfere with the normal rotation of the hose connection, this will cause a needless delay in making the connection and supplying water in the event of a fire. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

13-21

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Does not belong in NFPA 13. Go to listing/manufacturer literature or NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, I must point out that the referenced supporting material was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. ________________________________________________________________ 13-61 Log #CP413 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Chapter 6, 9.3.5, 10.2.2, A.7.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Remove the word Special or Specially throughout the Standard when used with the term listing as follows: Chapter 6 System Components and Hardware6.1 General. This chapter shall provide requirements for correct use of sprinkler system components and hardware. 6.1.1* Listing.6.1.1.1 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be used in accordance with all conditions, requirements, and limitations of their special listing.6.1.1.1.1 All special listing requirements shall be included and identified in the product submittal literature and installation instructions. 6.1.1.2 Unless the requirements of 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.4, or 6.1.1.5 are met, all materials and devices essential to successful system operation shall be listed. 6.3.4 Specially Listed Steel Pipe. Pressure limitations and wall thickness for steel pipe specially listed in accordance with 6.3.6 shall be permitted to be in accordance with the pipe listing requirements. 6.3.8 Pipe and Tube Identification.6.3.8.1* All pipe, including specially listed pipe allowed by 6.3.6, shall be marked along its length by the manufacturer in such a way as to properly identify the type of pipe. Revise title in Table 6.3.6.1 as follows: Table 6.3.6.1 Specially Listed Pipe or Tube Materials and Dimensions Materials and Dimensions Standard Nonmetallic piping specification for special listed chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe ASTM F 442Table 6.4.3 Specially Listed Fittings Materials and Dimensions 9.3.5.3.2.1 Specially Listed nonstandard pipe shall be permitted using the values in Table 9.3.5.3.2(c) or with values provided by the manufacturer. 9.3.5.3.3 The maximum load (Fpw) in the zone of influence for specially listed pipe shall be calculated. (See Annex E.) (Underground)10.2.2 Special Listed Fittings. Other types of fittings investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service, including, but not limited to, polybutylene, CPVC, and steel differing from that provided in Table 10.2.1(a), shall be permitted when installed in accordance with their listing limitations, including installation instructions. [24:10.2.2] A.7.6.2 Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe and fittings should be protected from freezing with glycerine only. The use of diethylene, ethylene, or propylene glycols is specifically prohibited. Laboratory testing shows that glycol-based antifreeze solutions present a chemical environment detrimental to CPVC. The use of premixed antifreeze solutions is not required by this standard but can be required for certain specially listed equipment or systems. Thoroughly mixed antifreeze is less likely to drop out of solution. When antifreeze solutions are mixed on-site, the solution should be thoroughly mixed before being pumped into the piping. Prior to pumping solution that is mixed on-site into system piping, several samples should be tested from the batch to ensure that the concentration of the solution is uniform. Table A.9.3.5.2.2 identifies some specially listed tension only bracing systems. Substantiation: There is no difference in meaning between listing and special listing. The word special or specially does not add or change the meaning of any current requirement in the Standard. The Certification Laboratories determine compliance of devices with the Certification requirements and do not designate products that comply as special listed or specially listed when published in the certification list. Rather the published listing and/ or the installation instructions indicates the application parameters or limitations for the intended use. Removing this reference will clarify the requirements and eliminate the implication that there is some difference between listed and special listed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-62 Log #3 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.1)________________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 13-30 (Log #CC111) which was held from the Annual 2009 ROC on Proposal 13-51.Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.1 General. This chapter provides requirements for correct use of sprinkler system components. 6.1.1 Listing. 6.1.1.1 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be used in accordance with all conditions, requirements, and limitations of their special listing. All special listing requirements shall be included and identified in the product submittal literature and installation instructions. 6.1.1.2 Materials or devices shall be permitted to be special listed where the following conditions are satisfied: 6.1.1.2.1 Materials or devices have been determined by the organization granting the listing to be “or equal” in performance, durability and reliability to other materials or devices, comparable in use or application, that are specifically designated by this standard or that meet appropriate designated standards. 6.1.1.2.2 Materials or devices, without designated comparable other materials or devices, have been tested, evaluated and found suitable for a specific purpose and found compatible, if to be used in combination with existing listed materials or devices, by the organization granting the listing.Substantiation: Special listing is in place to permit access to the market place for new technologies and innovation on an interim basis preceding adoption of rule changes to the Standard in recognition of the advancement. Special listing should not be permitted to be used to circumvent the Standards role in establishing a “…reasonable degree of protection for life and property from fire through standardization of design, installation and testing requirements for sprinkler systems…”. It is imperative for the Standard to reestablish its consensus judgment by instituting a base line of performance and accountability for listing organizations in granting special listings. At a minimum that baseline should include an assessment that the special listing be “or equal” to comparable listing parameters in the existing standard and that the material or device be compatible if it is permitted to be used in combination with other preexisting listed components. Suitability is a responsibility of the organization granting the listing consistent with the Standard’s definition of “listed”. It is not appropriate, nor should it be allowed, to transfer this obligation to the user or installer through use of special limitations or requirements made a part of the instructions and incorporated in the listing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on Committee Proposal 13-254 (Log #401).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Abstention: MCPHEE, R.: Cannot vote on this item as the Committee Action references another proposal [13-254 (Log 401)], which offers no clear indication of the action on Item 13-62. Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, there is a typographical error in the Committee Statement. I believe that the referenced Committee Action should be Proposal 13-67, (Log #CP401) rather than Proposal 13-254 (Log #401). ________________________________________________________________ 13-63 Log #95 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ausmus S. Marburger, Fire Protection Industries, Inc.Recommendation: 6.1 General. This chapter shall provide requirements for correct use of sprinkler system components and hardware. 6.1.1 Listing. 6.1.1.1 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be used in accordance with all conditions, requirements, and limitations of their special listing. 6.1.1.2 Materials or devices shall not be special listed unless the requirements of Sections 6.1.1.2.1, 6.1.1.2.2 and 6.1.1.2.2.1 are met: 6.1.1.2.1 The materials or devices have been determined by the organization granting the listing to be “or equal” in performance, durability and reliability to other materials or devices, comparable in use or application, that are specifically designated by this standard. 6.1.1.2.2 The materials or devices have been evaluated and found compatible with existing listed materials or devices where the materials or devices are to be used in combination with or in contact with other listed materials or devices. 6.1.1.2.2.1 Exceptions to the compatibility requirement Section 6.1.1.2.2 are permitted and shall be boldly identified in the form of a specific warning and stated limitation on the specified use or application of the material or device. Such limitations shall be identifiable in all product literature. 6.1.1.3 All special listing requirements shall be included and identified in the product submittal literature and installation instructions. 6.1.1.4 Renumber existing Section 6.1.1.2 and subsequent requirements.

13-22

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: I. Special listings exist to permit access to the market place for new technologies and innovation on an interim basis preceding adoption of rule changes to this Standard and the creation of new product standards developed in recognition of the advancement. Special listing should not be permitted to be used to circumvent the Standards role in establishing a “...reasonable degree of protection for life and property from fire through standardization of design, installation and testing requirements for sprinkler systems...” It is imperative for the Standard to reestablish its consensus judgment by instituting a base line of performance and accountability for listing organizations in the granting of special listings. At a minimum that baseline should include an assessment that the special listing be “or equal” to comparable listing parameters in the existing standard and that the material or device be system compatible if it is permitted to be used in combination with other preexisting listed components. Suitability for use in a sprinkler system and in the construction environment is a responsibility of the manufacturer, producer requesting listing recognition. It is not appropriate, nor should it be allowed, to transfer this obligation to the user or installer through use of special listings. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-67 (Log #CP401).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-64 Log #46 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.1.1.1.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:6.1.1.1.2 All new listed, special listed and re-listed products shall be evaluated for chemical compatibility with other system components as part of the listing.Substantiation: Unfortunately there have been compatibility issues with various products including but not limited to steel pipe, CPVC pipe, joint compounds, cutting oils, fire stopping, etc. The manufacturer must attempt due diligence in determining if their product will perform in a sprinkler system without harming other components. There are not an infinite number of products that will interact with a sprinkler system. This should be an achievable goal. The contractor and insurance community cannot continue to bear the financial brunt of failures because a manufacturer did not vet their product to the fullest extent possible. The sprinkler community understands that this may add some cost to R&D but in the long run will do more to lower insurance rates and help bolster the tarnished image our industry currently faces due to the multiple failures CPVC has encountered. This is not a slam on CPVC as it has been an important part of what has helped grow our industry. However, without language such as this, it could be the next new product on the market that has compatibility issues. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-67 (Log #CP401).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-65 Log #216 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.1.1.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Valve components, parts, and gaskets shall only be manufactured by the manufacturer of that valve or the manufacturer’s OEM rep.Substantiation: Components not manufactured to OEM specifications could cause premature operation or non-operation of a system valve. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Section 6.1.2.1, already addresses submitter’s concern. There are also valve component companies supplying components for valve companies that are not longer in existence. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-66 Log #217 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.1.1.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Valve components (valve trim, internal parts, gaskets and the like) shall not be required to be individually listed. Substantiation: There appear to be many local AHJ’s that request information relating to Listed valve parts and trim components. Valve components and associated valve trim and integral parts of a Listed valve at the time the valve underwent testing and the valve will not function properly without these components. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Section 6.1.2.1, already addresses submitter’s concern. There are also valve component companies supplying components for valve companies that are not longer in existence.

Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-67 Log #CP401 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(6.1.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.1.1.3 Equipment, other than non metallic pipe and fittings, as permitted in table 6.3.1.1 and table 6.4.1 shall not be required to be listed.6.1.1.6 The new materials or devices listing instructions shall identify and specify the existing system components, including the fluids conveyed, with which the new listed materials, devices or components are compatible.6.1.1.6.1 This listing requirement shall also apply to chemical or material modifications made to components listed in Table 6.3.1.1 and Table 6.4.1. 6.3 Aboveground Pipe and Tube.6.3.1 General.6.3.1.1 Pipe or tube shall meet or exceed one of the standards in Table 6.3.1.1 or be in accordance with 6.3.6.

Table 6.3.1.1 Pipe or Tube Materials and Dimensions

Materials and Dimensions StandardFerrous Piping (Welded and Seamless) Specification for black and hot-dipped zinc-coated

(galvanized) welded and seamless steel pipe for fire protection use

ASTM A 795

Specification for welded and seamless steel pipe ANSI/ASTM A 53 Wrought steel pipe ANSI/ASME

B36.10M Specification for electric-resistance-welded steel pipe

ASTM A 135

Copper Tube (Drawn, Seamless) Specification for seamless copper tube ASTM B 75 Specification for seamless copper water tube ASTM B 88 Specification for general requirements for

wrought seamless copper and copper-alloy tube

ASTM B 251

Fluxes for soldering applications of copper and copper-alloy tube

ASTM B 813

Brazing filler metal (classification BCuP-3 or BCuP-4)

AWS A5.8

Solder metal, Section 1: Solder alloys containing less than 0.2% lead and having solidus tem-peratures greater than 400°F

ASTM B 32

Alloy materials ASTM B 446

CPVC Plastic Piping Nonmetallic piping specification for special listed

chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipeASTM F 442

6.3.1.2 Steel pipe shall be in accordance with 6.3.2, 6.3.3, or 6.3.4.6.3.1.3 Copper tube shall be in accordance with 6.3.5.6.3.1.4 Chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) shall be in accordance with 6.3.6 and with the portions of the ASTM standards specified in Table 6.3.6.1 that apply to fire protection service.6.3.2* Steel Pipe—Welded or Roll-Grooved. When steel pipe referenced in Table 6.3.1.1 is used and joined by welding as referenced in 6.5.2 or by roll-grooved pipe and fittings as referenced in 6.5.3, the minimum nominal wall thickness for pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar) shall be in accordance with Schedule 10 for pipe sizes up to 5 in. (125 mm), 0.134 in. (3.40 mm) for 6 in. (150 mm) pipe, 0.188 in. (4.78 mm) for 8 in. and 10 in. (200 mm and 250 mm) pipe, and 0.330 in. (8.38 mm) for 12 in. (300 mm) pipe.6.3.3 Steel Pipe — Threaded. When steel pipe referenced in Table 6.3.1.1 is joined by threaded fittings referenced in 6.5.1 or by fittings used with pipe having cut grooves, the minimum wall thickness shall be in accordance with Schedule 30 pipe [in sizes 8 in. (200mm)and larger] or Schedule 40 pipe [in sizes less than 8 in. (200 mm)] for pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar).6.3.4 Specially Listed Steel Pipe. Pressure limitations and wall thickness for steel pipe specially listed in accordance with 6.3.6 shall be permitted to be in accordance with the pipe listing requirements.6.3.5* Copper Tube. Copper tube as specified in the standards listed in Table

13-23

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 6.3.1.1 shall have a wall thickness of Type K, Type L, or Type M where used in sprinkler systems.6.3.6* CPVC Plastic Pipe. CPVC pipe in accordance with Table 6.3.1.1 shall be investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service. Listed CPVC shall be installed in accordance with it’s listing limi-tations, including installation instructions.6.3.6.1* When CPVC pipe is used in combination systems utilizing internally coated steel piping and CPVC piping, the steel pipe shall be investigated for compatibility with CPVC by a testing laboratory. Cutting oils and Lubricants used for fabrication of the steel piping shall be compatible with CPVC materi-als.6.3.6.2* When CPVC pipe is used in combination systems utilizing steel pipe that is not internally coated and CPVC piping, no additional evaluations are required. Cutting oils and Lubricants used for fabrication of the steel piping shall be compatible with CPVC materials.6.3.6.3 Fire stopping materials intended for use on CPVC piping penetrations shall be investigated for compatibility with CPVC materials.6.3.6.4 Other construction materials such as paint, electrical and communica-tion wiring, thread sealants, gasket lubriacant shall not come in contact with CPVC unless they have been evaluated as compatible with CPVC materials by a testing laboratory.6.3.6.5 CPVC listed for light hazard occupancies shall be permitted to be installed in ordinary hazard rooms of otherwise light hazard occupancies where the room does not exceed 400 ft2 (37 m2).6.3.6.6 CPVC shall not be listed for portions of an occupancy classification.6.3.6.7* Listed Pipe and Tubing.6.3.6.7.1 Other types of pipe or tube investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service, including but not limited to CPVC and steel, and differing from that provided in Table 6.3.1.1 or Table 6.3.6.1 shall be permitted where installed in accordance with their listing limi-tations, including installation instructions.Delete Table 6.3.6.16.3.6.7.2 Pipe or tube listed for light hazard occupancies shall be permitted to be installed in ordinary hazard rooms of otherwise light hazard occupancies where the room does not exceed 400 ft2 (37 m2).6.3.6.7.3 Pipe or tube shall not be listed for portions of an occupancy classifi-cation.6.3.6.7.4 Bending of listed pipe and tubing shall be permitted as allowed by the listing.6.3.7.8 Pipe and Tube Bending.6.3.7.8.1 Bending of Schedule 10 steel pipe, or any steel pipe of wall thickness equal to or greater than Schedule 10 and Types K and Lcopper tube, shall be permitted when bends are made with no kinks, ripples, distortions, or reduc-tions in diameter or any noticeable deviations from round.6.3.7.8.2 For Schedule 40 and copper tubing, the minimum radius of a bend shall be six pipe diameters for pipe sizes 2 in. (50mm)and smaller and five pipe diameters for pipe sizes 21⁄2 in. (65 mm) and larger.6.3.7.8.3 For all other steel pipe, the minimum radius of a bend shall be 12 pipe diameters for all sizes.6.3.8.9 Pipe and Tube Identification.6.3.8.9.1* All pipe, including specially listed pipe allowed by 6.3.6, shall be marked along its length by the manufacturer in such a way as to properly iden-tify the type of pipe.6.3.8.9.2 The marking shall be visible on every piece of pipe over 2 ft (610 mm) long.6.3.8.9.3 Pipe identification shall include the manufacturer’s name, model des-ignation, or schedule.6.4 Fittings. 6.4.1 Fittings used in sprinkler systems shall meet or exceed the standards in Table 6.4.1 or be in accordance with 6.4.2 or 6.4.3.

Table 6.4.1 Fittings Materials and Dimensions

Materials and Dimensions StandardCast Iron Cast iron threaded fittings, Class 125 and 250 ASME B16.4 Cast iron pipe flanges and flanged fittings ASME B16.1 Malleable Iron Malleable iron threaded fittings, Class 150 and 300 steel

ASME B16.3

Factory-made wrought steel buttweld fittings ASME B16.9 Buttwelding ends for pipe, valves, flanges, and fittings

ASME B16.25

Specification for piping fittings of wrought carbon steel and alloy steel for moderate and elevated temperatures

ASTM A 234

Steel pipe flanges and flanged fittings ASME B16.5 Forged steel fittings, socket welded and threaded copper

ASME B16.11

Wrought copper and copper alloy solder joint pressure fittings

ASME B16.22

Cast copper alloy solder joint pressure fit-tings

ASME B16.18

CPVC

Chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) specifi-cation for Schedule 80 CPVC threaded fittings

ASTM F 437

Specification for Schedule 40 CPVC socket-type fittings

ASTM F 438

Specification for Schedule 80 CPVC socket-type fittings

ASTM F 439

6.4.2 In addition to the standards in Table 6.4.1, CPVC fittings shall also be in accordance with 6.4.3 and with the portions of the ASTM standards specified in Table 6.4.3 that apply to fire protection service.6.4.2* CPVC Plastic Fittings. CPVC fittings in accordance with Table 6.3.1.1 shall be investigated for suitabilityin automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service. Listed CPVC shall be installed in accordance with it’s listing limitations, including installation instructions.6.4.2.1* When CPVC fittings are used in combination systems utilizing internally coated steel piping and CPVC fittings, the steel pipe shall be investigated for compatibility with CPVC by a testing laboratory. Cutting oils and Lubricants used for fabrication of the steel piping shall be compatible with CPVC materials.6. 4.2.2* When CPVC fittings are used in combination systems utilizing non internally coated steel piping and CPVC fittings, no additional evaluations are required. Cutting oils and Lubricants used for fabrication of the steel piping shall be compatible with CPVC materials.6. 4.2.3 Fire stopping materials intended for use on CPVC penetrations shall be investigated for compatibility with CPVC materials.6. 4.2.4 Other construction materials such as paint, electrical and communication wiring, thread sealants, gasket lubriacant shall not come in contact with CPVC unless they have been evaluated as compatible with CPVC materials by a testing laboratory.6.4.3* Other types of fittings investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service including, but not limited to, CPVC, and steel differing from that provided in Table 6.4.3, shall be permitted when installed in accordance with their listing limitations, including installation instructions.Add Appendix:A.6.3.6 CPVC is a plastic material and consideration is necessary when other materials or chemicals come in contact with CPVC that may cause degradation of perfomance of the pipe due to interaction of materials. Compliance with Section 6.3.6 combined with following manufacturer’s guidance on installation and compatible materials will help prevent premature performance degradation of CPVC piping. Excessive mechanical stress caused by hanging methods or excessive bending on CPVC piping beyond the recommended limitations can cause stress failure over time and should be avoided.A.6.3.6.1 When fabricating steel pipe for a combination (cpvc – steel) system, the cutting oil and lubricants can cause performance degradation of the cpvc piping. Cutting oils and lubricants found to be compatible are available and

13-24

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 should be used.A.6.3.6.4 Other construction materials include but are not limited to materials used in fabrication of the sprinkler system, additives to water supplies, cable and wiring and certain insecticides and fungicides. A.6.4.2.1 CPVC is a plastic material and consideration is necessary when other materials or chemicals come in contact with CPVC that may cause degradation of perfomance of the fitting due to interaction of materials. Compliance with Section 6.3.4 combined with following manufacturer’s guidance on installation and compatible materials will help prevent premature performance degradation of CPVC fittings. Excessive mechanical stress caused by hanging methods or excessive bending on CPVC piping beyond the recommended limitations can cause stress failure over time and should be avoided.A.6.4.2.2 When fabricating steel pipe for a combination (cpvc – steel) system, the cutting oil and lubricants can cause performance degradation of the cpvc fitting. Compatibe cutting oils and lubricants are available and should be used.A.6.4.3 Other construction materials include but are not limited to materials used in fabrication of the sprinkler system, additives to water supplies, cable and wiring and certain insecticides and fungicides.Substantiation: Compatibility of new and existing material needs to be identified and this section gives guidance to the laboratories and users. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: LAVERICK, G.: Revisions to the existing 6.1.1.3 completely change the meaning of this section to require only plastic piping to be listed. All other equipment will not require listing which we believe is not the intent of this revision. The new 6.1.1.6.1 requires modifications in chemical or materials to the equipment in tables 6.3.1.1 and 6.4.1 to be compatible and contained in the listing instructions. However, the equipment referenced in tables (except for plastic piping) is not required to be listed and therefore the information will not be required. Comment on Affirmative: MEEHAN, M.: This proposal only addresses the existing known problems and does not address the underlying issue of incompatible materials being manufactured and listed for installation. The building owners, the public and our industry deserve better. SCHWAB, P.: I believe this is a step in the right direction. However, the only way to ensure that all items are compatible is to require that all products used in sprinkler systems be listed. This includes components as well as items such as lube, thread sealants, antifreeze, etc. ________________________________________________________________ 13-68 Log #47 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.1.3.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:6.1.3.1 The pressure potential from a fire department connection shall not be considered in determining rated pressure per Section 6.1.3.Substantiation: The definition of system working pressure in Section 3.3.19 excludes the FDC pressure. This should be carried over to rated pressure as well. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: 6.1.3, addresses rated pressure. Not committee intent to include FDC in establishing rated pressure. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: SCHWAB, P.: The editor of the handbook needs to correct the commentary for this section as it conflicts with the committee’s action. ________________________________________________________________ 13-69 Log #392 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(6.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnellRecommendation: Add new 6.2.1.1, A.6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, A.6.2.1.2, 6.2.1.3 and A.6.2.1.3 as follows: 6.2.1.1* An existing sprinkler removed for internal pipe inspection as required by NFPA 25 shall be allowed to be reinstalled in the same outlet as long as the sprinkler has not been damaged by the removal or reinstallation process. 6.2.1.2* An existing sprinkler removed from a drop to drain or relocate the drop, shall be allowed to be reinstalled in the same drop as long as the sprinkler has not been damaged by the removal or reinstallation process. A.6.2.1.1 and A.6.2.1.2 There is a risk of damaging sprinklers when removing and reinstalling them. Sprinklers installed for a long period of time may be difficult to back out of the fitting and may become deformed during either the removal or reinstallation process. This deformation may result in the sprinkler leaking around the seat, or prematurely discharging. 6.2.1.3* Before an existing sprinkler is reinstalled as allowed by 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 it shall be examined to ensure there are no deposits or residue in the

sprinkler orifice that would affect sprinkler activation or waterflow through the orifice. A.6.2.1.3 Sprinklers installed in drops may have an accumulation of rust, sludge, or other deposits that could affect the release of the seat during actuation, or the discharge of water through the sprinkler. If these deposits can’t be rinsed out of the orifice with plain water, the sprinkler should be replaced.Substantiation: There is no allowance in NFPA 13 for the reinstallation of sprinkler removed for such activities as periodic maintenance or draining of drops or relocating drops. Sprinkler manufacturers have stated that as long as the sprinkler is not damaged in any way during the removal and reinstallation process the sprinkler should be allowed to be reinstalled. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: Sprinklers could be damaged during removing and reinstalling. DORNBOS, D.: I vote to reject the proposal. Compliance with the limitation “...as long as the sprinkler has not been damaged…” is unrealistic and not possible to assure. Installation of new out-of-the-box sprinklers provides assurance that the sprinklers being installed successfully passed integrity tests and inspection required by the listing agencies immediately prior to being packed for shipment. Re-installing sprinklers that have been removed, subjected to uncontrolled temporary storage and then re-installed does not provide that assurance and requires reliance on judgment of personnel not necessarily knowledgeable in recognizing latent damage that can result from uncontrolled handling and storage. Inspection for damage AFTER re-installation may be impossible. We should follow guidance provided in 6.2.1: “Only new sprinklers shall be installed.” KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and reject this proposal. In the latest edition of NFPA 25 their TC added text about cleaning sprinklers using compressed air or a vacuum, provided that the equipment does not touch the sprinkler. The concern here is that touching the sprinkler could damage it. With this Action however, a person would now be allowed physically remove the sprinkler from a fitting, handle it, store it, possibly rinse it off with water and then later reinstall it following a cursory inspection. Such an inspection would be unlikely to reveal any damage to the sprinkler (ie. deformation or scratches on a glass bulb, etc), so this process should not be allowed. Only new sprinklers should be used to replace ones that have been removed. ________________________________________________________________ 13-70 Log #459 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Only new sprinkler shall be installed. If a sprinkler is removed from its fitting for any reason, it shall be destroyed. A sprinkler shall not be reused for any reason. If a sprinkler and its fitting are removed as an assembly, the sprinkler may be reused as long as the operating element is protected from damage with an approved protective cap or strap.Substantiation: Manufacturers have been preaching to the industry for years that when a sprinkler is installed into its fitting, the stress on the body could weaken the seat or the operating element. Given the fairly low cost of sprinklers compared to the potential for large water damage if a sprinkler false operates, it is logical never to reuse of sprinkler. The manufacturer’s warranty on a sprinkler is voided if the sprinkler is removed and reinstalled. I have seen several projects where the sprinkler drops have been removed and saved for reuse. However, the drops were thrown in a box with the sprinklers unprotected and subject to damage. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee proposes to allow the limited reuse of sprinklers. See action on 13-69 (Log #392). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-71 Log #510 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Duane Johnson, Grove Resource SolutionsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Only new sprinklers shall be installed. The re-use of relocated sprinklers shall not be permitted.Substantiation: When sprinklers are removed from the system, they are subject todamage which can lead to false activation. Manufacturer’s have informed contractors over the years that they will not warranty a head that has been re-installed because of stresses that have been introduced to the frangible elements and seat. The cost of a typical sprinkler head is less than $10 vs. the potential damage that can ensue. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee proposes to allow the limited reuse of sprinklers. See action on 13-69 (Log #392).

13-25

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: DORNBOS, D.: The proposal should be accepted. Installation of new out-of-the-box sprinklers provides assurance that the sprinklers being installed successfully passed integrity tests and inspection required by the listing agencies immediately prior to being packed for shipment. Re-installing sprinklers that have been removed, subjected to uncontrolled temporary storage and then re-installed does not provide that assurance and requires reliance on judgment of personnel not necessarily knowledgeable in recognizing latent damage that can result from uncontrolled handling and storage. KEEPING, L.: I believe that this proposal should have been accepted, or perhaps Proposal 13-75, (Log #388) instead. Please see my negative comment on Proposal 13-69, (Log #392). ________________________________________________________________ 13-72 Log #307 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.2.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section “6.2.1.1* Sprinklers shall be permitted to be removed and relocated within a sprinkler system when modifications are being made to that system.” Add Section “6.2.1.2 Sprinklers that have been removed from an outlet shall be permitted to be reinstalled in that outlet.” Add Annex “A.6.2.1.1 Concerns have been raised that sprinklers could be mechanically damaged or subject to excessive temperatures while removed from the system. Sprinklers should only be reinstalled when they have not been subjected to these adverse conditions.”Substantiation: When a sprinkler system is being modified, sprinkler locations sometimes need to be changed. New sprinklers are not required when this occurs. The requirement that new sprinklers must be installed in systems is for new systems that are being installed or systems that are replacing sprinklers. The intent was that sprinklers that were previously being used in one place would not be taken out and reused or sold to be used somewhere else. Adding section 6.2.1.1 clarifies that if sprinklers are just being relocated within a system new sprinklers are not required. NFPA 25 requires the removal of sprinklers for a number of inspection, testing and maintenance procedures including the internal inspection of pipe (every 5 years) and for taking samples for antifreeze. When such sprinklers are removed, they should not be required to be replaced with new sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-69 (Log #392).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: Sprinklers could be damaged during removing and reinstalling. DORNBOS, D.: The proposal should be rejected. Installation of new out-of-the-box sprinklers provides assurance that the sprinklers being installed successfully passed integrity tests and inspection required by the listing agencies immediately prior to being packed for shipment. Re-installing sprinklers that have been removed, subjected to uncontrolled temporary storage and then re-installed does not provide that assurance and requires reliance on judgment of personnel not necessarily knowledgeable in recognizing latent damage that can result from uncontrolled handling and storage. We should follow guidance provided in 6.2.1: “Only new sprinklers shall be installed. KEEPING, L.: Please see my negative comment on Proposal 13-69, (Log #392). ________________________________________________________________ 13-73 Log #48 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.2.1.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:6.2.1.1 Sprinklers shall be allowed to be removed and re-installed when adding and relocating sprinklers in an existing system.Substantiation: In existing systems, not all the sprinklers are affected. If we are willing to keep the sprinklers that are not affected, we should be able to reuse the ones that are moved or relocated. If not then the committee should require that all sprinklers in a compartment or area are to be replaced when modifications occur. As a contractor, we have experienced AHJ’s that will not allow the sprinklers that are being relocated to be re-installed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Action on 13-69 (Log #392).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: Sprinklers could be damaged during removing and reinstalling. DORNBOS, D.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-72 (Log #307).

KEEPING, L.: Please see my negative comment on Proposal 13-69, (Log #392). ________________________________________________________________ 13-74 Log #248 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.2.1.1 General. Unless the requirement of 6.2.1.2 is met, Oonly new sprinklers shall be installed. 6.2.1.2 The requirement of 6.2.1.1 shall not apply where a sprinkler located on a sprig or drop is relocated or moved and was not removed from the fitting. Substantiation: This is to clarify tenant improvements. An existing sprinkler can be moved if the sprinkler is not removed from its fitting on a sprig or drop. The manufacturers do not recommend reusing a sprinkler if you have to first unscrew it from a fitting. After initially tightening the sprinkler, applying new torque to unscrew it is not recommended. So if you move the pipe without unscrewing the sprinkler, you don’t torque the sprinkler. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee proposes to allow the limited reuse of sprinklers. See action on 13-69 (Log #392). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-75 Log #388 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.1.1 and A.6.2.1.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 6.2.1.1 Sprinklers that are removed from service shall not be reinstalled. A.6.2.1.1 Sprinklers are often removed and relocated during remodels or tenant improvements. The potential for unknowingly damaging a sprinkler while removing and reinstalling is significant and may not reveal itself for an extended period of time. This requirement includes replacing the existing sprinklers when relocating drops and sprigs.Substantiation: The interpretation of 6.2.1 (Only new sprinklers shall be installed) is a very frequent question from contractors and AHJ’s. The standard does not provide specific guidance and such guidance is needed. Should the committee reject this proposal, then specific guidance should be developed for when it is acceptable to reinstall a sprinkler. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee proposes to allow the limited reuse of sprinklers. See action on See action on 13-69 (Log #392). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that this proposal should have been accepted, or perhaps Proposal 13-71 (Log #510) instead. Please see my negative comment on Proposal 13-69 (Log #392). Comment on Affirmative: BAHADORI, H.: Sprinklers could be damaged during removing and reinstalling. ________________________________________________________________ 13-76 Log #268 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 6.2.3.1 and 22.4.4.9.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add a new footnote 1 to Table 6.2.3.1 that applies to the entire Table.1 The nominal K-Factor for dry type sprinklers shall be based on the sprinkler portion of the listed assembly. See Section 22.4.4.9.3 for use of adjusted K-Factors for hydraulic calculation purposes. Revise Section 22.3.3.9.3 as follows: 22.4.4.9.3 Flow from a sprinkler shall be calculated using the nominal K-factor except that the manufacturers adjusted K-factors shall be utilized for dry type sprinklers. Substantiation: The nominal K-factor and K-factor range have been errantly applied to the adjusted K-factors provided for dry type sprinklers. For the purposes of Table 6.2.3.1 and the provisions of 12.6.1 the nominal K-factor should be based on the actual operating orifice of the installed sprinkler within the dry sprinkler assembly and not the adjusted K-factor. Adding a note to Table 6.2.3.1 clarifies that intent. For the purposes of hydraulic calculations, the adjusted K-factor should be applied as reported by the manufacture. Revising 22.4.4.9.3 clarifies this intent. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise to read as follows: Add a new footnote 1 to Table 6.2.3.1 that applies to the entire Table.1 The nominal K-Factor for dry type sprinklers are used for sprinkler selection. See Section 22.4.4.9.3 for use of adjusted dry type sprinkler K-Factors for hydraulic calculation purposes. Revise Section 22.3.3.9.3 as follows: 22.4.4.9.3 Flow from a sprinkler shall be calculated using the nominal

13-26

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 K-factor except that the manufacturers adjusted K-factors shall be utilized for dry type sprinklers. Committee Statement: The committee deleted the mandatory requirement from the foot note as it does not comply with the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-77 Log #181 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.3.5 and 6.2.3.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.2.3.5 CMSA and ESFR K-Factors. Control mode specific application (CMSA) and early suppression fast-response (ESFR) sprinklers shall have a minimum nominal K-factor of K-11.2 (160). 6.2.3.6 ESFR K-Factors. Early suppression fast-response (ESFR) sprinklers shall have a minimum nominal K-factor of K-14.0 (200).6.2.3.6 6.2.3.6.1 ESFR Orifice Size ESFR sprinkler orifice size K-factors shall be selected as appropriate for the hazard (see Chapter 12). Substantiation: ESFR sprinklers have not used a K-factor or 11.2 for a long time and all the ESFR Tables in Storage have a minimum K-factor of K-14.0. Orifice size is an outdated term. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: K11.2 is still listed.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: JOYCE, II, E.: I agree with the submitter as he is trying make clear that ESFR’s are K = 14 or greater and CMSA’s (the old large drop) have a K = 11.2 as mentioned in the annex of chapter # 3 for the def. of CMSA. ________________________________________________________________ 13-78 Log #506 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.2.6.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where sprinklers or cover plates on concealed sprinklers have had paint applied by other than the sprinkler manufacture, they shall be replaced with new listed sprinklers of the same characteristics, including orifice size K factor, thermal response, and water distribution. Substantiation: Currently no requirement in the standard prohibits cover plates from being field painting. The manufacture’s literature, the listing and most cover plates state that painting is not allowed, but they get painted often. This gives the industry something to point to stating that this prohibited. The term “K factor” has replaced the term “orifice size” several editions ago. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise to read as follows: Revise text to read as follows: 6.2.6.2.2 Where sprinklers have had paint applied by other than the sprinkler manufacturer, they shall be replaced with new listed sprinklers of the same characteristics, including orifice size K factor, thermal response, and water distribution. 6.2.6.2.3 Where cover plates on concealed sprinklers have been painted by other than the sprinkler manufacturer, the cover plate shall be replaced. Committee Statement: The committee separated the requirements of the sprinkler and cover plates to comply with the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-79 Log #507 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.6.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: All concealed sprinkler cover plates that are custom painted by the manufacture shall have a label applied by the manufacture to the undersized of the cover plate stating that it was painted by the manufacture. Substantiation: Concealed cover plates are frequently incorrectly field painted. When an owner has installed a manufacture applied custom painted cover plate, it is difficult to determine if the paint was applied by the manufacture or in the field. If a label is required, a cover plate could be removed to verify who painted the cover plate. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: “Do not paint” is already embossed on cover plate.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-80 Log #49 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.6.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Section 6.2.6.4.3.Substantiation: NFPA 13 is an installation standard. This text is more appropriate in NFPA 25. Recommend that the committee delete the section and submit to the 25 committee a proposal with a time frequency to inspect and/or replace the bags. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is an important piece of information to have in NFPA 13 and ensures performance of the sprinkler. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: SCHWAB, P.: This is an instruction that pertains to the system after it has been put in service. This provision is not appropriate in NFPA 13 and should be deleted. VICTOR, T.: I agree with the submitter that this is a maintenance requirement that should not be in NFPA 13. NFPA 25 addresses the replacement of covered sprinklers in 5.4.1.7.2 where it states “Coverings shall be replaced when deposits or residue accumulate.” ________________________________________________________________ 13-81 Log #457 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.2.7.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 6.2.7.4 The use of caulking or glue to seal the penetration or to affix the components of a recessed escutcheon shall not be permitted unless Listed by the manufacturer.Substantiation: By using a sealant on the escutcheon to seal the penetration, the escutcheon could be prevented from falling off, which could have indicated improper positioning of the sprinkler. This could allow for the sprinkler to be installed in a manner such that the spray pattern development could be obstructed or the thermal sensitivity of the sprinkler could be delayed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd text to read as follows: 6.2.7.4 The use of caulking or glue to seal the penetration or to affix the components of a recessed escutcheon shall not be permitted.Committee Statement: The sprinkler escutcheon must be in contact with the ring cup in order to maintain the listing. Proper attachment of the escutcheon to the sprinkler is listed with the sprinkler. Allowing caulking or glue to attach the escutcheon will violate the listing. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that, instead of just “recessed escutcheon” the text should say “recessed escutcheon or concealed sprinkler cover plate”, because cover plates have often been mistakenly caulked or glued as well. ________________________________________________________________ 13-82 Log #384 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.8 and A.6.2.8 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:6.2.8* Guards. Sprinklers subject to mechanical injury shall be protected with listed guards.A.6.2.8 Guards should also be considered in areas where an accidental sprinkler discharge due to a sprinkler breakage would be a concern for mission continuity such as information technology equipment rooms.Substantiation: Guards are typically installed in low height areas where they are susceptible to breakage. They are also installed in other areas where they could potentially be broken due to various activities within the area (e.g., forklifts, ladders, etc.). But guards should also be considered in areas that may not necessarily be subject to damage, but where an accidental sprinkler discharge could seriously hamper mission continuity such as server rooms where many operators are often paranoid of accidental water discharge. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Current language allows guards. Owner, architect and engineer should decide. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-27

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-82a Log #575 AUT-AAC Final Action: Accept(6.2.9)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: The TCC directs the TC’s to develop a joint task group to review the requirements for number of spare sprinkler heads required to be kept on site. Substantiation: The number of spare heads required varies from document to document. This activity should be coordinated with NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Accept[The TCC ballot results were 20 voting members; of whom 19 voted affirmatively and 1 ballot was not returned (R. Spaulding).]________________________________________________________________ 13-83 Log #31 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(6.2.9.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James Whitehead, Los Alamos National LaboratoryRecommendation: Revise text as follows:6.2.9.1* A supply of at least six spare sprinklers (never fewer than six) shall be maintained on the premises so that any sprinklers that have operated or been damaged in any way can be promptly replaced. Substantiation: The intent of this code section is understood to mean that the minimum number of spare sprinklers available shall be maintained to be no less than six regardless of how small the system is, but the use of the word “NEVER” is not appropriate. I agree that this language in most applications of this document are relatively unaffected by the chosen language as that work done to a sprinkler system is required to be done by a sprinkler contractor, and that contractor will be responsible for replacing the spare sprinkler used to make the repair. However, in the nuclear industry contractors may not be available due to security restrictions at which time trained maintenance crews may be called upon to make the repairs and the system may then be restored without replacing the spare sprinkler used to make the repair, thus creating a condition of non-compliance with NFPA 13. The term “NEVER” should be stricken from this section and additional explanatory language should be added to the Annex as necessary to provide clear intent for all industries that use this standard. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-84 Log #504 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.2.9.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A waterproof list of the sprinklers installed in the property shall be posted next to or in the sprinkler cabinet.Substantiation: More guidance is need on the type of list. Should it be engraved? Waterproof? Currently I have seen labels, notebook papers that are written with pencil, full signs that are engraved and laminated lists. A minimum needs to be set. If the committee would like another option, what about: An approved A list... The location in the cabinet is acceptable for most installation but a large project might require a larger list which could be mounted to the wall next to the sprinkler cabinet. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Existing requirement for a list is adequate.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: I agree with the submitter’s reason. The list of spare sprinklers needs to be on a list that will remain readable. ________________________________________________________________ 13-85 Log #79 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Table 6.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Specification for welded and seamless steel pipe Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless ANSI/ASTM A53Substantiation: This is the current title of ANSI/ASTM A53. The table needs to be revised. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-86 Log #447 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.3.1.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 6.3.1.1.1 as follows:

6.3.1.1.1 Acceptable types of underground pipes shall be permitted to extend into the building a short duration in order to make the transition to the aboveground pipe. Substantiation: AHJ’s are not permitting ductile iron or other types of approved underground pipe even 1 ft above the floor in a building because it is not an acceptable type of aboveground pipe. The standard should be clarified to specifically allow the underground to make a transition above the floor. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The term “short duration” is unenforceable language. It is the intent of the standard to allow underground pipe to extend above grade inside the building to transition to an above ground pipe. See Figure A.10.6.5 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: DORNBOS, D.: The proposal should be accepted. The annex figure referenced in the committee statement does not provide adequate clarification needed. LAKE, J.: If it the intent of the committee to permit underground piping to extend into the building then the standard should state it plainly, not rely on a Annex figure to allude to such an approval. If 1 foot is an acceptable replacement for “short duration” the committee should Accept in Principle and state that. SCHWAB, P.: The committee statement to reference Figure A.10.6.5 solves the issue for Ductile Iron Pipe only. The detail is very specific and only illustrates ductile iron pipe. However, the committee statement means one can extend C-900 piping above grade even though it is outside the listing of that pipe. ________________________________________________________________ 13-87 Log #82 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.3.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donato A. Pirro, Electro Sistemas De Panama, S.A.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.3.6.1 Other types of pipe or tube investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service, including but not limited to CPVC and steel, and differing from that provided in Table 6.3.1.1 or Table 6.3.6.1 shall be permitted where installed in accordance with their listing limitations, including installation instructions. Substantiation: The wrong table reference was introduced when chapters were renumbered for the 1999 edition of NFPA-13. Section 2-3.5 of NFPA-13-1996 edition which referenced to Table 2-3.1 (Pipe or Tube Materials and Dimensions) was renumbered as Section 3-3.5 in NFPA-13-1999 edition but wrongfully referencing the table for “Specially Listed Pipe or Tube Materials and Dimensions” which corresponds to Table 2-3.5 in 1996 edition of the standard renumbered as Table 3-3.5 in 1999 edition of NFPA-13. This error has inadvertently passed subsequent revisions of the Standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on 13-67 (Log #CP401).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-88 Log #210 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.3.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:6.3.6.2 Pipe or tube listed for light hazard occupancies, including CPVC, shall be permitted to be installed in ordinary hazard rooms of otherwise light hazard occupancies where the room does not exceed 400 ft 2 (37 m2). Substantiation: Clarification is needed to Section 6.3.6.2 that it also applies to CPVC piping and fittings. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: CPVC pipe is listed for light hazard and therefore permitted to be installed in ordinary hazard as permitted by this section. Adding this language to the standard is redundant. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-89 Log #498 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.3.6.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.3.6.4 6.3.7.3Substantiation: 6.3.6.4 concerns bending of listed pipe and t using and should be under Section 6.3.7 Pipe and Tube Bending and not under Section 6.3.6 Listed Pipe and Tubing. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Existing section speaks to listed pipe.Number Eligible to Vote: 30

13-28

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that this proposal should have been accepted. The proponent is correct, all of the rules for bending pipe and tube should be placed in the same section. ________________________________________________________________ 13-90 Log #80 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Table 6.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to Table 2.3.2 as follows: ASME B16-15 Cast Bronze Threaded Fittings Add new text to Table 6.4.1 as follows: Cast Bronze Threaded Fittings ASME B16-15Substantiation: Brass is an acceptable material per Section 6.9.3.3 and 6.9.3.4 for alarm devices. If it is good enough for alarm piping it should be acceptable for all system piping. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Technical justification provided by the submitter is inadequate. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-91 Log #84 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donato A. Pirro, Electro Sistemas De Panama, S.A.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.4.3* Other types of fittings investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service including, but not limited to, CPVC, and steel differing from that provided in Table 6.4.3 Table 6.4.1, shall be permitted when installed in accordance with their listing limitations, including installation instructions. Substantiation: The wrong table reference was introduced when chapters were renumbered for the 1999 edition of NFPA-13. Section 2-4.2 of NFPA-13-1996 edition which referenced to Table 2-4.1 (Fittings Materials and Dimensions) was renumbered as Section 3-2.2 in NFPA-13-1999 edition but wrongfully referencing the table for “Specially Listed Fittings Materials and Dimensions” which corresponds to Table 2-4.2 in 1996 edition of the standard renumbered as Table 3-5.2 in 1999 edition of NFPA-13. This error has inadvertently passed subsequent revisions of the Standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-67 (Log #CP401).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-92 Log #458 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.4.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Screwed unions shall not be used on pipe larger than 2 in 1-1/2 in.Substantiation: The industry has been slowing switching to grooved connections for 2 in. and larger. With this switch, grooving 2 in. pipe is become common. Screwed unions over 1-1/2 in. tend to leak and become a maintenance issue. A grooved connection is economical and will produce better end product. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No technical substantiation to limit application.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-93 Log #535 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 6.5.2.1.2 Install longitudinally-welded black steel pipe with the weld line rotated at least 45° in relationship to the floor (for reference, the weld line points at the floor at 0°). Substantiation: This will help reduce the potential for accelerated internal pipe corrosion. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The section was wrong. The proposed requirement is too onerous. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: I have my doubts about how onerous this would to implement; having said that perhaps this would be acceptable language for the

Annex as a minimum. BROWN, P.: This proposal recommends a best practice which is easily followed in any fabrication shop. At the very least, this should have considered as an A.I.P. and added this material to the annex section A.6.5.2. CAPUTO, R.: This proposal recommends a best practice which is easily followed in any fabrication shop. At the very least, the committee should have considered A.I.P. and added this valuable material for the annex section A.6.5.2. I believe this proposal should have been accepted. ________________________________________________________________ 13-94 Log #202 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ausmus S. Marburger, Fire Protection Industries, Inc.Recommendation: Strike existing 6.5.3.1, 6.5.3.2, and 6.5.3.3 and replace with the following: 6.5.3.1 Pipe, fittings, valves and devices to be joined with grooved couplings shall contain grooves, cut, rolled or cast, that are dimensionally compatible with the couplings. 6.5.3.1.1 Pipe, fittings, valves, devices and couplings that conform with or are listed in compliance with “standardized” groove specifications are compatible. 6.5.3.2 Grooved couplings, including gaskets used on dry pipe, preaction, and deluge systems, shall be listed for dry service. A.6.5.3.1 It is not the intent to require a listed combination of couplings, fittings, valves or devices. Material strength and pressure rating of the fitting, valve or device should be considered when determining the appropriate use of a coupling in joining these components. A.6.5.3.1.1 Standardized groove specifications pertain to the grooved couplings that comply with and the groove dimensions described in ANSI/UL 213, Standard for Rubber Gasketed Fittings for Fire-Protection Service. The “standard” dimensions specified in ANSI/UL 213 very closely reflect the dimensions of ISO 6182-Part 12.Substantiation: The intent of the existing language is unclear. The objective of the existing edition was to support standardization of factory component and pipe grooves with couplings. Cross listing or combination listing was rejected. An evaluation standard is in development to provide “standard” product development guidance. This proposal identifies that standard as appendix material and further provides guidance that material strength and pressure rating should also be considered in addition to dimensional compatibility. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleStrike existing 6.5.3.1, 6.5.3.2, and 6.5.3.3 and replace with the following: 6.5.3.1 Pipe, fittings, valves and devices to be joined with grooved couplings shall contain grooves, cut, rolled or cast, that are dimensionally compatible with the couplings. 6.5.3.1.1 Pipe, fittings, valves, devices and couplings that conform with or are listed in compliance with “standardized” groove specifications shall be considered compatible. 6.5.3.1.2 Other groove dimensions and grooving methods shall be acceptable in accordance with section 6.5.5.1. 6.5.3.2 Grooved couplings, including gaskets used on dry pipe, preaction, and deluge systems, shall be listed for dry service. A.6.5.3.1 It is not the intent to require a listed combination of couplings, fittings, valves or devices. Material strength and pressure rating of the fitting, valve or device should be considered when determining the appropriate use of a coupling in joining these components. A.6.5.3.1.1 Standardized groove specifications pertain to the grooved couplings that comply with and the groove dimensions described in ANSI/UL 213, Standard for Rubber Gasketed Fittings for Fire-Protection Service. The “standard” dimensions specified in ANSI/UL 213.Committee Statement: Additional information was added to provide for new technology. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: BROWN, P.: The word “include” should be substituted for the word “contained” in the proposed 6.5.3.1 (grammatical). CAPUTO, R.: The word “include” should be substituted for the word “contained” in the proposed 6.5.3.1 (grammatical). ________________________________________________________________ 13-95 Log #397 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.5.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Stempo, Victaulic CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.5.3.1* Pipe joined with mechanical grooved couplings shall be joined by of a listed combination of couplings, gaskets, and groove dimensions. The groove dimensions shall be in accordance with ANSI / AWWA C-606, Grooved and Shouldered Joints. Other groove dimensions and grooving methods that may be considered proprietary or new technology, shall be permitted when agency Listed / Approved, and installed / operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions / ratings. Substantiation: The term “grooved couplings” is technically incorrect. The pipe is actually grooved, and the coupling is assembled into two mating grooved pipe ends. The words “joined by” is redundant. ANSI / AWWA C-606,

13-29

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 standard for Grooved and Shouldered Joints, was first published in 1978, and has since been used as the guiding industry reference for roll grooving and cut grooving of pipe that is used in conjunction with mechanical bolted couplings. While harmonizing dimensional requirements may help to address consistency, these efforts should also allow for new technology and future product development as noted in Section 1.6, New Technology.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee feels that the AWWA C-606 does not cover all of the applications. See action on 13-94 (Log #202). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-96 Log #398 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.5.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Stempo, Victaulic CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.5.3.2* Grooved connections of fittings and valves, and grooves cut or rolled on pipe in accordance with ANSI / AWWA C-606, Grooved and Shouldered Joints, shall be dimensionally compatible with the couplings. Substantiation: ANSI / AWWA C-606, Grooved and Shouldered Joints, was first published in 1978, and has since been used as the guiding industry reference for roll grooving and cut grooving of pipe that is used in conjunction with mechanical bolted couplings. The added wording is intended to provide a well-established reference for standard roll and cut groove dimensions. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee feels that the AWWA C-606 does not cover all of the applications. See action on 13-94 (Log #202). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-97 Log #448 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Terri Trenholm, Meriden, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.8 Fire Department Connections6.8.1 Unless the requirements of Sections 6.8.1.1, 6.81.2, or 6.8.1.3 are met, the fire department connection(s) shall consist of two 2 1/2 in. (65 mm) connections using NH internal threaded swivel fitting(s) with “2.5-7.5 NH standard thread,” as specified in NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections. 6.8.1.1 Where local fire department connections do not conform to NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to designate the connection to be used to achieve suitability with local fire department fire hose connections provided such connections are listed for such use.6.8.1.2 The use of threadless couplings shall be permitted where required by the authority having jurisdiction and where listed for such use. Threadless couplings shall provide a dual-outlet fire department connection unless Section 6.8.1.3 is applicable.6.8.1.3 A single-outlet fire department connection shall be acceptable where piped to a 3 in., (80 mm) or smaller riser. 6.8.2 Fire department connections shall be equipped with approved plugs or caps, properly secured, and arranged for easy removal by fire department. 6.8.3 Fire department connections shall be of an approved type.Substantiation: Section 6.8 and its related subsections for fire department connections use the terms “approved” and “listed” in a manner inconsistent with their definitions, their associated commentary, and FAQ’s as provided in Chapter 3 of this Standard and its related Handbook. 3.2.3 Listed. “ Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose.” A.3.2.3 Listed. “Most components that are critical to system performance must be listed. Such components include but are not limited to pipe, alarm valves, hangers, and sprinklers. However, this criterion has some exceptions. Steel pipe, for example, that meets specific industry standards is not required to be listed, because it has a long-established track record of acceptable performance.” 3.2.1 Approved. “Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.”A.3.2.1 “Approved indicates acceptability to the authority of jurisdiction may be based upon; (1) compliance with NFPA or other Standards, (2) evidence of proper installation, procedure, or use, or (3) listings or labeling practices of an organization concerned with product evaluations”. FAQ following A.3.2.1 Approved; “Components that are required to be approved are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of system reliability. However, their impairment would not render the sprinkler system out of service. Components such as pressure gauges, drain valves, and signs fit into this category.”

The fire department connection is necessary and required to supplement the required automatic water supply should either; (1) more sprinkler heads operate under fire conditions that the number originally considered in the system design or (2) the automatic water supply is inadequate due to impairment, restriction, or other issues at the time of the fire. If it were necessary for the local fire department to supplement the automatic water supply for the sprinkler system then the fire department connection would be critical to system performance; therefore this system component shall be a component listed for use as a fire department connection. If the fire department connection is impaired when it is needed to supplement the sprinkler system then the automatic sprinkler system would be rendered inadequate and out of service; therefore this system component shall be a component listed for use as a fire department connection. The term “approved” is misused in Section 6.8.3 as this Section is intended to mean consistent with or suitable for use by the local fire department based upon their standard equipment for fire hose connections. This is substantiated by the commentary following Section 6.8.3 in the NFPA Automatic Sprinkler System Handbook 2010. This commentary states “all hose coupling threads in sprinkler systems and threads on yard mains supplying sprinkler systems should match those of the first responding fire department.” The term “approved” is used inappropriately based upon its definition and Section 6.8.3 becomes redundant based upon the revisions to Sections 6.8.1 and 6.8.1.1 above. Additionally, A.3.2.1 “Approved” indicates acceptability by the authority having jurisdiction may be based upon; (1) compliance with NFPA or other Standards, or (2) evidence of proper installation, procedure, or use, or (3) listings or labeling practices of an organization concerned with product evaluations”. This means that the component requiring the authority having jurisdiction’s “approval” shall be manufactured for the actual intended end use. This would require threadless couplings be manufactured to a specific standard with the intended end use as a fire department connection for an automatic sprinkler system. In order to achieve this, testing would be required to verify that a threadless coupling would be capable of remaining connected under pressurization by fire department apparatus to supplement the required automatic sprinkler system. The majority, if not all, of the threadless couplings currently available were designed and intended for use on the supply side of the fire department apparatus at the fire hydrant not on the attack side of the fire apparatus as fire department connections for automatic sprinkler systems. Some manufacturers list their threadless couplings for use on their own company’s fire hydrants only. Neither of these types of threadless couplings would be considered acceptable as fire department connections for automatic sprinkler systems under this Standard’s definition of “approved”. In regard to a component’s acceptability as approved or listed based upon a long-established track record of performance as in the example of steel pipe. What are the acceptable parameters for historical performance for a product used outside of its listing, manufacturing standard, or its intended end use? There are numerous reports of threadless coupling products failing each year. Is the change from listed to approved an industry consideration or bias to achieve cost savings? Is it acceptable to change a requirement from listed to approved where automatic sprinkler system operation is critical to the life safety of a building’s occupants and firefighter safety on the fireground is involved? Historical Fact: Threadless couplings were patented in the United States 1893 therefore they cannot be considered new technology. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Threadless fire department connections are not normally dual connections due to the larger sizes associated with NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections, and it’s always been a requirement that threaded connections be compatible with the local fire department requirements. There are no listed Storz connections. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-98 Log #32 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(6.8.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Terry A. Brouwer, Connecticut Department of Public SafetyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.8.1.2 The use of threadless couplings shall be permitted where required by the authority having jurisdiction and where listed for such use shall be compatible with the local fire department.Substantiation: Read verbatim, some AHJ’s have taken this paragraph to require that the “threadless” coupling itself be listed for use on a fire department connection serving a fire sprinkler system. When first added in A96 ROP 13-25, the technical committee understood the issue and was concerned with compatibility with the local fire department’s hose and couplings. Given their comments, perhaps the term “approved” should have been used rather than “listed” to address their concern. This proposal would rectify this issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Action on 13-99 (Log #192).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-30

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-99 Log #192 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(6.8.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.8.1.2 The use of threadless couplings shall be permitted where required by the authority having jurisdiction and where listed approved for such use.Substantiation: As stated in the 2010 edition Handbook, “drain piping and valves and signage are some obvious examples of components that do not affect system performance and, therefore, they are not required to be listed. What is not so obvious is that inspectors’ test valves and fire department connections, which are addressed in Section 6.8, also do not affect system performance and would also be included in the list of components that are not required to be listed.” This distinction affects the use of Storz Connections. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: LAVERICK, G.: Threadless connections have been used on listed hydrants and will likely be available on listed fire department connections. There is no substantiation provided that indicates that threadless connections are not essential parts of a sprinkler system that does not require listing. The AHJ should not be in the position to judge acceptability without third party verification and follow-up testing. NFPA 1963 includes design requirements and numerous tests to address safety concerns of the fire service personnel and to determine the connection functions as intended when required. Verification of the applicable threadless connection requirements and the fire department connection requirements when installed as part of a fire department connection assembly by listing the product, is critical to the safety of this device. ________________________________________________________________ 13-100 Log #23 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.8.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new 6.8.4 as follows: 6.8.4 Where multiple fire department connections or multiple buildings are in close proximity, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to require signage on the fire department connection or on the building to indicate the building supplied by the fire department connection. Substantiation: In dense urban or suburban areas, it can be very difficult to tell which fire department connection supplies which building. The standard does not currently allow the AHJ to require marking of an FDC by address, or other indicator, in order to assure that first arriving units supply the correct FDC. This change would not require every FDC to be marked but only those that the AHJ is of the opinion are confusing as to the proper application to a specific building. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Building and Fire Code allow for signage.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: This proposal makes perfect sense. Without signage how do the fire responders know which fire department connection to use. I am not aware of the current building codes requiring such signage. ________________________________________________________________ 13-101 Log #436 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.10)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 6.10 that summarizes all of the places that NFPA 13 requires signs to be placed on systems or system components. Substantiation: Scattered throughout NFPA 13 are a number of requirements for signs to be placed on different components. It would be extremely helpful to the user to have these requirements summarized in a single location. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No new requirements, no specific language provided.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-102 Log #83 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(6.16.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donato A. Pirro, Electro Sistemas De Panama, S.A.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.16.6 Sprinkler system piping shall not be installed embedded in concrete structures, concrete floor slabs or concrete block walls. Substantiation: The embedment of sprinkler pipe and fittings inside concrete

structures presents a major problem for visual inspection of these components for system acceptance. Also of great concern should be the fact that in case leakage occurred in a sprinkler system pipe or fitting embedded in concrete, repairs most probably will be delayed because these involve partially demolishing of concrete structures to have access to affected piping and fittings, exposing life and property to unreasonable lack of protection during prolonged fire sprinkler system shut downs. The lack of guidance and/or clarifications on this issue may result in fire protection sprinkler systems being installed without adequate arrangements to permit visual inspections of pipe and fittings, and creating impairments to sprinkler systems that may remain out of service for unreasonable amounts of time due to difficulties and expenses related with repairing not readily accessible piping and fittings. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: While this practice is not recommended it is not the committee’s intent to prohibit. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-103 Log #550 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.1.1, 7.2.1, 7.3.1.3, and 8.17.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: Revise 7.1.1, 7.2.1, 7.3.1.3 and 8.17.3.3 to change the requirement for a pressure gauge from “listed” to “approved”. 7.1.1 A listed An approved pressure gauge conforming to 8.17.3 shall be installed...”. 7.2.1 Pressure Gauges. Listed Approved pressure gauges conforming to 8.17.3 shall be connected...”. 7.3.1.3 Pressure Gauges. Listed Approved pressure gauges conforming to 8.17.3 shall be installed...”. 8.17.3.3 The required pressure gauges shall be listed approved and shall have a maximum limit not more than twice...”. Substantiation: While the installation of a listed gauge would be preferable, it is not always possible or practical. Today sprinklers are designed for pressures up to 300 psi, so system gauges, gauges upstream of pressure reducing valves, etc. must have a range of 600 psi or more to meet the 2 times requirement. However, all of the listed water pressure gauges currently available only have ranges of 250 psi or 300 psi, so listed gauges for many applications cannot be obtained. Further with preaction systems or low pressure dry systems the range of the listed air gauges is often too great for the desired application. For example it is inappropriate to use a listed air gauge with an 80 psi range for a preaction system that only uses 10 psi supervisory air. Good practice calls for a range no more than 4 times the working pressure. Therefore, so that the appropriate gauges can be provided, the requirements for listed gauges should be revised to call for approved ones. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Gauges are a critical part of the sprinkler system and they should be listed. Listed high pressure gauges are available. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the Committee should reconsider and accept this proposal. While I stand corrected on the availability of some listed gauges for higher pressures, I now contend that the number of manufacturers and the ranges that they offer are very limited. Further I dispute the part of the Committee Statement that says gauges are a critical part of a sprinkler system. As per 6.1.1.5, components that do not affect system performance do not require a listing and a failure of a gauge will not affect the system performance, anymore than a drain valve would. If the pressure gauges on NFPA 20 fire pump installations or the air compressors for dry pipe systems aren’t required to be listed, I see no reason why any gauge would need to be. All that might be required is some minimum specifications regarding size, range, etc such as in 4.10 of NFPA 20. ________________________________________________________________ 13-104 Log #50 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.1.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:7.1.2.3 A relief valve per Section 7.1.2.1 shall be required downstream of check valves required by Section 8.17.5.2.2(1).Substantiation: This section adds clarity that the relief valve is required for each floor after the floor control check valve. When a fire pump is provided, transient pressure spikes can be caught on the downstream side of these check valves. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-31

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-105 Log #473 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.1(1))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: On the water side and air or nitrogen side of the dry pipe valve.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-106 Log #474 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.1(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: In each independent pipe from air or nitrogen supply to dry pipe system.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-107 Log #495 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.2.1(5))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: At accelerators Quick opening devices.Substantiation: The term “accelerator” is not used in the standard. The term “quick opening device” is used throughout the standard. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-108 Log #182 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.2, 7.2.2.1, and 7.2.3.6.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.2.2 Sprinklers. The Spray sprinklers in the following types of sprinklers and arrangements shall be permitted for dry pipe systems:...”.7.2.2.1 CMSA sprinklers shall be permitted for dry pipe systems when allowed by chapter 12 through chapter 19. 7.2.3.6.1.1 Dry systems using CMSA sprinklers shall be permitted to apply Table 7.2.3.6.1 except when shorter delivery times are required (see Table 16.3.2.1) Substantiation: 7.2.2 indicates the types of sprinklers are identified but only orientation is provided. Clarification on CMSA is warranted. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The standard currently permits this application of CMSA sprinklers. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-109 Log #393 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.2.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnellRecommendation: Revise current 7.2.3.1.1 as follows:7.2.3.1.1 Dry pipe systems protecting dwelling unit portions of any occupancy shall not be permitted to use the options outlined in 7.2.3.2, 7.2.3.3 or 7.2.3.4.Substantiation: The option for sizing dry pipe systems as allowed in 7.2.3.2 should not apply to dwelling units and should therefore be included in in the statement in 7.2.3.1.1. Water delivery for dry pipe systems protecting dwelling units is required to be 15 seconds as stated in 7.2.3.6.3. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-110 Log #308 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.3.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add new section as follows: Section 7.2.3.1.2 Dry pipe systems protecting dwelling unit portions of any occupancy shall have a maximum water delivery time of 15 seconds to the single most remote sprinkler in the dwelling unit. Remove Section 7.2.3.6.3. Substantiation: It is our understanding that the intent of the committee was to force the use of the 15 second rule in all dwelling units, but the committee put it under the computer calculation method of 7.2.3.3.6, which is technically only an option. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is already covered in section 7.2.3.6.3.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that this proposal should have been accepted. The proponent is correct, the 15 seconds requirement for a dry system that protects dwelling units is sandwiched between the text about water delivery calculation programs and 7.2.3.7, about water delivery time via test manifolds. It would be much better to have the 15 seconds requirement in a new 7.2.3.1.2, as a companion to the dwelling unit requirement of 7.2.3.1.1. ________________________________________________________________ 13-111 Log #475 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: System size shall be such that initial water is discharged from the system test connection in not more than 60 seconds, starting at the normal air or nitrogen pressure on the system and at the time of fully opened inspection test connection. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-112 Log #476 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.3.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: System size shall be such that initial water discharge from the system trip test connection or manifold outlets is not more than the maximum time of water delivery specified in Table 7.2.3.6.1, starting at normal air or nitrogen pressure on the system and at the time of fully opened test connection. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-113 Log #551 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.2.3.9.1 and 7.2.3.9.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: Add a new 7.2.3.9.1 and a new 7.2.3.9.2 as follows: 7.2.3.9.1 When check valves are used to subdivide dry pipe systems in accordance with 7.2.3.9, a hole 1/8 in. (3 mm) in diameter shall be drilled in the clapper of each check valve to permit equalization of air pressure among the various parts of the system. 7.2.3.9.2 An approved indicating drain valve, connected to a bypass around each check valve, shall be provided as a means for draining the system.Substantiation: During the previous revision cycle, Comment 13-53 was accepted to again allow check valves in a heated enclosure to subdivide a dry pipe system. However, no further direction was provided to describe the configuration that is necessary to insure that the system will function and can be maintained properly. The proposed text, which was borrowed from the 1985 edition of NFPA 13, is offered here, to provide the needed direction. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2

13-32

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: DORNBOS, D.: I vote to reject the proposal. Drilling a hole through the clapper of a check valve may negate the listing of the check valve. Such a field modification is not visible from outside the valve and may result in unintended consequences if the valve is installed elsewhere. An alternative method to communicate downstream pressure to the upstream side of the clapper is to use bypass trim with a union fitted with an appropriate orifice plate. SCHWAB, P.: The requirement for a bypass drain around the check valve is too restrictive. A drain on the downstream side of the check valve is adequate. ________________________________________________________________ 13-114 Log #218 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.2.4.4 Where a valve is installed in the connection between a dry pipe sprinkler riser and a quick-opening device it shall be an indication-type valve that is sealed, locked, or electronically supervised in the open position.Substantiation: Given the finicky nature of quick opening devices, and the probability that the indicating valve will be left in the shut position when the QOD is problematic when trying to reset the device, electronic supervision will continue to show a trouble condition at the alarm panel that would need to be corrected to clear the panel. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 13 has historically accepted sealed/locked with administrative controls. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-115 Log #219 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.4.8.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 7.2.4.8.2 A listed antiflooding device shall not be required where the quick opening device has built-in antiflooding features, or does not utilize restriction devices to initialize the operation of the quick opening device.Substantiation: As in the case of an electronic accelerator, the means of detecting air decay is distinctively different than detecting a pressure loss differential. There is no communication of system water through a restriction device where moisture could cause false operations or non operation of the QOD, and consequently is not a concern with the electronic device. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is not possible to determine if the device has an internal restriction. Lack of an internal restriction indicates that there is a built in anti-flooding system. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: VICTOR, T.: I agree with the submitter. He is clarifying that there is a quick opening device that does not require an external anti-flooding device, nor does it utilize an internal anti-flooding device. Without this clarification, the AHJ may require the installation of an external anti-flooding device that is unnecessary. ________________________________________________________________ 13-116 Log #309 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Section 7.2.5.3 Supply. The supply for the sprinkler in the dry pipe valve enclosure shall be either from the dry side of the system or from a wet pipe sprinkler system also serving the building.Substantiation: If there is another system in the building that can supply water to the conditioned area it would be beneficial as it would not release the dry pipe valve and cause the unconditioned area to be filled with water. For a building with both a wet pipe and dry pipe sprinkler system that has the alarm valve and dry pipe valve in the same room, the room should not be required to be protected from the dry-pipe system. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: Section 7.2.5.3 Supply. The supply for the sprinkler in the dry pipe valve enclosure shall be either from the dry side of the system or from a wet pipe sprinkler system that protects the area where the dry pipe valve is located.Committee Statement: The revised wording clarifies where the supply for the sprinkler is to be obtained. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-117 Log #508 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Delete the following text: 7.2.5.3 Supply. The supply for the sprinkler in the dry pipe valve enclosure shall be from the dry side of the systems.Substantiation: Why is this a requirement? Many times the dry pipe valve can be an enclosure or room on another floor. The sprinkler for that enclosure or room should come off the sprinkler zone that is serving that area. This will ensure that when the sprinkler operates, the correct zone will be annunciated by the fire alarm system. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-116 (Log #309).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-118 Log #220 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.5.4.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.2.5.4.2 Low High Differential Dry Pipe Valve. Protection against accumulation of water above the clapper shall be provided for low high differential dry pipe valves in accordance with Section 7.2.5.4.3. Substantiation: The term Low should be replaced with High. The term has been used incorrectly. High differential would account for low air pressure requirements for a dry pipe valve, as in the case for some manufacturers dry valves. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal has value but there are no definitions on what a low or high differential dry pipe valve is. The submitter is encouraged to submit a comment to clarify what should be changed for the different types. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-119 Log #238 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.2.6 Air or Nitrogen Gas Pressure and Supply. 7.2.6.1 Maintenance of Air or Nitrogen Gas Pressure. 7.2.6.1.1 Air or Nitrogen gas pressure shall be maintained on dry pipe systems throughout the year. 7.2.6.1.2 Nitrogen gas shall achieve a concentration of 98% or more within 2-weeks of commissioning the system. 7.2.6.1.3 A gas analyzer shall be used to verify nitrogen gas concentration.7.2.6.2* Air or Nitrogen Gas Supply. 7.2.6.2.1 The compressed air or nitrogen gas supply shall be from a source available at all times. 7.2.6.2.2 The compressed air or nitrogen gas supply shall have a capacity capable of restoring normal air pressure in the system within 30 minutes. 7.2.6.2.3 The requirements of 7.2.6.2.2 shall not apply in refrigerated spaces maintained below 5*F (-15*C), where normal system air pressure shall be permitted to be restored within 60 minutes. 7.2.6.3 Air or Nitrogen Gas Supply Connections. 7.2.6.3.1 Connection pipe from the air or nitrogen gas supply to the dry pipe valve shall not be less than ½ in. (15 mm) in diameter and shall enter the system above the priming water level of the dry pipe valve. 7.2.6.3.2 A check valve shall be installed in the air or nitrogen gas filling connection and a listed or approved shutoff valve of either the renewable disc or ball valve type shall be installed on the supply side of this check valve and shall remain closed unless filling the system. 7.2.6.4 Relief Valve. An approved relief valve shall be provided between the air or nitrogen gas supply and the shutoff valve and shall be set to relieve pressure no less than 10 psi (0.7 bar) in excess of system air pressure provided in 7.2.6.6.1 and shall not exceed the manufacturer’s limitations. 7.2.6.5 Automatic Air or Nitrogen Gas Maintenance. 7.2.6.5.1* Unless the requirements of 7.2.6.5.2 are met, where the air or nitrogen gas supply to a dry pipe system is maintained automatically, the air or nitrogen gas supply shall be from a dependable plant system or an air compressor or nitrogen generator with an air or nitrogen gas receiver, and shall utilize an air or nitrogen gas maintenance device specifically listed for such service and capable of controlling the required air pressure on, and maximum airflow or nitrogen gas flow to, the dry pipe system. A.7.2.6.5.1 Air or nitrogen gas maintenance devices are unique components within the air or nitrogen gas supply and need to be listed for use. Compressors or nitrogen gas generators are not air or nitrogen gas maintenance devices and this section does not require air compressors or nitrogen gas generators to be listed.

13-33

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 7.2.6.5.2 Where the air compressor or nitrogen gas source supplying the dry pipe system has a capacity less than 5.5 ft3/min (156 L/min) at 10 psi (0.7 bar), an air or nitrogen gas receiver or air gas maintenance device shall not be required. 7.2.6.5.3 The automatic air or nitrogen gas supply to more than one dry pipe system shall be connected to enable individual maintenance of air pressure in each system. 7.2.6.5.4 A check valve or other positive backflow prevention device shall be installed in the air or nitrogen gas supply to each system to prevent airflow, nitrogen gas flow or waterflow form one system to another. 7.2.6.6 System Air or Nitrogen Gas Pressure. 7.2.6.6.1 The system air or nitrogen gas pressure shall be maintained in accordance with the instruction sheet furnished with the dry pipe valve, or shall be 20 psi (1.4 bar) in excess of the calculated trip pressure of the dry pipe valve, based on the highest normal water pressure of the system supply. 7.2.6.6.2 The permitted rate of air or nitrogen gas leakage shall be as specified in 24.2.2. 7.2.6.7 Nitrogen. Where used, nitrogen shall be introduced through a pressure regulator and shall be in accordance with 7.2.6.5 Substantiation: Corrosion will adversely affect every dry pipe including preaction system constructed. Left unchecked, corrosion can cause through-the-wall failures in as little as a few to several months. Galvanized pipe does not offer the corrosion resistance in the persistently moist environments found in virtually every dry pipe system. Research indicates that galvanized pipe does not perform any better than black steel and arguably may not perform as well. The corrosion products produced over this same length of time will degrade the system’s ability to perform as intended or, worse yet, clog when called to action. Owners and curators have grown weary about the use of these types of systems in mission critical facilities, data centers, museums, art galleries, historic buildings, etc., because of previous experiences of leaks and failures. The proposed changes to 7.2.6 will increase the awareness that nitrogen gas is a good option to pressurize these types of systems and adds performance criteria regarding the necessary concentration of nitrogen gas to effectively control corrosion. Today the technology is available to do something about the corrosion problem in dry pipe systems. Nitrogen gas offers an affordable long term solution. Let’s give it more notoriety in the Standard. I have included the following White Papers on this topic and believe the audience will find them to be very informative. They are: ● Mission Critical Facilities – Is the Use of Galvanized Pipe an Effective Corrosion Control Strategy in Double Interlock Preaction Fire Protection System? ● Corrosion in Fire Protection Systems Protecting Cultural Resources ● Using Galvanized Steel Piping in Dry and Preaction Fire Protection Systems ● Using Nitrogen Gas in Dry and Preaction Fire Sprinkler SystemsCommittee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400) and 13-41 (Log #402). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, I must point out that the referenced supporting material was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. Also, there is a typographical error in the Committee Statement. I believe that the second referenced Committee Action should be Proposal 13-121 (Log #CP402) rather than Proposal 13-41 (Log #402). ________________________________________________________________ 13-120 Log #477 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.2.6 Air or Nitrogen Pressure.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-121 Log #CP402 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.2.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: 7.2.6 Air Pressure and Supply Add the following and renumber existing 7.2.6.1 7.2.6.1 Where the term air is used throughout this standard, it shall also

include the use of nitrogen or other approved gas. 7.2.6.2 Maintenance of Air Pressure. Air or nitrogen or other approved gas pressure shall be maintained on dry pipe systems throughout the year. Revise section 7.2.6.7 as follows: 7.2.6.7 Nitrogen or other approved gas 7.2.6.7.1* Where nitrogen or other approved gas is used, the supply shall be from a reliable source. 7.2.6.7.2 Where stored nitrogen or other approved gas is used, the gas shall be introduced through a pressure regulator and shall be in accordance with 7.2.6.5. *Annex material for 7.2.6.7.1 The nitrogen or other approved gas can be either generated on site or from storage containers, sized to provide a reliable supply for at least six months of expected maintenance use. 7.2.6.7.3 A low pressure alarm shall be provided on gas storage containers to notify the need for refilling. Substantiation: This change addresses the use of nitrogen or other approved gas in addition to air in a dry pipe system. It also makes nitrogen or other approved gas, a reliable source, the same as air. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I generally agree with this new text, I am uncomfortable with the term “or other approved gas” and recommend that it be deleted. What gases other than air or nitrogen are foreseen for use in dry-pipe or preaction systems - helium or argon or neon? Why??? What benefit would those rare and expensive gases serve in a sprinkler system? ________________________________________________________________ 13-122 Log #478 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.2.6.1 Maintenance of Air or Nitrogen Pressure.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-123 Log #561 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.6.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The air or nitrogen supply shall have a capacity capable of restoring normal air or nitrogen pressure in the system within 30 minutes. A Nitrogen Generator would not need to fulfill this requirement as long as the air compressor supplying the Nitrogen Generator with feed air is able to fill to pressure within 30 minutes. There shall also be an air compressor bypass installed around the Nitrogen Generator so that the 30 minute compressed air fill can be achieved. Substantiation: Nitrogen Generators require a feed air source (i.e. compressed air in) however there is roughly a 3 parts “air in” in to 1 part out “Nitrogen out” ratio. If the Nitrogen Generator needs to be upsized to fulfill a 30 minute supervisory pressure fill, the Nitrogen Generator and the air compressor would need to be significantly upsized (i.e. adding significant cost). Also, as long as a purging device is installed within the zone, compressed air will be displaced within a matter of weeks when the Nitrogen Generator is maintaining supervisory pressure (i.e. after the initial fill). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The standard already allows what is being proposed.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-124 Log #479 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Relief Valve. An approved relief valve shall be provided between the air or nitrogen supply and the shutoff valve and shall be set to relieve pressure no less than 10 psi in excess of the system air or nitrogen pressure...”.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this

13-34

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-125 Log #480 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Automatic Air or Nitrogen Maintenance.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-126 Log #483 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Automatic Air or Nitrogen Maintenance.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-127 Log #564 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.6.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Supervisory gas must be produced on site at the buildings location by either an air compressor or Nitrogen Generator. Substantiation: By specifying that supervisory gas must be produced onsite, the chances of running out of supplied supervisory gas are significantly reduced. This also eliminates the liability involved in handling high pressure stored gas (i.e. high pressure cylinders) and the likelihood that the fire protection system be exposed to 2400psi, high pressure gas (i.e. should regulators fail). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent is allow the use of cylinders filled with nitrogen off site. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-128 Log #481 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Unless the requirements of Section 7.2.6.5.2 are met, where the air or nitrogen supply to a dry pipe system is maintained automatically, the air or nitrogen supply shall be from a dependable plant system or an air compressor with an air receiver, and shall utilize an air maintenance device specifically listed for such service and capable of controlling the required air or nitrogen pressure on, and maximum airflow to, the dry pipe system.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-129 Log #435 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.6.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete “or air maintenance device” from the third line.Substantiation: An air maintenance device serves three primary functions: it provides a bypass line for the quick filling of air into a system to meet the 30 minute fill time; it regulates the air pressure in the system to the required pressure; and most importantly; it restricts the maximum airflow to the system which enables the dry valve to operate on the loss of air from one or more open sprinklers. Without this restriction, normally ¼”, there could be enough air passing through a ½” or ¾” supply line that the valve may not operate on the loss of pressure from one or more open sprinklers. The size of the air compressor is not relevant to the primary functions of an air maintenance device. I believe this section was written to not require tanks on small air compressors and the AMD was included through error. In our experience, if all air compressors, regardless of size, used a tank/receiver, the industry could eliminate most of the problems related to air supplies for dry and preaction systems. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The option to provide an air maintenance device is necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: Based on the NFPA 13 - 2002 and 2007 edition ROP and ROC actions on this matter, I agree with the Committee Action to reject this proposal, however I do not believe that the Committee Statement properly addresses the proponents concern, as per the substantiation that was presented. ________________________________________________________________ 13-130 Log #482 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The automatic air or nitrogen supply to more than one dry pipe system shall be connected to enable individual maintenance or air or nitrogen pressure in each system. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56(Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-131 Log #484 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A check valve or other positive backflow prevention device shall be installed in the air or nitrogen supply to each system to prevent airflow, nitrogen or waterflow from one system to another. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-132 Log #485 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: System Air or Nitrogen Pressure.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-35

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-133 Log #486 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The system air or nitrogen pressure shall be maintained in accordance with the instruction sheet furnished with the dry pipe valve, or shall be 20 psi (1.4 bar) in excess of the calculated trip pressure of the dry pipe valve, based on the highest normal water pressure of the system supply. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-134 Log #487 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.2.6.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The permitted rate of air or nitrogen leakage shall be as specified in Section 24.2.2. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-135 Log #566 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.2.6.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where Nitrogen is being utilized as a supervisory gas, a purging device with an engineered calibrated orifice shall be utilized at the end of each zone. A ball valve shall be provided with each of these devices and shut in the “off” position during hydro or static testing. Substantiation: This device allows for Nitrogen movement throughout the entire fire protection system. This assists in maintaining high, corrosion inhibiting Nitrogen purity throughout the Fire Protection System and because of the dry properties of Nitrogen; the device will also assist in evacuating evaporated water/moisture from within the piping. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This requirement is cumbersome not needed to ensure reliability. Replacement of the air with nitrogen is not needed for supervision. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-136 Log #488 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.1.3(2))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: On air or nitrogen supply to preaction and deluge valves.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-137 Log #96 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.3.1.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Wilton Marburger, Myers Risk ServicesRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Upon completion of system installation, the air pressure gauge should be physically marked at the desired air pressure reading.Substantiation: Problem: There exists no simple, non-technical, and cost effective maintenance protocol for building owners/occupants to determine if their Dry Sprinkler System is tripped and full of water, making system prone to breaking and ultimately failing in freezing temperatures. Although NFPA 25

describes the owners responsibilities concerning maintenance to fire sprinkler systems, dry system freeze ups do occur from tripped systems and often cost the innocent parties a lot of money in insurance claims, garner negative will towards fire sprinklers and create havoc in the lives of building owners and occupants. Proposal: Upon completion of dry system installation, the appropriate air pressure vs. water pressure is established within the Dry Pipe Valve. The corresponding air pressure gauge can be physically marked at the point in which the desired air pressure reading should be. When maintenance personnel or owners make their rounds within buildings, a quick visual inspection of the marked line compared to the air pressure gauge can interpret the system status and could prevent dry system freeze ups. Simply put, if the gauge arm is out of line with the marked line, call a fire sprinkler contractor for maintenance work. Training owner personnel successfully on sprinkler system maintenance can be difficult, particularly in a position with high turnover and varied aptitude for workers. teaching the owner to train their employees to compare the position of two lines is easy for anyone to understand and learn. If the NFPA requires installing fire sprinkler contractors to mark the corresponding air pressure gauge on a dry system, a simple line from a $2 marker can save millions of dollars for everyone involved. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, already requires a tag on the riser. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-137a Log #571 AUT-AAC Final Action: Accept(7.3.1.7.1, 8.16.1.1.7, 8.16.1.4.2.1, 8.16.2.5.3.1, 8.16.2.5.3.2, 8.17.4.2.2, 8.17.4.3.2, 8.17.4.4.4, 25.2.7.3, 25.4.10.3, A.8.16.4.2.1, A.8.16.4.2.2, Figure A.8.17.4.2(a), and Figure A.8.17.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Recommendation: Where and when the TC’s use the term “Readily Accessible”, the TC’s are directed to better define their intent on a case by case basis. Substantiation: The AUT-PRI TC reviewed a proposal that used the term “Readily Accessible” and rejected the proposal as the term is not enforceable. The term shows up multiple times in the 2010 edition and should be reviewed and modified for clarity where appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept[The TCC ballot results were 20 voting members; of whom 19 voted affirmatively and 1 ballot was not returned (R. Spaulding).]________________________________________________________________ 13-138 Log #193 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.1.7.4 and A.7.3.1.7.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:7.3.1.7.4 Where approved, a separate additional OS & Y control valve shall be permitted to be installed in the riser assembly above a pre action or deluge valve to permit full function trip testing as required by NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, without flooding the system. A.7.3.1.7.4 Pre action and deluge valves should be fully trip tested wherever possible. Providing a functional trip test without water flow does not reveal other potential problems such as obstructions and/or misaligned nozzles.Substantiation: Many systems are never trip tested due to the potential for water damage from full flow discharge. This additional valve is needed in the design standard to at least encourage the functional trip test. This arrangement is already permitted for foam systems as depicted in Figure A.11.3.2 of NFPA 25, 2008 edition. (This subject was addressed and approved by the TC in the 2007 cycle however no record of this action is on file and no change was made) Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 7.3.1.7.4 A separate additional indicating control valve, supervised in accordance with section 8.16.1.1.2, shall be permitted to be installed in the riser assembly above a pre action or deluge valve to permit full function trip testing as required by NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, without flooding the system. A.7.3.1.7.4 Pre action and deluge valves should be fully trip tested wherever possible. Providing a functional trip test without water flow does not reveal other potential problems such as obstructions and/or misaligned nozzles.Committee Statement: This change clarifies the requirement.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-36

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-139 Log #CP408 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.3.1.8.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Revise 7.3.1.8.2.3 to read: Change “tape” to “tracing” Substantiation: To use consistent terminology.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-140 Log #489 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.2.3.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The system size for double interlock preaction systems shall be designed to deliver water to the system test connection in no more than 60 seconds, starting at the normal or nitrogen pressure on the system, with the detection system activated and the inspection test connection fully opened simultaneously. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-141 Log #490 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.2.3.1.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The system size for double interlock preaction systems shall be designed to deliver water to the system trip test connection or manifold outlets in not more than the maximum time of water delivery specified in Table 7.2.3.6.1, starting at the normal air or nitrogen pressure on the system, with the detection system activated and the inspection trip test connection or manifold opened simultaneously. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-142 Log #491 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.2.4.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Except as permitted by 7.3.2.4.3, air or nitrogen supervising pressure for preaction systems shall be installed in conformance with the dry pipe system or nitrogen pressure and supply rules of 7.2.6.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-143 Log #492 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.3.2.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The relief valves required by 7.2.6 shall be permitted to be omitted for the type of preaction system described in 7.3.2.1(1) when the air or nitrogen pressure is supplied from a source that is not capable of developing pressures in excess of 15 psi (1.0 bar). Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this

particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-144 Log #493 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.4.3.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The check valves between the dry pipe valves and the common feed main shall be equipped with 1/2 in. (15 mm) bypasses so that a loss of air or nitrogen from leakage in the trimmings of a dry pipe valve will not cause the valve to trip until the pressure in the feed main is reduced to the tripping point. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-145 Log #103 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 13-10-1 (TIA 1000) issued by the Standards Council on August 5, 2010.Submitter: David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual PropertyRecommendation: 1. Add a new section 7.6.1 as follows:7.6.1 Dwelling Units. Antifreeze shall not be permitted to be used within the dwelling unit portions of sprinkler systems. 2. Renumber the remainder of the section accordingly. Substantiation: As a result of information obtained through a report from the Fire Protection Research Foundation titled Antifreeze Solutions in Home Fire Sprinkler Systems and data compiled in a UL document titled Fire Test Data Summary for Residential Sprinklers Discharging Antifreeze Mixtures sufficienttechnical documentation now exists to highlight safety concerns and knowledge gaps regarding the provisions permitting antifreeze in sprinkler systems protecting dwelling units. Until such time that appropriate research has been conducted to satisfy these concerns and knowledge gaps, the safe use of antifreeze solutions within sprinkler systems protecting dwelling units cannot be assured. Therefore NFPA13 should not be permitting the use of antifreeze systems within the standard. Emergency Nature: 1. The proposed TIA intends to correct a previously unknown existing hazard. 2. The proposed TIA intends to offer to the public a benefit that would lessen a recognized (known) hazard or ameliorate a continuing dangerous condition or situation. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Research indicates there are acceptable concentration of antifreeze solutions used in residential applications. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-146 Log #213 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark A. Novak, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection DistrictRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.6.1 Dwelling Units. Antifreeze shall not be permitted to be used within dwelling unit portions of sprinkler systems. Percent solution by volume of glycerine -water shall not exceed 50%. propylene glycol-water mixtures shall not exceed 40%. Table 7.6.2.2 amend to reflect maximum solution of glycerine-water of 50%, maximum solution of glycol-water of 40% glycol. Substantiation: The Fire Protection Research Foundation Report titled Home Fire Sprinklers and Antifreeze Solutions, Phase II, unequivocally demonstrated that glycerine solutions not exceeding 50% and glycol solutions not exceeding 40% do not contribute to fire growth. The use of anti-freeze solutions is crucial in the reliability of residential sprinkler systems. Particularly in areas with cold climates, history of prolonged power outages and a high incidence of seasonal or transient occupancy. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-33 (Log #CP404). The committee realizes there are differences between this proposal and 13-33 (Log #CP404). The public is encouraged to submit comments on 13-33 (Log #CP404) to resolve any outstanding issues. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-37

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-147 Log #194 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.6.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Sprinklers installed in sprinkler systems where antifreeze solutions are used shall be specifically listed for the type and percent by volume of the solution used.Substantiation: This new requirement will compel a change in test criteria at listing agencies (specifically UL 199 and 1626) such that sprinklers will be required to be tested in the future with listings to include which are appropriate for installation orientation and discharge pressures when installed in antifreeze systems. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The testing has validated the worst case scenario based on limited test data utilizing a concentration limits in lieu of K factor limitations. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-148 Log #534 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.6.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.6.1.2 Antifreeze shall not be used in ESFR systems unless at least one of the following two conditions is met:(1) For antifreeze solutions not referenced in this standard, the antifreeze solution shall be specifically listed for ESFR applications. (2) For antifreeze solutions referenced in this standard, the ESFR sprinkler shall be specifically listed for use with the antifreeze solution. (3) The ambient temperature of the protected area will be above 32°F (0°C) up to a maximum of 40°F (4°C) and a propylene glycol mixture of not greater than 25% is provided.Substantiation: Section 8.16.4.1.1 currently limits the use of wet sprinkler systems to areas where the ambient temperature can be reliably maintained at or above 40°F (4°C). This requires that areas which will have ambient temperatures above 32°F (0°C) and up to a maximum of 40°F (4°C) be protected with a dry or pre-action sprinkler system. This eliminates the potential use of an ESFR sprinkler system from these applications. However, the use of a propylene glycol anti-freeze solution at relatively low concentrations would allow for ESFR sprinklers to be utilized for temperatures above freezing. Propylene glycol in water at a concentration of 25% would be considered noncombustible and would provide the freeze protection required for this ambient temperature range. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 7.6.1.2 Antifreeze shall not be used in ESFR systems unless at least one of the following two conditions is met:(1) For antifreeze solutions not referenced in this standard, the antifreeze solution shall be specifically listed for ESFR applications. (2) For antifreeze solutions referenced in this standard, the ESFR sprinkler shall be specifically listed for use with the antifreeze solution. (3) The ambient temperature of the protected area shall will be above 25 32°F (-4 0°C) up to a maximum of 40°F (4°C) and a propylene glycol mixture of not greater than 25% by volume is provided.Committee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to submit data to substantiate the reduction of concentration. The percentage of concentrate is acceptable for temperatures of 25 degrees or higher. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-149 Log #CP403 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.6.1.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Proposed revisions to the definitions section and 7.6 Antifreeze Systems (2010 edition text without TIA Log No. 1015). Some text from TIA Log No 1015 has been included in the proposed revisions. Add new definitions as follows: Occupiable Space or Area: A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy and used by people on a regular basis and which is equipped with means of egress, light, and ventilation that meet the requirements of NFPA 5000 or other adopted building code. Non-occupiable Space or Area: A room or enclosed space not designed for human occupancy and not used or entered by people on a regular basis. To the Appendix for the previous definition add the following: Non-occupiable Space or Area: A room or enclosed space used exclusively for attics, mechanical equipment rooms, elevator penthouses, bag houses, dust collectors, and similar spaces without a building code recognized means of egress are not considered occupiable. Any equipment or enclosure that is

identified as a “confined space” for entry purposes is also considered not occupiable. Premixed Antifreeze Solutions: A mixture of an antifreeze material with water that is prepared by the manufacture with a quality control procedure in place that ensures that the antifreeze solution remains homogeneous. Revise 7.6.1.5 to read as follows (new text underlined): 7.6.1.5 A placard shall be placed on the antifreeze system main valve that indicates the manufacture type and brand of antifreeze solution, the concentration by volume of the antifreeze solution used, and the volume of the antifreeze solution used in the system. Add to 7.6: 7.6.1.6 Antifreeze systems protecting occupiable space shall be limited to premixed antifreeze solutions of glycerin (chemically pure or United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%) at a maximum concentration of 48% by volume or propylene glycol at a maximum concentration of 38% by volume. 7.6.1.6.1 Premixed antifreeze solutions of propylene glycol exceeding 38% concentration by volume shall be permitted for use in ESFR sprinklers where ESFR sprinklers are listed for such use in a specific application. 7.6.1.6.2 Premixed antifreeze solutions other than those described in 7.6.1.6 that are listed for use in sprinkler systems shall be permitted to be used. 7.6.1.7 All premixed antifreeze solutions shall be provided with a certificate from the manufacturer indicating the type of antifreeze, concentration by volume, and the freezing point. 7.6.1.8 Antifreeze systems protecting non-occupiable space and systems under 40-gallons internal capacity in non-residential space shall be permitted to use antifreeze solutions of glycerin, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and ethylene glycol. 7.6.1.9 In systems complying with 7.6.1.8, the concentrations by volume of the antifreeze solution shall be permitted to exceed the limits in 7.6.1.6. 7.6.2* Antifreeze Solutions This section remains as published in the 2010 edition, except make any changes to the existing Tables and Figures to correct technical errors. Add an asterisk to Section 7.6 and add new Annex A.7.6 to read as follows: A.7.6 In cold climates and areas where the potential for freezing of pipes is a concern, options other than antifreeze are available. Such options include installing the pipe in warm spaces, tenting insulation over the piping (as illustrated in NFPA 13D), listed and supervised heat tracing, and the use of dry pipe and preaction systems. Revise A.7.6.2 in the second paragraph: A.7.6.2 Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe and fittings should be protected from freezing with glycerin only. The use of diethylene, ethylene, or propylene glycols is specifically prohibited. Laboratory testing shows that glycol-based antifreeze solutions present a chemical environment detrimental to CPVC. The use of premixed antifreeze solutions is not required by this standard for specific applications but can be required for and certain specially listed equipment or systems. Thoroughly mixed antifreeze is less likely to drop out of solution and is preferred over on site mixing. When antifreeze solutions are mixed on site, the solution should be thoroughly mixed before being pumped into the piping. Prior to pumping solution that is mixed on site into the system piping, several samples should be tested from the batch to ensure that the concentration of the solution is uniform. Substantiation: This proposal continues the application of historically accepted small antifreeze systems without modification. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee feels this proposal still needs more work. The public is encouraged to review and submit comments on this proposal. See action on 13-33 (Log #CP404). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: The small antifreeze systems have been eliminated by TIA to the current edition and potentially for the next revision. Large antifreeze systems, unless specifically tested and listed, should never have been allowed by this standard. When the committee allowed these systems about 10 years ago, we introduced the present problem. The TIA limits and proposed limits on concentration have resulted in antifreeze systems, including the small volume ones, being eliminated from most areas because of the potential temperatures being lower than that accommodated by the maximum allowed concentration. ________________________________________________________________ 13-150 Log #244 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(7.6.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Andy Olah, Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.Recommendation: Add new 7.6.2.1 Antifreeze solutions shall be listed and shall be premixed by the manufacturer. Renumber subsequent sections in 7.6.2. Substantiation: In order to insure that the antifreeze solution is effective it must be listed. Listing requires an initial qualification evaluation and periodic follow up inspections and testing to assure continued product quality. Antifreeze solutions have been determined to have the potential to create dangerous flash fires and this is a reasonable precaution for such a critical component of the sprinkler system. Antifreeze solutions that are mixed by the manufacturer are produced under controlled conditions. Manufacturers are the ones who are the most prepared to

13-38

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 maintain the proper mixture of the components of the antifreeze solution. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Add new 7.6.2.1 Antifreeze solutions shall be listed and shall be premixed by the manufacturer. Renumber subsequent sections in 7.6.2. Committee Statement: See action on 13-33 (Log #CP404). 13-33 (Log #CP404) does not require antifreeze solutions to be listed. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MEEHAN, M.: The existing standard is very clear and will not allow any antifreeze solutions other than glycerin and PC. This language now contradicts TIA 10-2 that allows alternative listed anti-freeze solutions. Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: The need for the premixed solutions to be prepared by a manufacturer, rather than by any other agency remains unconvincing. To date questions that have been asked remain unanswered and the information provided on this subject has been all anecdotal, whereas as a definitive technical report is needed. ________________________________________________________________ 13-151 Log #245 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.6.2.1 and A.7.6.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Andy Olah, Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.6.2.1 Where sprinkler systems are supplied by potable water connections, the use of antifreeze solutions other than water solutions of pure glycerine (C.P. or U.S.P. 96.5 percent grade), or propylene glycol, or listed antifreeze solutions shall not be permitted. A.7.6.2 Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe and fittings should be protected from freezing with glycerine or antifreeze solutions listed for use in CPVC sprinkler systems only.Substantiation: Currently NFPA 13 makes no specific allowance for antifreeze solutions other than glycerine and propylene glycol which are shown in the standard. It is important to allow for new technologies to be permitted. Such technologies need to be evaluated by listing agencies who are capable of determining the necessary performance of such antifreeze solutions. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Section 1.6 allows the use of new technology as an alternative. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-152 Log #174 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Table 7.6.2.2 and Figure 7.6.2.5(a), (b), and (c))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Modify Table 7.6.2.2 to show the Specific Gravity at the assigned minimum temperature instead of 60 F. Figures 7.6.2.5(a), 7.6.2.5(b), and 7.6.2.5(c): change from percent by weight to percent by volume Table 7.6.2.2 and Figures 7.6.2.5(a), 7.6.2.5(b), and 7.6.2.5(c) coordinate terminology and units of measurement with the equation in 22.4.4.5.1 Substantiation: NFPA 13 currently doesn’t provide the data needed by the equation in ch 22 and confusion is created by the use of Specific weight, Specific Gravity, and Density. The information needed by the equation in ch 22 is needed at the lowest possible temperature and not the standard mean value. The industry and the rest of NFPA 13 and 25, applies concentration as a function of Volume and providing data for percentage by weight causes confusion and has no use. I realize that the submitter is suppose to provide the new data for consideration but noting that the information from the manufacturers varies plus the basis for the original information is not readily available, leads to the conclusion that the technical committee needs to define these values. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter did not provide specific numbers to use in the tables. The submitter should review 13-33 (Log #CP404) and modify that proposal as necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-153 Log #183 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.6.3.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:7.6.3.2.1 A means shall be provided to perform a full forward flow test in accordance with 8.17.4.6Substantiation: This requirement is often overlooked for smaller BFP’s on sub-systems.

Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-154 Log #310 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Figure 7.6.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Figure 7.6.3.3 as follows to show a means of conducting the forward flow test of the backflow preventer and an isolating valve that can be closed to keep the antifreeze in the unheated portion of the system during the forward flow test.

Substantiation: Every backflow preventer is required by NFPA 13 to be provided with a means for conducting a forward flow test (section 8.17.4.6.1). NFPA 25 requires the forward flow test to be performed every year. The figure that shows people how to arrange an antifreeze system with a backflow preventer should show people how to comply with the rules of NFPA 13 and NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-155 Log #389 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.7 and A.7.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.7.1 Circulating Closed-Loop Systems. Circulating closed-loop systems shall not be utilized. Relocate all material 7.7.1.1 through 7.7.1.7.2 to the annex with the following introduction: A.7.7.1 Circulating closed sprinkler systems have been found to be problematic in regards to system maintenance and impractical for use. The following information is provided for use with existing systems. Substantiation: It is common knowledge within the industry that circulating closed loop systems have experienced serious maintenance issues and should not be included as an option for the owner. These systems are attractive with the potential initial savings in construction costs but the initial savings is quickly lost in most cases as the systems age. The standard should not promote the installation of alternate system designs that are fraught with maintenance and cost issues. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee did not want to delete this option. The submitter did not provide justification to eliminate this option. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: SCHWAB, P.: Circulating closed-loop systems are maintenance problems and are not worth the added effort. These types of systems should no longer be allowed. ________________________________________________________________ 13-156 Log #494 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.9.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Low Air or Nitrogen Pressure Alarm.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose.

Backflow preventerwith control valves

Fill cup or filling connection

Water supply

Expansion chamber

Heated area Unheated area

Drain valve

Means for conducting forward flow test of backflow preventer

Only close control valve when conducting forward flow test of backflow preventer

Figure 7.6.3.3 Arrangement of Supply Piping with Backflow Device

13-39

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-157 Log #460 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.9.2.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Unless the requirements of Section 7.9.2.2.2 are met, a low air or nitrogen pressure alarm to a constantly attended location shall be installed. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13- 56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-158 Log #461 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.9.2.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Systems equipped with local low air or nitrogen pressure alarms and an automatic air maintenance device shall not be required to alarm to a constantly attended location. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Do not add “or nitrogen” as 13-56 (Log #CP400) adds nitrogen and other gases for this particular purpose. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-159 Log #462 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(7.9.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Compressed Nitrogen gas from compressed high pressure cylinders or a generation system used in lieu of compressed air.Substantiation: Nitrogen generating systems are on the market and easier to maintain than compressed high pressure cylinders. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-121 (Log #CP402).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-160 Log #567 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(7.9.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: In Fire Protection Systems where piping is exposed to air temperatures below 32°F, only Nitrogen shall be used as a supervisory gas. Substantiation: Air dryer packages try to lower the dew point of air. 95 percent + Nitrogen has a true -40° to -70° dew point and since most of the 20.9% oxygen is removed from the air, moisture content is virtually eliminated preventing the buildup of ice blockages – 7.9.2.4. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent is not to limit the gas to just nitrogen. There are other gases that are acceptable. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-161 Log #419 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.10.12)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete section 7.10.12.Substantiation: Replacement of sprinklers over commercial cooking equipment should be handled by NFPA 25, not NFPA 13. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-162 Log #CP414 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(7.11)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Add a new section 7.11 to read: 7.11 Additives and Coatings. 7.11.1 Additives to the water supply intended for control of microbiological or other corrosion shall be listed for use within fire sprinkler systems. 7.11.2 Internal pipe coatings, excluding galvanizing, intended for control of microbiological or other corrosion shall be listed for use within fire sprinkler systems. Substantiation: The committee requires additives and coatings to be listed.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-163 Log #311 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.1.1(8))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.1.1(8) Sprinklers shall not be required to be installed within electrical equipment, mechanical equipment, or air handling units. Substantiation: The standard needs to clarify that we do not install sprinklers in such equipment. Some of this equipment can get extremely large, to the point where it becomes close to the size of a room and some AHJ’s want to require sprinkler protection in such spaces. NFPA 13 needs to clarify the issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd, “not intended for occupancy” to proposed language and annex material as follows: A.8.1.1(8) (new) Equipment having access for routine maintenance should not be considered as intended for occupancy Committee Statement: The committee does not intend to require sprinklers in equipment. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-164 Log #229 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.1.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 8.1.3 When a water mist sprinkler system is installed, all installation requirements shall be determined in accordance with NFPA 750.Substantiation: For installations of water mist systems in sprinkler applications, all installation requirements shall be determined by NFPA 750. This change is proposed for avoidance of confusion by AHJs in reviewing plans and installations for water mist. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, provides requirements for Water Mist Systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-165 Log #532 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.2.1 The maximum floor area on any one floor to be protected by sprinklers supplied by any one sprinkler system riser or combined system riser protecting a single-tenanted area shall as follows: be limited to 100,000 ft2 (9,290 m2). (1) Light hazard – 52,000 ft2 (4831 m2) (2) Ordinary hazard – 52,000 ft2 (4831 m2) (3) Extra hazard (a) Pipe Schedule – 25,000 ft2 (2323 m2) (b) Hydraulically calculated - 40,000 ft2 (3716 m2) (4) Storage – High-piled storage (as defined in Section 3.9.1.7) and storage covered by other NFPA standards - 40,000 ft2 (3716 m2)8.2.2 The maximum floor area indicated in Section 8.2.1 can be increased to 120,000 ft2 (11,148 m2) provided it can be proven that the waterflow alarm for the sprinkler system can operate within the timeframe as outlined in Section 24.2.3.1.8.2.3 The maximum floor area on any one floor to be protected by sprinklers supplied by any one sprinkler system riser or combined system riser protecting a multiple-tenanted area shall be limited to 52,000 ft2 (4,831 m2).8.2.2 8.2.4 The floor area occupied by mezzanines shall not be included in the area limits of Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3.8.2.3 Where single systems protect extra hazard, high-piled storage, or storage covered by other NFPA standards, and ordinary or light hazard areas, the extra hazard or storage area coverage shall not exceed the floor area specified for that hazard and the total area coverage shall not exceed 52,000 ft2 (4831 m2).

13-40

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 8.2.4 8.2.5 Multiple buildings attached by canopies, covered breezeways, common roofs, or a common wall(s) shall be permitted to be supplied by a single fire sprinkler riser. The maximum system size shall comply with Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3.Substantiation: The current guidelines in Section 8.2.1 are based on the size limitations from pipe schedule sprinkler systems, which are not commonly used today and do not look at the actual performance of the sprinkler system. This proposal eliminates the sizing of the sprinkler system area to an arbitrary value and attempts to link it to the performance of the system. The benefits to this approach include less sprinkler lead-ins, risers, riser trim and valves. Also, with fewer control valves at a sprinklered facility comes a reduced chance for an accidentally closed valve (impaired sprinkler system) during an actual fire event. The potential drawbacks to this proposal would be increased time to drain a sprinkler system (add a larger drain valve?), increased time to refill a sprinkler system as well as longer times for the waterflow alarm valve to respond. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There is no technical justification to make this change.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: The substantiation indicates that there is no technical justification to make this change, yet there was really no justification for the guidelines we have today. There are codes outside the United States that allow for larger sprinkler system sizes than what is indicated by NFPA 13; would these codes potentially provide technical justification? If so, then I will offer them as justification at the ROC. GERDES, R.: The proposal has merit. Hydraulics are not an issue and this could save on installation costs. Many jurisdictions will not adopt new standards that cost more. We need to balance increased costs in new standards. The hazard of larger area being out of service is minimal. ________________________________________________________________ 13-166 Log #29 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas A. Noble, City of Henderson, Building & Fire SafetyRecommendation: Delete text as follows:(a) Pipe schedule - 25,000 ft2 (2323 m2)Substantiation: It leads you to believe that you could pipe schedule a new Extra Hazard System. NFPA 13, 22.5.4 Extra hazard occupancies shall be hydraulically calculated. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleDelete section from the body of the standard but move it to the annex. Committee Statement: This material is better suited as informational for existing systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-167 Log #390 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.2.1.1 (New) and 8.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.2.1.1 The area limitations in Section 8.2.1 shall be permitted to be increased for ceiling sprinkler systems as indicated where the following conditions are satisfied:(1) the system serves a single tenant (2) supervision of system control valves is monitored at a constantly attended location (3) system flow is monitored at a constantly attended location (4) system is hydraulically calculated Light Hazard 150,000 ft² Ordinary Hazard 150,000 ft² Extra Hazard 100,000 ft² Storage 100,000 ft² 8.2.3 Where single systems protect extra hazard, high-plied storage, or storage covered by other standards, and ordinary or light hazard areas, the extra hazard or storage area coverage shall not exceed the floor area specified for that hazard and the total area coverage shall not exceed the 52,000 ft² in Section 8.2.1 or the 150,000 ft² in Section 8.2.1.1 whichever is applicable.Substantiation: The system area limitations are outdated and not in line with current system design approaches. In addition, lower system area limitations result in more system valves and data reveals that as high as two-thirds of all system failures can be attributed to shut or partially shut system control valves. While system size in theory is only limited by hydraulics, the submitter believes there are practical limits to system size and this proposal takes into consideration “green” issues such as the frequent draining of systems that may be associated with the tenant improvements associated with multi-tenant buildings or repairs of damage to in-rack sprinklers (thus no increase to in-rack sprinkler area limitations). It is imperative to keep in mind that the standard currently allows systems of unlimited size if they are located in multi-story

buildings. This allowance is further evidence that the restriction was in place due to the hydraulic limitations and uncertainties associated with pipe schedule systems. If the committee concerns center on the risks associated with the potential of large areas of a building being without sprinkler protection during testing or maintenance, NFPA 25 addresses impairment procedures which provide direction for protecting the building and occupants during system shutdowns. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There is no technical justification for making this change. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: See comments on Log 532. GERDES, R.: This proposal has merit. The proponent has provided sufficient justification for the proposal. ________________________________________________________________ 13-168 Log #526 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.2.4 and 8.2.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dana Haagensen, MA Department of Fire ServicesRecommendation: Revise Sections 8.2.4 & 8.2.5 to read as follows:8.2.4 Multiple buildings attached by canopies, covered breezeways, common roofs, or a common wall(s), that are considered in the aggregate by the applicable building code to be a single building for design purposes, shall be permitted to be supplied by a single fire sprinkler riser. The maximum system size shall comply with 8.2.1. 8.2.5 Detached Multiple Buildings and Attached Buildings.8.2.5.1 Unless the requirements of 8.2.5.2 apply, detached buildings, regardless of separation distance, that do not meet the criteria of 8.2.4 shall be provided with separate fire sprinkler systems.8.2.5.2 When acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, detached structures shall be permitted to be supplied by the fire sprinkler system of an adjacent building. A fire sprinkler system shall not protect more than one building, as defined by the applicable building code, regardless of separation distance between structures and regardless of the presence of fire/party walls.Substantiation: This is to correct a misunderstanding that the Technical Committee had when these provisions were originally proposed for the 2007 edition. The intent of the original proposal and this proposal is to eliminate the problem AHJ’s have been finding in the field where a single building in a multiple building complex, where all of the buildings are protected by a single fire sprinkler system, is sold off. Multiple buildings protected by the same sprinkler system, with separate ownership for each building, leads to a very complex legal situation that makes it difficult for certain owners to properly maintain their fire protection systems due to access. AHJ’s have a difficult time as it is getting property owners to maintain their fire protection systems, NFPA 13’s allowing multiple buildings to be protected by a single system exacerbates the problem. Also, note that several editions ago, NFPA had a formal interpretation that agrees with this recommended change and did not agree with what the TC did for the 2007 edition. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee intended the action taken in the 2002 code cycle when it added criteria for “daisy chaining” water supplies under conditions noted. TG reaffirms intent to allow this arrangement Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-169 Log #528 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.2.4 and 8.2.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dana Haagensen, MA Department of Fire ServicesRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.2.4 Multiple buildings attached by canopies, covered breezeways, common roofs, or a common wall(s), and considered in the aggregate by the applicable building code as a single building, shall be permitted to be supplied by a single fire sprinkler riser. The maximum system size shall comply with 8.2.1. 8.2.5 Multiple Detached and Multiple Attached Buildings. 8.2.5.1 Unless the requirements of 8.2.5.2 apply, detached buildings, regardless of separation distance, that do not meet the criteria of 8.2.4 shall be provided with separate fire sprinkler systems. 8.2.5.2 When acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, detached structures shall be permitted to be supplied by the fire sprinkler system of an adjacent building. A fire sprinkler system shall not protect more than one building, as defined by the applicable building code, regardless of the separation distance and regardless of the presence of fire/party walls.Substantiation: In some cases, structures that are made up of separate buildings are later parceled and sold off to separate owners. When this occurs, it becomes legally complicated whereby one owner is legally responsible to maintain their fire sprinkler system but may not have legal physical access to

13-41

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 the riser, supply piping, and necessary sprinkler system equipment located in another owner’s building. The fire department response to the activation of such sprinkler systems is also complicated in this arrangement. This is a real world problem that AHJ’s have run into, and not a prediction. Also, note that NFPA used to have a Formal Interpretation that agreed with this recommended change. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee intended the action taken in the 2002 code cycle when it added criteria for “daisy chaining” water supplies under conditions noted. TG reaffirms intent to allow this arrangement Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-170 Log #269 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.3.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.3.2.3 High-temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to be used throughout ordinary and extra hazard occupancies, storage occupancies and as allowed in this standard and other NFPA codes and standards. Substantiation: Some storage protection schemes do not dictate the use of high temperature sprinklers. As such 8.3.2.3 would disallow the use high temperature sprinklers with such design applications. The inclusion of the allowance to permit the use of high temperature sprinklers in storage application resolves this conflict. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-171 Log #430 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Table 8.3.2.5(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: In the row for attics, replace “ventilated” in the Ordinary-Temperature Rating column with “Do not use” and replace “Unventilated” in the Intermediate-Temperature column with “Ventilated or Unventilated”. Substantiation: The extent to which an attic is going to be ventilated is unknown to the sprinkler contractor and the amount of ventilation that is necessary to keep the attic below the threshold of 100°F for ordinary temperature sprinklers is not defined well enough in every geographic location for sprinkler contractors to make a decision. All attics should be protected with intermediate temperature sprinklers unless the space is conditioned like the rest of the building, which would make the attic more of an additional story than an attic. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-172 Log #19 AUT-AAC Final Action: Reject(8.3.3)________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC directs the SSI TC to look at modifying the proposed language to correlate with SSD 13-381 (Log #70). The TCC further directs the SSI and SSD TC’s to develop a task group to review the issue for consistency.Submitter: Brett Reynolds, Fire System Design, LLCRecommendation: Add new text as follows: Where quick-response sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within a compartment shall be quick-response unless otherwise permitted in 8.3.3.3 or 8.3.3.5. 8.3.3.5 Residential sprinklers shall be permitted in the same compartment as quick-response sprinklers in dwelling units and their adjoining corridors.Substantiation: Currently it is unclear if Residential heads can be used with QR heads. 8.4.5.3 allows fast response sprinklers to be installed in the same compartment as Residential Sprinklers. Quick Response sprinklers are a type of Fast Response sprinkler per 3.6.4.7 Residential Sprinklers are a type of Fast Response Sprinkler per 3.6.4.8. Residential Occupancies are Light Hazard per A.5.2, therefore suitable for Quick Response or Residential heads. 8.4.5.3 would seem to allow QR and Residential heads in the same compartment, but 8.3.3 currently does not. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Section 8.4.5.3 already allow mixing residential and QR sprinklers within a compartment however, this may need more work to clarify the requirements and allowances. Also refer to 13-381 (Log #70) submitted to SSD addressing how to calculate when sprinkler types are mixed. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28

Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action to reject the proposal, I do not believe that the issue of mixing residential sprinklers and quick response sprinklers as discussed in 8.4.5.3 has been properly dealt with. The Committee Statement which says that “this may need more work to clarify the requirements and allowances” is unsatisfactory, since it is the Committee’s responsibility to provide that clarification. ________________________________________________________________ 13-173 Log #374 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.3.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.3.3.4 When existing light hazard systems are converted to use quick-response or residential sprinklers, all sprinklers in a compartment compartmented space shall be changed. Substantiation: This is not meant to be a technical change. The term “compartmented” is defined in Section 3.9.1.9 and is not being used in Section 8.3.3.4 as defined (it is meant to be used as defined by Section 3.3.6). Therefore, the proposed wording is meant to replace existing text to apply the term more aptly to its requirement. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-174 Log #184 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.3.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: 8.3.4.1 Sprinklers shall have a minimum nominal K-factor of 5.6 unless permitted by section 8.3.4. Renumber other sections. Substantiation: We have allowances for using K-factors smaller than 5.6 but no where does it say that 5.6 is otherwise the required minimum. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-175 Log #456 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.4.3(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.4.3 (4) Extended coverage upright and pendent sprinklers installed under smooth flat ceilings that have slopes not exceeding a pitch of 1 in 3 (a rise of 4 units in a run of 12 units, a roof slope of 33.3 per cent), where specifically Listed for such use. Substantiation: Adding upright and pendent sprinklers to 8.4.3 (4) would clarify the style of sprinkler allowed. 8.4.3 (5) specifically addresses EC SW sprinklers under sloped ceilings. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-176 Log #438 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.4.3(5))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add, “where listed for such use” at the end of 8.4.3(5).Substantiation: This was part of the substantiation for adding this section last cycle and should have been included in the requirements of the standard. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: After reading Proposal 13-131 from the last cycle, I believe that the Committee made a mistake, both then and now. The Action on 13-131 was to Accept, so Note 5 should have ended with “without specific listing”. Notwithstanding the subsequent Committee Statement, if EC sidewall sprinklers are to be required to be specifically listed for sloped ceiling installations, even when they are installed at the high point and aimed downwards along the slope, as per 8.9.4.2.2, then a conflict has been created in the standard, because standard sidewall spray sprinklers are not required to have a similar specific listing.

13-42

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-177 Log #312 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.4.3(6))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.4.3(6) In each bay of obstructed construction consisting of solid structural members that extend below the deflector of the sprinkler.Substantiation: NFPA 13 is not clear on whether extended coverage sprinklers can be used in small bays created by solid structural members. This use of sprinklers appears to violate the rules for minimum distances between sprinklers and the rules for extended coverage do not have the same baffle exceptions as standard spray sprinklers. Therefore, if the standard intends to allow this use of extended coverage sprinklers, something explicitly needs to be stated. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-178 Log #313 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.4.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add two new subsections as follows: 8.4.6.1.1 ESFR sprinklers shall not be permitted to protect storage on solid shelf racks. 8.4.6.1.2 ESFR sprinklers shall not be permitted to protect storage with open top cartons or containers. Substantiation: Currently, NFPA 13 does not handle ESFR limitations clearly. Sections 16.1.6 and 17.1.5 imply that ESFR sprinklers can be used at the ceiling to protect solid shelf racks as long as in-rack sprinklers are added. This is actually not the case. The standard needs to definitively state where ESFR sprinklers cannot be used. Likewise, the statement on open top containers needs to be clarified. The ESFR tables state that no open top containers are allowed, yet sections like 17.3.3.1.1 state that only combustible open top containers are a problem. Elsewhere in the standard, tables are used (even when they say not to use them for a specific condition) and extra protection is provided. But that should not be the case here. The sprinklers either can be used or they cannot, and the standard needs to definitively state which. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd two new subsections as follows: 8.4.6.1.1 ESFR sprinklers shall not be permitted to protect storage on solid shelf racks unless the solid shelves are protected in accordance with 16.1.6 or 17.1.5 as applicable to the type of storage. 8.4.6.1.2 ESFR sprinklers shall not be permitted to protect storage with open top containers. Committee Statement: This correlates with other changes made.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: The Action taken here by the SSI TC seems to be in conflict with the Actions taken by the SSD TC, who decided that ESFR and CMSA sprinklers at the ceiling can be used in conjunction with in-rack sprinklers under solid shelves (Proposals 13-343 (Log #368) and 13-453 (Log #370). These matters need to be reconsidered and coordinated by the two Committees. ________________________________________________________________ 13-179 Log #185 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.4.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.4.6.3 ESFR sprinklers shall be permitted for use in buildings with unobstructed and noncombustible obstructed construction.Substantiation: Section 8.4 shows where sprinklers can be used but this restriction can currently be found only in Table 8.12.2.2.1 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-180 Log #314 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.4.6.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.4.6.6 ESFR sprinklers shall be permitted to protect ordinary hazard, storage of Class I through IV commodities, plastic commodities, miscellaneous storage, and other storage as specified in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 or by other NFPA standards.Substantiation: This information is currently located in Section 12.6.7, which many people miss when looking for ESFR criteria. Also, during the processing of the 2010 edition, a comma was dropped inadvertently, which causes people to question whether ESFR sprinklers can be used to protect ordinary hazard

occupancies. This proposal re-inserts that important comma. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new section to read as follows: 8.4.6.6 Occupancy and Hazard ESFR sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect light and ordinary hazard occupancies. Committee Statement: The committee wanted to provide guidance on design criteria. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-181 Log #315 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.4.7.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.4.7.4 Control Mode Specific Application sprinklers shall be permitted to protect ordinary hazard, storage of Class I through IV commodities, plastic commodities, miscellaneous storage, and other storage as specified in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 or by other NFPA standards.Substantiation: This information is currently located in Section 12.6.7, which many people miss when looking for CMSA criteria. Also, during the processing of the 2010 edition, a comma was dropped inadvertently, which causes people to question whether ESFR sprinklers can be used to protect ordinary hazard occupancies. This proposal re-inserts that important comma. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new section as follows: 8.4.7.4 Occupancy and Hazard 8.4.7.4.1 Quick response CMSA sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect light and ordinary hazard occupancies. 8.4.7.4.2 Standard response CMSA sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect ordinary hazard occupancies. Committee Statement: The committee wanted to address design criteria.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action taken here by the SSI TC, it seems to be in conflict with the Action taken by the SSD TC on Proposal 13-389 (Log #449), where it was decided that all CMSA sprinkler design schemes (ie. using either standard response or quick response types) at the ceiling can be used to protect light hazard occupancies. These matters need to be reconsidered and coordinated by the two Committees. ________________________________________________________________ 13-182 Log #114 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.4.9.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation:

Revise 8.4.9.1 and its annex note as follows: “8.4.9.1* Where dry sprinklers are connected to wet pipe sprinkler systems protecting areas subject to freezing temperatures, the minimum exposed length of the barrel of the dry sprinkler shall be in accordance with Table 8.4.9.1(a) or Table 8.4.9.1(b). The minimum barrel length shall be measured from the face of the fitting to which the dry sprinkler is installed to the inside surface of the insulation, wall or ceiling leading to the cold space, whichever is closer to the fitting.

13-43


A.8.4.9.1 Dry sprinklers must be of sufficient length to avoid freezing of the water-filled pipes due to conduction along the barrel. The values of exposed barrel length in Tables 8.4.9.1(a) and 8.4.9.1(b) have been developed using an assumption of a properly sealed penetration and an assumed maximum wind velocity on the exposed sprinkler of 30 mph (48 km/h). Where higher wind velocity is expected, longer exposed barrel lengths will help avoid freezing of the wet piping. The total length of the barrel of the dry sprinkler must be longer than the values shown in Tables 8.4.9.1(a) and 8.4.9.1(b) because the length shown in the tables is the minimum length of the barrel that needs to be exposed to the warmer ambient temperature in the heated space. See Figure A.8.4.9.1(1) for an example of where the measure the exposed barrel length for a sidewall sprinkler penetrating an exterior wall and Figure A.8.4.9.1(2) for an example of where to measure the exposed barrel length for a pendent sprinkler penetrating a ceiling or top of a freezer.

Figure A.8.4.9.1(1) Dry Sidewall Sprinkler Through Wall

Figure A.8.4.9.1(2) Dry Pendent Sprinkler Through Ceiling or Top of a Freezer

Substantiation: The current NFPA 13 requirements refer the user to manufacturer’s instructions in order to determine how long the barrel length needs to be. However, prior to this proposal being developed, not all

Table 8.4.9.1(a) Exposed Barrel Lengths for Dry Sprinklers (US Customary Units)

Ambient Temperature Exposed to Discharge End of Sprinkler

(ºF)

Minimum Exposed Barrel Length when Exposed to 40ºF

(inches)


(inches)


(inches)

40 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 20 4 0 0 10 8 1 0 0 12 3 0

-10 14 4 1 -20 14 6 3 -30 16 8 4 -40 18 8 4 -50 20 10 6 -60 20 10 6

Table 8.4.9.1(b) Exposed Barrel Lengths for Dry Sprinklers (Metric Units)

Ambient Temperature Exposed to Discharge End of Sprinkler

(ºC)

Minimum Exposed Barrel Length when Exposed to 4.4ºC

(mm)

Minimum Exposed Barrel Length when Exposed to 10ºC

(mm)

Minimum Exposed Barrel Length when Exposed to 15.6ºC

(mm)

4.4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0

-6.7 102 0 0 -12.2 203 25 0 -17.8 305 76 0 -23.3 356 102 25 -28.9 356 152 76 -34.4 406 203 102 -40 457 203 102

-45.6 508 254 152 -51.1 508 254 152

X

Insulation

Exterior wall

Face of fitting

X = Minimum exposed barrel length

Wet sprinkler pipe

X is measured from the face of the sprinkler fittingto the inside surface of the exterior wall or insulation–

whichever is closer to the fitting.

X

Face of fitting

Wet sprinkler pipe

X = Minimum exposed barrel length

X is measured from the face of the sprinkler fittingto the inside surface of the exterior wall or insulation–

whichever is closer to the fitting.

Dry sprinkler

Insulated freezer structure

Clearance hole

13-44

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 manufacturers provided instructions and those that did, had different values due to different initial assumptions. Through the UL/FM/NFSA Liaison group and the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee, the assumptions regarding temperature and wind velocity have been standardized and this table has been produced using standard heat transfer calculations. A value of 30 mph of maximum wind velocity was used to perform the heat transfer calculations. This is noted in the proposed annex with a warning that higher expected wind velocity might necessitate longer exposed barrel lengths. By putting this information in NFPA 13, it standardizes how the information is used and enforced. All of the sprinkler manufacturer members of the NFSA have agreed that these are the proper values for barrel length and that this is the proper way to measure the exposed barrel length. This proposal is being submitted by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that in the new Table 8.4.9.1(b) all of the metric values need to be properly rounded (ie. the metric value equivalent to 40°F should be 4°C rather than 4.4° and the metric equivalent to 4 inches should be 100 mm rather than 104). ________________________________________________________________ 13-183 Log #186 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.4.9.1 and A.8.4.9.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.4.9.1 Where dry sprinklers are connected to wet pipe sprinkler systems protecting areas subject to freezing temperatures, the minimum length of exposed barrel between the sprinkler and fitting shall be in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions. A.8.4.9.1 Dry sprinklers must be of have a sufficient length exposed to temperatures of at least 40 F to avoid freezing of the water-filled pipes due to conduction. Substantiation: It’s not the overall length but the length of barrel exposed to warm air that is important. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-182 (Log #114).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-184 Log #316 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.5.1.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.5.1.4 The distance between two sprinklers shall be the distance measured between the centerlines of the deflectors. The distance between two branch lines shall be the distance measured between the centerlines of the pipes. The distance between a sprinkler and a wall or obstruction shall be the distance measured between the centerline of the sprinkler’s deflector and the near edge of the wall or obstruction.Substantiation: This is common practice, but is not specifically defined in the standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The TG believes the standard is clear in utilizing center to center dimensions when measuring distances between sprinklers and/or branch lines. See current 8.5.2.1 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-185 Log #195 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.5.4.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 8.5.4.1.2 Unless permitted by 8.15.1.2.1.1 or 8.15.1.2.2.1, where ceilings are installed in only a portion of a compartment or area, sprinklers shall be required at the structure level throughout the compartment or area and below the partial ceiling areas based upon the provisions of 8.5.5.Substantiation: There are architectural trends to install partial ceilings, ceiling clouds and similar and similar lower ceilings which do not connect to all walls within a compartment or area, leading to confusion about when sprinklers are required above the ceiling as well as below the obstructions created by these partial ceiling areas. A statement is needed in the body (or annex) to clarify the requirements for this condition. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is currently waiting for data that either supports or refutes this proposal.

Also see 13-24 (Log #CP406). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-186 Log #317 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.5.4.1.3 and 8.5.4.1.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.5.4.1.3: For ceilings that have insulation attached directly to against the underside of the ceiling or roof structure, the deflector distance shall be measured from the bottom of the insulation and shall be in accordance with 8.5.4.1.3.1 or 8.5.4.1.3.2. Revise Section 8.5.4.1.3.1: For insulation that is attached directly to against the ceiling or roof structure and is installed flat and parallel to the ceiling or roof structure, the deflector distance shall be measured to the underside of the insulation. Substantiation: This change is necessary because the insulation is not necessarily attached to the roof or ceiling. It is usually attached to the structural members below the roof or ceiling. The important issue is that it be tight to the ceiling. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise Section 8.5.4.1.3: For ceilings that have insulation installed attached directly to against the underside of the ceiling or roof structure, the deflector distance shall be measured from the bottom of the insulation and shall be in accordance with 8.5.4.1.3.1 or 8.5.4.1.3.2. Revise Section 8.5.4.1.3.1: For insulation that is installed attached directly to against the ceiling or roof structure and is installed flat and parallel to the ceiling or roof structure, the deflector distance shall be measured to the underside of the insulation. Committee Statement: The word “installed” better describes the expected installation. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-187 Log #249 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.5.5.2.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.5.5.2.3 In all closets, including those closets housing mechanical equipment, that are not larger than 400 cubic feet (11.3 cubic m) in size, a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling space in the closet shall be sufficient without regard to obstructions.Substantiation: It is difficult to meet the obstruction rules in these small spaces. An additional sprinkler is usually required on the other side of the light fixture or vent stack in these small closets by the standard. One sprinkler is sufficient in these small spaces. This criterion was taken from NFPA 13D in 8.2.5.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-189 (Log #318).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-188 Log #51 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.5.5.3.1 and A.8.5.5.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.5.5.3.1 Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) wide. such as ducts, decks, open grate floor, cutting tables, and overhead doors.A.8.5.5.3.1 When obstructions are located more than 18” below the sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops and obstructions up to and including 4’-0” wide do not require additional protection underneath. Examples are ducts, decks, open grate flooring, catwalks, cutting tables, overhead doors, soffits, ceiling clouds or panels, and other similar obstructions.Substantiation: Examples belong in the annex. Additional examples of obstructions have been added. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 8.5.5.3.1 Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) wide. such as ducts, decks, open grate floor, cutting tables, and overhead doors.A.8.5.5.3.1 When obstructions are located more than 18” below the sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops and obstructions up to and including 4’-0” wide do not require additional protection underneath. Examples are ducts, decks, open grate flooring, catwalks, cutting tables, overhead doors, soffits, ceiling clouds or panels, and other similar obstructions.Committee Statement: Ceiling clouds is not currently defined and was deleted. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-45

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-189 Log #318 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.5.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add new section 8.5.5.4 as follows: 8.5.5.4 Closets. In all closets and compartments, including those closets housing mechanical equipment, that are not larger than 400 ft3 (11.33m3) in size, a single sprinkler at the highest ceiling space shall be sufficient without regard to obstructions or minimum distance to the wall. Substantiation: In a space this small, a sprinkler will react to a fire in a reasonable time and significant water will flood the space regardless of the specific placement of potential obstructions. Having a single sprinkler in such a small closet is all that is necessary. This concept has been in NFPA 13R for many cycles, but is more universal than just applying to residential occupancies. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: No technical justification was provided to eliminate the minimum distance to the wall or obstruction. These large thermal masses will delay sprinkler operation and minimum distance must be maintained. The remainder of the revision is acceptable. ________________________________________________________________ 13-190 Log #187 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.5.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.5.6 Clearance to Storage from Deflector8.5.6.1 The clearance between the deflector and the top of storage or contents of the the room shall be 18 in. (457 mm) or greater.Substantiation: This is not just a storage issue but applies to all installations. IF the TC concurs, the same type change needs to be made in 8.6.6 / 8.7.6 / 8.8.6 / 8.11.6 / 8.12.6 It appears that 8.9 & 8.10 do not have a similar requirement. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It has always been the intent to allow portable items to extend above a level of 18 inches below ceiling sprinkler deflector when against the wall. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: I agree with the submitter’s substantiation. The item pointed out by the committee is covered in A.8.6.6. ________________________________________________________________ 13-191 Log #214 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.5.7.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ron Fletcher, Aero Automatic Sprinkler CompanyRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from multiple skylights, within 10 ft of each other provided the total area of skylights within 10 ft does not exceed 32 square ft.Substantiation: With the current language if there were two 2 ft × 2 ft skylights four ft apart one or both would have to have a sprinkler. The total area of the skylights is only eight square ft and both would fit inside a four by eight skylight. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Section 8.6.7.2(4) already addresses this subject.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: Skylight criteria is addressed in 8.5, how can the ceiling pocket criteria of 8.6 be applied. CAPUTO, R.: Skylight criteria has been intentionally separated from ceiling pocket criteria so we should not say the issue is addressed in 8.6. This proposal should be accepted in my opinion. KEEPING, L.: I believe that this matter should have been given more consideration. The proponent is correct, as per the current requirement of 8.5.7.1, if one skylight is within 10 feet of another it should be sprinklered. As was sort of pointed out in the Committee Statement however, being that a skylight is a form of ceiling pocket, 8.6.7.2(4) is in conflict with this, and any number of unprotected skylights can be located within 10 feet of each other as long as their cumulative sizes do not exceed 1000 cu. ft.

________________________________________________________________ 13-192 Log #320 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Table 8.6.2.2.1(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: See Table 8.6.2.2.1(a) on the next page Substantiation: The table needs to have mutually exclusive choices for each type of construction. The proposed table above organizes the information by construction type, making it obvious which spacing rules need to apply to each situation. This should resolve the conflict from last cycle that went all the way top the floor of the NFPA meeting. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: MCPHEE, R.: Need to be clear that the title of the new Table is not changed from the current one. No title was included in the proposed new version. Also, editorially, the description in the left column in the final row should read: ‘Combustible concealed spaces with members less than 3 ft on center in accordance with 8.6.4.1.4.’ ________________________________________________________________ 13-193 Log #211 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.2.2.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:8.6.2.2.1.1 Where the dimension perpendicular to the slope exceeds 8 ft (2.4 m), the minimum pressure shall be 20 psi (1.4 bar). Pipe schedule systems minimum pressure shall comply with Table 11.2.2.1 Water Supply Requirements for Pipe Schedule Sprinkler Systems.Substantiation: Pipe schedule systems can be used in this type of truss and would not be subject to this type of hydraulic design requirement. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Based on test data pipe schedule systems need to have a minimum of 20 psi. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-194 Log #141 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.3.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Delete text as follows: 8.6.3.4.3 In-rack sprinklers shall be permitted to be placed less than 6 ft (1.8 m) on center.Substantiation: Delete paragraph in it’s entirety, and renumber subsequent paragraph. Duplicate information is already provided in section 8.13.4.1, on In-rack sprinklers, which is the proper location. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Keeping this material in this section keeps things linear and simple. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-46


________________________________________________________________ 13-195 Log #53 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.4.1.4.5.1 through 8.6.4.1.4.5.4 and Figure 8.6.4.1.4.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.6.4.1.4.5.1 Sprinklers in spaces outlined in 8.6.4.1.4.4 along hips adjacent to the building exterior shall be permitted to be installed in accordance with Figure 8.6.4.1.4.5. 8.6.4.1.4.5.2 Sprinklers installed per 8.6.4.1.4.5.1 shall be installed with the deflectors horizontal. 8.6.4.1.4.5.3 Sprinklers installed per 8.6.4.1.4.5.1 shall be permitted to exceed Table 8.6.2.2.1(a). 8.6.4.1.4.5.4 Sprinklers installed per 8.6.4.1.4.5.1 shall be spaced per Table 8.6.2.2.1(a) from adjacent sprinklers. Add new Figure 8.6.4.1.4.5.

Table 8.6.2.2.1(a)

Construction Type System TypeMaximum Protection

AreaMaximum Spacing

ft2 m2 ft m

Noncombustible Unobstructed

Hydraulically Calculated 225 20.9 15 4.6

Noncombustible Unobstructed

Pipe Schedule 200 18.6 15 4.6

Noncombustible Obstructed Hydraulically Calculated 225 20.9 15 4.6

Noncombustible Obstructed Pipe Schedule 200 18.6 15 4.6

Combustible Unobstructed with no exposed members Hydraulically Calculated 225 20.9 15 4.6

Combustible Unobstructed with no exposed members


Combustible Unobstructed with exposed members 3 ft or

more on centerHydraulically Calculated 225

20.9

15 4.6

Combustible Unobstructed with exposed members 3 ft or

more on center


Combustible Unobstructed with members less than 3 ft

on centerAll 130 12.1 15 4.6

Combustible Obstructed with exposed members 3 ft or

more on centerAll 168 15.6

15 4.6

Combustible Obstructed with members less than 3 ft on

centerAll 130 12.1 15 4.6

Combustible concealed spaces in accordance with

8.6.4.1.4 All120 11.1

15 parallel to the slope* 4.6 parallel to the slope*

10 perpendicular to the slope*

3.05 perpendicular to the slope*

*See 8.6.2.2.1.1

Figure 8.6.4.1.4.5

13-47

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: Following the rules of Table 8.6.2.2.1(a) and Figure 8.6.4.1.4 create spacing issues along hips of combustible concealed sloped spaces adjacent to the exterior of the building. The optimum location for a sprinkler in this location is at the hip. There has been confusion as to how one spaces from the plane of one side of the hip to the other slope. There is also an issue if the deflector is aligned along one slope, how the slope of the other plane will affect the spray pattern. This proposal does allow the sprinkler to exceed the 120 sq ft spacing limitation but this added area is composed of the narrow spaces at the eaves on both planes. It also allows for an 8” zone to avoid framing members along the hip. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Complex issue which needs time and attention to review and discuss. No technical supporting data. TG recommends sending request to Research Foundation as a potential full scale fire test candidate. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-196 Log #319 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.6.4.1.4 and 8.6.2.2.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Insert at the beginning of the sentence, “In concealed spaces meeting the requirements of 8.6.4.1.4” so that the section reads as follows: 8.6.2.2.1.1 In concealed spaces meeting the requirements of 8.6.4.1.4, where the dimension perpendicular to the slope...”. Substantiation: As written, this section appears to apply to all sloped ceiling situations. But this rule was only intended to apply to the special concealed spaces with closely spaced wood trusses and steep slopes. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: MCPHEE, R.: Also, editorially, the new text should read: ‘In concealed spaces with members less than 3 ft on center meeting the requirements of 8.6.4.1.4...’ ________________________________________________________________ 13-197 Log #52 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.4.1.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.6.4.1.4.4 The requirements of Section 8.6.4.1.4.3 shall not apply to combustible concealed spaces less than 15’-0” (4.6 m) wide. Add New figure 8.6.4.1.4 (b) and rename Figure 8.6.4.1.4 to 8.6.4.1.4(a). Modify 8.6.4.1.4 to read as follows: See Figure 8.6.4.1.4(a) and 8.6.4.1.4(b).

Substantiation: When the rules for “attics” were changed several cycles back, it was shown that sprinklers along the slope would not operate unless the fire was right there. Sprinklers at the peak would operate long before the ones on the slope. With the requirements for sprinklers at the peak and a minimum 5’-0” up the slope, small combustible concealed spaces can require over-excessive amounts of sprinklers. These requirements in certain configurations mean that either sprinklers must be staggered or in some cases baffled. With the sprinkler installed at the peak with the deflector horizontal in spaces 15’-0” or less, a single row of sprinklers at the peak will provide adequate fire control. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Complex issue which needs time and attention to

review and discuss. No technical supporting data. TG recommends sending request to Research Foundation as a potential full scale fire test candidate. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-198 Log #437 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert new section 8.6.4.3 as follows: 8.6.4.3 Protection of Glass Walls, Windows or Separations 8.6.4.3.1 Where standard spray sprinklers are being installed to spray against glass, they shall be installed at maximum 6 ft intervals. 8.6.4.3.2 Deflectors shall be no more than 12 inches from the glass. 8.6.4.3.3 Sprinklers shall be arranged so that the entire surface of the glass is wet upon operation of the sprinklers. 8.6.4.3.4 Where sprinklers are installed in accordance with 8.6.4.1, the sprinklers shall be permitted to also be counted as protecting the floor area next to the glass. Substantiation: NFPA 101 provides this guidance for locating standard spray sprinklers to protect glass in lieu of the rated separation of an atrium (see 8.6.7 of NFPA 101). This guidance is also helpful in other situations where NFPA 101 is not being used or where the glass is not part of an atrium separation. The last section was added to clarify that these sprinklers can also serve as the regular ceiling sprinklers to protect the floor area near the glass if the sprinklers are an acceptable distance down from the ceiling. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Further study is needed to develop the requirements. No data was submitted in this arrangement that prove standard spray sprinklers can wet the entire surface of the glass. Mullions can prevent the wetting of the entire glass surface. The committee agrees that these sprinklers should be accepted as providing floor area protection of adjacent areas. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: This is common practice and accepted by codes as noted in the proposal. Maybe a reference or requirement on design flow and number of operating sprinklers is appropriate. This is similar to Proposal 13-599 which I support.

13-48

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-199 Log #54 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.6.5.1.2(4) and Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:(4) Obstructions located against the wall and that are not over 24 in. (610 mm) in width shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c). Add new Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c).

Substantiation: This is a common situation where currently you would use Section 8.6.5.1.2(3). However, added in the last cycle in the annex it shows you can have a 48” wide obstruction more than 18” below the sprinkler. (See Figure A.8.6.5.1.2). This proposal limits the width to 24” as it is half of the 48” requirement for obstructions greater than 18” below sprinklers. It is assumed with up to 48” obstructions that water from above will run down the sides of the obstruction and wick under and drip off the obstruction. Since this situation only allows the water on one side, I have submitted a 24” width. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-200 Log #188 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.6.5.2.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.6.5.2.1.2 Regardless of the rules of 8.6.5.2, solid continuous obstructions, where the top of the obstruction is even with or above the plane of the deflector, shall meet the applicable requirements of 8.6.5.1.2.Substantiation: The current wording requires a duct that is 17 inches below the deflector to be treated like a beam that is tight (or close to) the ceiling similar to those portrayed by Figures 8.6.5.1.2(a) & (b). A.8.6.5.2.1.3 identifes that the three times rule does work for continuous obstructions which conflicts with the literal text within the standard. This seems to have been an unintentional consequence in the earler efforts to clarify the prior confusion in addressing obstructions. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Revise text to read as follows: 8.6.5.2.1.2 Regardless of the rules of 8.6.5.2, solid continuous obstructions, where the top of the obstruction is level even with or above the plane of the deflector, shall meet the applicable requirements of 8.6.5.1.2.Committee Statement: Editorial change.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: BROWN, P.: Committee action should be A.I.P. since the proposal was modified. CAPUTO, R.: Committee action should be A.I.P. since the proposal was modified. ________________________________________________________________ 13-201 Log #375 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.5.2.2, 8.7.5.2.2, 8.8.5.2.2, 8.9.5.2.2, 8.10.6.2.2, and 8.10.7.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.6.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. In light hazard occupancies, the distance from sprinklers to vertically suspended or floor mounted vertical obstructions privacy curtains, freestanding partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be

permitted provided the distance from sprinklers to the obstruction is in accordance with Table 8.6.5.2.2 and Figure 8.6.5.2.2. A.8.6.5.2.2 An example of a vertically suspended obstruction is a privacy curtain. Examples of a floor mounted vertical obstructions include freestanding partitions, room dividers, equipment racks and similar obstructions. 8.7.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. In light hazard occupancies, the distance from sprinklers to vertically suspended or floor mounted vertical obstructions privacy curtains, freestanding partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be permitted provided the distance from sprinklers to the obstruction is in accordance with Table 8.7.5.2.2 and Figure 8.7.5.2.2. A.8.7.5.2.2 An example of a vertically suspended obstruction is a privacy curtain. Examples of a floor mounted vertical obstructions include freestanding partitions, room dividers, equipment racks and similar obstructions. 8.8.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. In light hazard occupancies, the distance from sprinklers to vertically suspended or floor mounted vertical obstructions privacy curtains, freestanding partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be permitted provided the distance from sprinklers to the obstruction is in accordance with Table 8.8.5.2.2 and Figure 8.8.5.2.2. A.8.8.5.2.2 An example of a vertically suspended obstruction is a privacy curtain. Examples of a floor mounted vertical obstructions include freestanding partitions, room dividers, equipment racks and similar obstructions. 8.9.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. In light hazard occupancies, the distance from sprinklers to vertically suspended or floor mounted vertical obstructions privacy curtains, freestanding partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be permitted provided the distance from sprinklers to the obstruction is in accordance with Table 8.9.5.2.2 and Figure 8.9.5.2.2. A.8.9.5.2.2 An example of a vertically suspended obstruction is a privacy curtain. Examples of a floor mounted vertical obstructions include freestanding partitions, room dividers, equipment racks and similar obstructions. 8.10.6.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. In light hazard occupancies, the distance from sprinklers to vertically suspended or floor mounted vertical obstructions privacy curtains, freestanding partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be permitted provided the distance from sprinklers to the obstruction is in accordance with Table 8.10.6.2.2 and Figure 8.10.6.2.2. A.8.10.6.2.2 An example of a vertically suspended obstruction is a privacy curtain. Examples of a floor mounted vertical obstructions include freestanding partitions, room dividers, equipment racks and similar obstructions. 8.10.7.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. In light hazard occupancies, the distance from sprinklers to vertically suspended or floor mounted vertical obstructions privacy curtains, freestanding partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be permitted provided the distance from sprinklers to the obstruction is in accordance with Table 8.10.7.2.2 and Figure 8.10.7.2.2. A.8.10.7.2.2 An example of a vertically suspended obstruction is a privacy curtain. Examples of a floor mounted vertical obstructions include freestanding partitions, room dividers, equipment racks and similar obstructions.Substantiation: The NFPA Manual of Style doesn’t permit lists, especially one that says “and similar obstructions.” Therefore, this language belongs in an annex. The base requirement has been rewritten to clearly state that the distances listed on the table and figure only applies to light hazard occupancies. The new annex has been written to distinguish between vertically suspended and floor mounted vertical obstructions. Equipment racks have been added to the list because they are a floor mounted obstruction and are not considered storage. Thus, equipment that potentially is within 18” of the sprinkler deflector would be permitted provided it met the requirements of the table and figure – which I assume is the intent. If not, please indicate where obstructions due to floor mounted equipment would be addressed in the standard. It’s not paragraph 8.6.6, though many AHJs incorrectly cite the 18” storage requirement under paragraph 8.6.6 when equipment is noted to be less than 18” from the sprinkler deflector. Bottom line, there should be no direct prohibition for equipment where the top of such equipment is within the 18” plane so long as the sprinklers discharge pattern is not impacted (e.g., meeting the distances listed in the table and figure, or installing sprinklers on both sides of equipment, etc., both should be somehow stated as viable options to a direct prohibition of equipment within 18” of the sprinkler deflector). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Manual of Style allows this format in the body of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-202 Log #24 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.6.5.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise section 8.6.5.3.3 as follows: 8.6.5.3.3 Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft wide in both the length and width dimensions, such as ducts, decks, open grate flooring, cutting tables, and overhead doors.

13-49

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: The current language creates some confusion by inspectors and AHJs as to the intent of the “width” dimension. “Width” is not defined as the least dimension so some AHJs infer that an item described as 3 feet long by 10 feet wide would require protection. We believe the intent of the section is that width is intended to apply to the least dimension of the length and width. This change would clarify that both the length and width are required to exceed the 4 ft dimension specification. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is currently waiting for data that either supports or refutes this proposal. Also see Committee Proposal 13-24 (Log #CP406). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: I agree that this proposal should have been rejected, because I believe the concept of width vs. length is almost universally understood, however I disagree with the Committee Statement for the rejection. The referenced Proposal 13-24, Log #CP406 is about concealed spaces, small openings and ceiling clouds and is not directly related to the subject of obstructions that are over 4 feet wide, which has been addressed in the standard for many many years. ________________________________________________________________ 13-203 Log #376 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.6.5.3.3 and A.8.6.5.3.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.6.5.3.3* Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) wide, such as ducts, decks, open grate flooring, cutting tables, and overhead doors. A.8.6.5.3.3 Examples of obstruction that could exceed 4 ft are ducts, decks, open grate flooring, cutting tables, overhead doors and decorative materials hung from the roof or ceiling.Substantiation: The NFPA Manual of Style strongly discourages the use of lists, unless they are complete. Using the term “such as” indicates that the existing list items are simply examples and not all encompassing. Therefore, this text belongs in the annex, even though these terms were originally added to the body of the text. New terminology is also proposed for the annex pertaining to decorative ceilings. Similar text was proposed last cycle for “cloud ceilings” (see ROC-95 and 96) but was rejected because no definition was proposed, and the committee chose not to develop its own definition. No technical reason was given for rejecting the proposal or the concern it raised regarding “cloud ceilings” or similar materials. This cycle, rather than attempting to develop a definition for “cloud ceilings” that could be subject for debate among itself, this proposal uses generic terminology - “decorative materials” instead. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that these types of materials are noted in the annex as potential obstructions and that sprinklers are installed beneath them. Note: other examples could also be added such as conveyors, soffits and catwalks. If the committee feels these potential obstruction are not an issue, then please state so in your committee statement. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 8.6.5.3.3 Sprinklers shall be installed under fixed obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) wide. such as ducts, decks, open grate floor, cutting tables, and overhead doors.A.8.6.5.3.3 When obstructions are located more than 18” below the sprinkler deflector, an adequate spray pattern develops and obstructions up to and including 4 ft-0 in. wide do not require additional protection underneath. Examples are ducts, decks, open grate flooring, catwalks, cutting tables, overhead doors, soffits, ceiling clouds or panels, and other similar obstructions.Committee Statement: This language was modified to coordinate with other sections of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-204 Log #359 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.6.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.6.5.4 Shadow Areas. Dry areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor as long as the dry areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Substantiation: Dry areas are already permitted by NFPA 13 using the “three-times” rule. Whether the dry area is created by a column or a wall or partition should make no difference. Some AHJ’s are willing to accept the dry areas created by walls or columns on an equivalency basis when comparing the situation to the “three-times” rule and a column, however, many AHJ’s are not allowing the dry areas because they are just intimidated by the math involved in calculating the size of the area that is equivalent. The size of 15 sq ft was determined using a pendent sprinkler in the middle of a 15 ft by 15 ft room and an 8 inch wide column 24 inches away (in accordance with the three-times rule). This creates a dry area behind the

column (but still within the protection area of the sprinkler) of approximately 15 sq ft. If the dry area was created by a wall or partition, the same dry area should be allowed explicitly by NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 8.6.5.4 Shadow Areas. Shadowed areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor where shadowed areas do not exceed 27 sq ft in light and ordinary occupancies with quick response sprinklers.

Committee Statement: The committee was not willing to accept shadowed areas in all occupancies and felt that quick response sprinklers were more appropriate. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: No technical substantiation has been submitted. KEEPING, L.: There are several things wrong with this Action: - First, according to my notes, the TC did not accept the 27 ft² value, but retained the 15 ft² that was originally proposed. At 27 ft², there is a conflict with the Action for similar proposals 13-209 to 13-223 (Log # 360 to Log #364) which accepted only 15 ft² for other types of sprinklers. - Second, according to my notes, the TC did not accept the illustrations. - Third, the TC decided to limit the application of shadow areas to light and ordinary hazard occupancies with quick response sprinklers. However, as per the proponents substantiation and as per the Task Group’s explanation, shadow areas are created by obstructions to sprinklers that are correctly installed as per the “Three Times Rule” of 8.6.5.2.1.3. Therefore, since the 8.6.5.2.1.3 applies to all standard spray upright and pendent sprinklers, shadow areas are already allowed for all occupancies protected with that type of sprinkler, so they cannot be limited to just L.H. and O.H. occupancies with Q/R sprinklers. Comment on Affirmative: MCPHEE, R.: Figure A.6.5.4 should be entitled, i.e., Example of shadowed area. ________________________________________________________________ 13-205 Log #377 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.6.6.1, 8.7.6, 8.8.6.1, and A.8.6.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.6.6.1 The clearance between the deflector and the top of storage shall be 18 in. (457 mm) or greater, unless sprinklers are installed on both sides of the obstruction and meet the spacing requirements of Table 8.6.2.2.1(a).A.8.6.6 The 18 in. (457 mm) dimension is not intended to limit the height of shelving on a wall or shelving against a wall in accordance with Sections 8.6.6, 8.7.6, 8.8.6, and Section 8.9. Where shelving is installed on a wall and is not directly below sprinklers, the shelves, including storage thereon, can extend above the level of a plane located 18 in. (457 mm) below ceiling sprinkler deflectors. Shelving, and any storage thereon, directly below the sprinklers cannot extend above a plane located 18 in. (457 mm) below the ceiling sprinkler deflectors. 8.7.6 The clearance between the deflector and the top of storage shall be 18 in. (457 mm) or greater, unless sprinklers are installed on both sides of the obstruction and meet the spacing requirements of Table 8.6.2.2.1(a). 8.8.6.1 The clearance between the deflector and the top of storage shall be 18 in. (457 mm) or greater, unless sprinklers are installed on both sides of the obstruction and meet the spacing requirements of Table 8.6.2.2.1(a).Substantiation: Why should there be exceptions for floor mounted vertical obstructions as permitted by 8.6.5.2.2, but no exception for storage (other than library stack areas and medical record storage per 8.15.9)? Figure 8.6.5.2.2 permits the top of a floor mounted vertical obstruction to be less than 18” from the sprinkler deflector provided the sprinkler is appropriately spaced horizontally from the floor mounted obstruction. No dimension is given regarding the width of the floor mounted obstruction, though it appears as if

24 in.column

24 in.column27 sq ft

shadow

23 sq ftshadow

10 ft 0 in. 7 ft 6 in.

Extended coverageshadow areas

Standard coverageshadow areas

Figure 8.6.5.4 Shadow Areas

13-50

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 the intent of 8.6.5.2.2 is only meant for ”narrow” width obstructions. Assuming this is the reason for the difference in criteria, it’s still possible for small storage racks to be installed that include storage within the 18” plane that would not impact the discharge pattern of the sprinkler. This being said, my proposal does not aim to reference Figure 8.6.5.2.2, though I did consider it (and would appreciate a committee statement as to why it wouldn’t be appropriate to do so); instead, this proposal aims to revise both the base paragraph and delete restrictive language its annex to permit the option of storage within the 18” plane (that’s not necessarily along the perimeter wall) provided sprinklers are installed on both sides of storage and the sprinklers are located proximate to the storage (e.g., no more than within 7-1/2 ft from the storage so the spray pattern needed to needed can develop to allow proper wetting of the floor. By doing this, the storage rack is treated similarly to a wall. This is similar to the approach taken for library stacks and medical record storage. Note: if 7-1/2 ft is deemed excessive, a more conservative number would be fine, so long as the hard and fast 18” requirement is at long last relaxed when appropriate equivalent protection is provided. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleMove A.8.6.6 into body of the standard following 8.6.6.1 as follows: 8.6.6.2 The 18 in. (457 mm) dimension shall not limit the height of shelving on a wall or shelving against a wall in accordance with 8.6.6, 8.7.6, 8.8.6, and Section 8.9. Where shelving is installed on a wall and is not directly below sprinklers, the shelves, including storage thereon, shall extend above the level of a plane located 18 in. (457 mm) below ceiling sprinkler deflectors. Shelving, and any storage thereon, directly below the sprinklers shall not extend above a plane located 18 in. (457 mm) below the ceiling sprinkler deflectors. Committee Statement: Revised wording provides guidance where storage on the perimeter encroaches upon the 18 in. clearance rule. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: There was no technical justification presented to support the change. The change would allow storage on shelves above the reach of sprinkler water spray that would burn uncontrolled generating heat and toxic gases. Fire could also extend opening an excessive number of sprinklers resulting in failure of the entire system. ________________________________________________________________ 13-206 Log #250 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.7.3.1.4.1, 8.7.3.1.4.2, and 8.7.3.1.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.7.3.1.4.1 Sidewall spray sprinklers shall not be installed back-to-back without being separated by a continuous lintel or soffit. 8.7.3.1.4.2 The maximum width of the lintel or soffit shall not exceed 16 inches. 8.7.3.1.4.3 The maximum width of the lintel or soffit can exceed 16 inches when a pendent sprinkler is installed under the lintel or soffit.Substantiation: There is no guidance on the maximum width specified for the soffit or lintel when the sprinklers are installed back-to-back. The maximum width proposed is determined from 2 times 8-inches specified from 8.7.4.1.3.1. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-207 Log #321 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.7.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.7.3.4: Minimum Distance Between Sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be spaced not less than 6 ft (1.8 m) on center unless required by 8.7.4.1.3.1 or separated by baffles or other obstructions blocking direct spray of sprinklers.Substantiation: Baffles and other obstructions are permitted to reduce the spacing between upright and pendent sprinklers to less than 6 feet as they prevent direct spray of one sprinkler onto another which could otherwise cause cold soldering. This same reasoning can be applied to sidewall sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise Section 8.7.3.4: Minimum Distance Between Sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be spaced not less than 6 ft (1.8 m) on center unless required by 8.7.4.1.3.1 separated by baffles that comply with the following: (1) Baffles shall be installed and located midway between sprinklers and arranged to protect the actuating elements. (2) Baffles shall be of noncombustible or limited-combustible material that will stay in place before and during sprinkler operation. (3) Baffles shall be not less than 8 in. (203 mm) wide and 6 in. (152 mm) high. (4) The tops of baffles shall extend between 2 in. and 3 in. (51 mm and 76 mm) above the deflectors of upright sprinklers. (5) The bottoms of baffles shall extend downward to a level at least even with the deflectors of pendent sprinklers.

Committee Statement: The conditions that define a baffle needed be included. The inclusion of requirements for baffles makes this consistent with the remainder of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-208 Log #420 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.7.5.1.6 and A.8.7.5.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 8.7.5.1.6 with an annex note as follows: “8.7.5.1.6 Obstructions on the wall opposite from the sidewall sprinkler shall be permitted where the obstruction is up to 2 ft deep and 2 ft wide.” A.8.7.5.1.6 See Figure A.8.7.5.1.6.

Figure A.8.7.5.1.6 Permitted Obstruction on Wall Opposite Sidewall SprinklerSubstantiation: The purpose of the “beam rules” (8.7.5.1.3 and 8.7.5.1.4) are to make sure that sufficient water can get past the obstruction to fight fire on the other side of the obstruction. But when the obstruction is against a wall, the sprinkler spray does not need to get past the obstruction. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-209 Log #360 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.7.5.4 and A.8.7.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.7.5.4* Shadow Areas. Dry areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor as long as the dry areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.A.8.7.5.4 Corridors being protected with sidewall sprinklers will frequently have small areas behind the sprinklers that are inset for a doorway. Even though these areas are slightly behind the sprinklers, it is not the intent of NFPA 13 to require additional sprinkler protection in these doorways.Substantiation: Dry areas are already permitted by NFPA 13 using the “three-times” rule. Whether the dry area is created by a column or a wall or partition should make no difference. Some AHJ’s are willing to accept the dry areas created by walls or columns on an equivalency basis when comparing the situation to the “three-times” rule and a column, however, many AHJ’s are not allowing the dry areas because they are just intimidated by the math involved in calculating the size of the area that is equivalent. The size of 15 sq ft was determined using a pendent sprinkler in the middle of a 15 ft by 15 ft room and an 8 inch wide column 24 inches away (in accordance with the three-times rule). This creates a dry area behind the column (but still within the protection area of the sprinkler) of approximately 15 sq ft. If the dry area was created by a wall or partition, the same dry area should be allowed explicitly by NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 8.7.5.4* Shadow Areas. Shadowed areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor provided the shadowed areas do not exceed 15 sq ft. where protected with quick response sprinklers. A.8.7.5.4 Corridors being protected with sidewall sprinklers will frequently have small areas behind the sprinklers that are inset for a doorway. Even though these areas are slightly behind the sprinklers, it is not the intent of NFPA 13 to require additional sprinkler protection in these doorways.Committee Statement: Changes were made to correlate with other changes made. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2

2 ft

2 ft

13-51

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: No technical substantiation has been submitted. KEEPING, L.: I believe that this matter needs to be reconsidered. The TC decided to limit the application of shadow areas to installations with quick response sprinklers. However, as per the proponents substantiation and as per the Task Group’s explanation, shadow areas are created by obstructions to sprinklers that are correctly installed as per the “Three Times Rule” of 8.7.5.2.1.3. Therefore, since the 8.7.5.2.1.3 applies to all standard sidewall spray sprinklers, shadow areas are already allowed for all standard sidewall spray sprinklers, so they cannot be limited to the Q/R type. ________________________________________________________________ 13-210 Log #81 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.8.5.1.2(4) and Figure 8.8.5.1.2(c) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: (4) Obstructions located against the wall and that are not over 24 in. (610 mm) in width shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with Figure 8.8.5.1.2(c). Add new Figure 8.8.5.1.2(c).

Substantiation: This is a common situation where currently you would use Section 8.8.5.1.2(3). However, added in the last cycle in the annex it shows you can have a 48” wide obstruction more than 18” below the sprinkler. (See Figure A.8.6.5.1.2). This proposal limits the width to 24” as it is half of the 48” requirement for obstructions greater than 18” below sprinklers. It is assumed with up to 48” obstructions that water from above will run down the sides of the obstruction and wick under and drip off the obstruction. Since this situation only allows the water on one side. I have submitted a 24” width. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-211 Log #10 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.8.5.2.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 13-07-2 (TIA 896) issued by the Standards Council on January 10, 2008.Submitter: Cecil Bilbo, Jr., National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: 1. Propose that 8.8.5.2.1.6 from the 2002 edition of the standard be inserted as 8.8.5.2.1.6 of the 2007 edition of the standard as follows, and that the two subsequent sections be renumbered:8.8.5.2.1.6 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed on the centerline of a truss or bar joist or directly above a beam provided that the truss chord or beam dimension is not more than 8 in. (203 mm) and the sprinkler deflector is located at least 6 in. (152 mm) above the structural member and where the sprinkler is positioned at a distance four times greater than the maximum dimension of the web members away from the web members. Substantiation: The deletion of this section occurred as a result of proposals and comments that the NFSA submitted. We had never intended to make any change to this section of the standard. Our intent was to delete the allowance to put sprinklers halfway between wood trusses (old section 8.8.5.2.1.5) and renumber the allowance for putting sprinklers in the centerline of bar joists as new 8.8.5.2.1.5. When the committee decided to keep old 8.8.5.2.1.5 and modify it, there seems to be some confusion regarding which section was

supposed to get modified. It is our firm belief that the wrong section was modified and the allowance for putting extended coverage sprinklers in the centerline of bar joists was inadvertently left out of the standard. We hope that the NFPA considers this an emergency because a standard installation practice that is both practical and functional has been removed without any justification and through what we believe to be a simple error in writing the committee statement. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The language is already there.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-212 Log #361 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.8.5.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.8.5.4 Shadow Areas. Dry areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor as long as the dry areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Substantiation: Dry areas are already permitted by NFPA 13 using the “three-times” rule. Whether the dry area is created by a column or a wall or partition should make no difference. Some AHJ’s are willing to accept the dry areas created by walls or columns on an equivalency basis when comparing the situation to the “three-times” rule and a column, however, many AHJ’s are not allowing the dry areas because they are just intimidated by the math involved in calculating the size of the area that is equivalent. The size of 15 sq ft was determined using a pendent sprinkler in the middle of a 15 ft by 15 ft room and an 8 inch wide column 24 inches away (in accordance with the three-times rule). This creates a dry area behind the column (but still within the protection area of the sprinkler) of approximately 15 sq ft. If the dry area was created by a wall or partition, the same dry area should be allowed explicitly by NFPA 13. We are proposing the same 15 sq ft for extended coverage sprinklers as we did for standard spray sprinklers to keep the rules consistent. The reality is that extended coverage sprinklers using the four-times rule at 20 x 20 spacing actually have dry areas around 21 sq ft (calculated with a 9 inch wide obstruction 36 inches away from the sprinkler, see NFSA Sprinkler TechNotes of May/June 2008) but some additional safety factor for extended coverage sprinklers may be warranted. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 8.8.5.4 Shadow Areas. Shadowed areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor provided the shadowed areas do not exceed 15 sq ft. where protected with quick response sprinklers in light and ordinary hazard areas.Committee Statement: Changes were made to correlate with other changes.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: No technical substantiation has been submitted. KEEPING, L.: I believe that this matter needs to be reconsidered. TC decided to limit the application of shadow areas to light and ordinary hazard occupancies with quick response sprinklers. However, as per the proponents substantiation and as per the Task Group’s explanation, shadow areas are created by obstructions to sprinklers that are correctly installed as per the “Four Times Rule” of 8.8.5.2.1.3. Therefore, since the 8.8.5.2.1.3 applies to all extended coverage upright and pendent sprinklers, shadow areas are already allowed for all occupancies protected with that type of sprinkler, so they cannot be limited to just L.H. and O.H. occupancies with Q/R sprinklers. ________________________________________________________________ 13-213 Log #322 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.9.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.9.3.4: Minimum Distance Between Sprinklers. Sprinklers shall be located within the maximum protection area of any other sprinkler unless required by 8.9.4.1.4.1 or separated by baffles or other obstructions blocking direct spray of sprinklers.Substantiation: Baffles and other obstructions are permitted to reduce the spacing between upright and pendent sprinklers as they prevent direct spray of one sprinkler onto another which could otherwise cause cold soldering. This same reasoning can be applied to extended coverage sidewall sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: No Sprinklers shall be not located within the maximum protection area of any other sprinkler unless required by 8.9.4.1.4.1 or separated by baffles that comply with the following: (1) Baffles shall be installed and located midway between sprinklers and arranged to protect the actuating elements. (2) Baffles shall be of noncombustible or limited-combustible material that will stay in place before and during sprinkler operation.

Ceiling or roof

Obstruction

Wall

No additionalprotection isrequired

18 in. MinimumNo Maximum

24 in. Maximum

Figure 8.8.5.1.2(c) Extended Coverage Upright and Pendent Spray Sprinklers

13-52

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 (3) Baffles shall be not less than 8 in. (203 mm) wide and 6 in. (152 mm) high. (4) The tops of baffles shall extend between 2 in. and 3 in. (51 mm and 76 mm) above the deflectors of upright sprinklers. (5) The bottoms of baffles shall extend downward to a level at least even with the deflectors of pendent sprinklers.Committee Statement: Changes were make to correlate with other changes made. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-214 Log #421 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.9.5.1.6 and A.8.9.5.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 8.9.5.1.6 with an annex note as follows: “8.9.5.1.6 Obstructions on the wall opposite from the sidewall sprinkler shall be permitted where the obstruction is up to 2 ft deep and 2 ft wide.” A.8.9.5.1.6 See Figure A.8.9.5.1.6.

Figure 8.9.5.1.6 Permitted Obstruction on Wall Opposite EC Sidewall Sprinkler Substantiation: The purpose of the “beam rules” (8.9.5.1.3 and 8.9.5.1.4) are to make sure that sufficient water can get past the obstruction to fight fire on the other side of the obstruction. But when the obstruction is against a wall, the sprinkler spray does not need to get past the obstruction. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-215 Log #362 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.9.5.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.9.5.4 Shadow Areas. Dry areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor as long as the dry areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Substantiation: Dry areas are already permitted by NFPA 13 using the “three-times” rule. Whether the dry area is created by a column or a wall or partition should make no difference. Some AHJ’s are willing to accept the dry areas created by walls or columns on an equivalency basis when comparing the situation to the “three-times” rule and a column, however, many AHJ’s are not allowing the dry areas because they are just intimidated by the math involved in calculating the size of the area that is equivalent. The size of 15 sq ft was determined using a pendent sprinkler in the middle of a 15 ft by 15 ft room and an 8 inch wide column 24 inches away (in accordance with the three-times rule). This creates a dry area behind the column (but still within the protection area of the sprinkler) of approximately 15 sq ft. If the dry area was created by a wall or partition, the same dry area should be allowed explicitly by NFPA 13. The concept can be shown in the following figures. In Figure 1, an extended coverage sidewall sprinkler has been located in accordance with its listing. If Figure 2, a column complying with 8.9.5.1.3 has been placed and creates a shadow area that is perfectly acceptable under NFPA 13. In Figure 3, a series of walls replaces the column, and creates a smaller shadow than what was permitted by the column, so it should be permitted.

Figure #1

Figure #2

Figure #3 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 8.9.5.4 Shadow Areas. Shadowed areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor provided the shadowed areas do not exceed 15 sq ft. where protected with quick response sprinklers in light and ordinary hazard areas.Committee Statement: Changes were made to correlate with other changes.

2 ft

2 ft

13-53

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that this matter needs to be reconsidered. The TC decided to limit the application of shadow areas to just light and ordinary hazard occupancies with quick response sprinklers. However, as per the proponents substantiation and as per the Task Group’s explanation, shadow areas are created by obstructions to sprinklers that are correctly installed as per the “Four Times Rule” of 8.9.5.2.1.3. Therefore, since the 8.9.5.2.1.3 applies to all extended coverage sidewall sprinklers, shadow areas are already allowed for all occupancies protected with that type of sprinkler, so they cannot be limited to just L.H. and O.H. occupancies with Q/R sprinklers. Comment on Affirmative: MCPHEE, R.: It is not clear from the Committee Action whether the new Figures are to be added as well. ________________________________________________________________ 13-216 Log #323 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.10.3.3, 8.10.3.4, and 8.10.3.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.10.3.3: The minimum distance between sprinklers within a compartment shall be 8 ft (2.44 m), unless the listing of the sprinkler requires a greater distance, and unless required by 8.10.7.1.5.1, or unless separated by baffles or other obstructions blocking direct spray of sprinklers. Revise Section 8.10.3.4: Residential sidewall sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed on opposing or adjacent walls, provided no sprinkler is located within the maximum protection area of another sprinkler or unless separated by baffles or other obstructions blocking direct spray of sprinklers. Revise Section 8.10.3.6: Where sprinklers are installed along sloped ceilings, the sprinklers shall maintain the minimum listed spacing, but no less than 8 ft (2.44 m), measured in the plan view from one sprinkler to another as shown in Figure 8.10.3.6(a) and Figure 8.10.3.6(b) or unless separated by baffles or other obstructions blocking direct spray of sprinklers.Substantiation: Baffles and other obstructions are permitted to reduce the spacing between upright and pendent sprinklers as they prevent direct spray of one sprinkler onto another which could otherwise cause cold soldering. This same reasoning can be applied to residential sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise Section 8.10.3.3: The minimum distance between sprinklers within a compartment shall be 8 ft (2.44 m), unless the listing of the sprinkler requires a greater distance, and unless required by 8.10.7.1.5.1, unless separated by baffles that comply with the following: (1) Baffles shall be installed and located midway between sprinklers and arranged to protect the actuating elements. (2) Baffles shall be of noncombustible or limited-combustible material that will stay in place before and during sprinkler operation. (3) Baffles shall be not less than 8 in. (203 mm) wide and 6 in. (152 mm) high. (4) The tops of baffles shall extend between 2 in. and 3 in. (51 mm and 76 mm) above the deflectors of upright sprinklers. (5) The bottoms of baffles shall extend downward to a level at least even with the deflectors of pendent sprinklers.Revise Section 8.10.3.4: Residential sidewall sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed on opposing or adjacent walls, provided no sprinkler is located within the maximum protection area of another sprinkler unless separated by baffles that comply with the following: (1) Baffles shall be installed and located midway between sprinklers and arranged to protect the actuating elements. (2) Baffles shall be of noncombustible or limited-combustible material that will stay in place before and during sprinkler operation. (3) Baffles shall be not less than 8 in. (203 mm) wide and 6 in. (152 mm) high. (4) The tops of baffles shall extend between 2 in. and 3 in. (51 mm and 76 mm) above the deflectors of upright sprinklers. (5) The bottoms of baffles shall extend downward to a level at least even with the deflectors of pendent sprinklers. Revise Section 8.10.3.6: Where sprinklers are installed along sloped ceilings, the sprinklers shall maintain the minimum listed spacing, but no less than 8 ft (2.44 m), measured in the plan view from one sprinkler to another as shown in Figure 8.10.3.6(a) and Figure 8.10.3.6(b) unless separated by baffles that comply with the following: (1) Baffles shall be installed and located midway between sprinklers and arranged to protect the actuating elements. (2) Baffles shall be of noncombustible or limited-combustible material that will stay in place before and during sprinkler operation. (3) Baffles shall be not less than 8 in. (203 mm) wide and 6 in. (152 mm) high. (4) The tops of baffles shall extend between 2 in. and 3 in. (51 mm and 76 mm) above the deflectors of upright sprinklers. (5) The bottoms of baffles shall extend downward to a level at least even with the deflectors of pendent sprinklers.

Committee Statement: These changes were made to correlate with other changes made. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-217 Log #42 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.10.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new sections as follows: 8.10.4.4 The distance from sprinklers to the end walls shall not exceed one-half of the allowable distance permitted between sprinklers as indicated in the sprinkler listing. 8.10.4.5 Minimum Distance from Walls. 8.10.4.5.1 Sprinklers shall be located a minimum of 4 in. (102 mm) from an end wall. 8.10.4.5.2 The distance from the wall to the sprinkler shall be measured perpendicular to the wall. Substantiation: These requirements are listed under other types of sprinklers, but the user is not provided with sufficient guidance when dealing with residential sprinklers. The same requirements used for extended coverage sprinklers are suitable for residential sprinklers too. This proposal was developed by the UL/FM/NFSA Standards Review Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-218 Log #221 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.10.4.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Residential sidewall sprinkler shall be located not more than 6 in. (152 mm) from the surface they are mounted on unless specifically listed for greater distances.Substantiation: Locating a residential sidewall sprinkler too far off the surface they are mounted on can delay their operation time which can adversely affect their ability to control a fire. Also greater distances can have adverse affect on the back wall wetting capabilities of the sprinkler. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-219 (Log #455).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-219 Log #455 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.10.4.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.10.4.4 Residential horizontal sidewall sprinkler deflectors shall be located no more than 6 in. from the wall on which they are mounted.Substantiation: Although deflector to ceiling distances are given, there are no guidelines for deflector to wall distances for residential sidewall sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add text to read as follows: 8.10.4.4 Residential horizontal sidewall sprinkler deflectors shall be located no more than 6 in. from the wall on which they are mounted unless listed for greater distances.Committee Statement: Editorial changes.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: SCHWAB, P.: The committee should refer to which part of the deflector to measure to.

13-54

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-220 Log #55 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.10.6.1.2(4) and Figure 8.10.6.1.2(c) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: (4) Obstructions located against the wall and that are not over 24 in. (610 mm) in width shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with Figure 8.10.6.1.2(c). Add new Figure 8.10.6.1.2(c).

Substantiation: This is a common situation where currently you would use Section 8.10.6.1.2(3). However, added in the last cycle in the annex it shows you can have a 48” wide obstruction more than 18” below the sprinkler. (See Figure A.8.6.5.1.2). This proposal limits the width to 24” as it is half of the 48” requirement for obstructions greater than 18” below sprinklers. It is assumed with up to 48” obstructions that water from above will run down the sides of the obstruction and wick under and drip off the obstruction. Since this situation only allows the water on one side, I have submitted a 24” width. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Residential sprinklers have a higher discharge pattern for wall wetting. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-221 Log #363 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.10.6.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.10.6.4 Shadow Areas. Dry areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor as long as the dry areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Substantiation: Dry areas are already permitted by NFPA 13 using the “three-times” rule. Whether the dry area is created by a column or a wall or partition should make no difference. Some AHJ’s are willing to accept the dry areas created by walls or columns on an equivalency basis when comparing the situation to the “three-times” rule and a column, however, many AHJ’s are not allowing the dry areas because they are just intimidated by the math involved in calculating the size of the area that is equivalent. The size of 15 sq ft was determined using a pendent sprinkler in the middle of a 15 ft by 15 ft room and an 8 inch wide column 24 inches away (in accordance with the three-times rule). This creates a dry area behind the column (but still within the protection area of the sprinkler) of approximately 15 sq ft. If the dry area was created by a wall or partition, the same dry area should be allowed explicitly by NFPA 13. The same rules have been proposed for residential sprinklers as standard spray sprinklers in the interest of maintaining consistency in the rules and creating a safety factor for these kinds of sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 8.10.6.4 Shadow Areas. Shadowed areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor provided the shadowed areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Committee Statement: This change was made to coordinate other changes made. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1

Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: No technical substantiation has been submitted. ________________________________________________________________ 13-222 Log #422 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.10.7.1.6 and A.8.10.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 8.10.7.1.6 with an annex note as follows: “8.10.7.1.6 Obstructions on the wall opposite from the sidewall sprinkler shall be permitted where the obstruction is up to 2 ft deep and 2 ft wide.” A.8.10.7.1.6 See Figure A.8.10.7.1.6.

Figure 8.10.7.1.6 Permitted Obstruction on Wall Opposite Residential Sidewall Sprinkler Substantiation: The purpose of the “beam rules” (8.10.7.1.3 and 8.10.7.1.4) are to make sure that sufficient water can get past the obstruction to fight fire on the other side of the obstruction. But when the obstruction is against a wall, the sprinkler spray does not need to get past the obstruction. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-223 Log #364 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.10.7.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.10.7.4 Shadow Areas. Dry areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor as long as the dry areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Substantiation: Dry areas are already permitted by NFPA 13 using the “three-times” rule. Whether the dry area is created by a column or a wall or partition should make no difference. Some AHJ’s are willing to accept the dry areas created by walls or columns on an equivalency basis when comparing the situation to the “three-times” rule and a column, however, many AHJ’s are not allowing the dry areas because they are just intimidated by the math involved in calculating the size of the area that is equivalent. The size of 15 sq ft was determined using a pendent sprinkler in the middle of a 15 ft by 15 ft room and an 8 inch wide column 24 inches away (in accordance with the three-times rule). This creates a dry area behind the column (but still within the protection area of the sprinkler) of approximately 15 sq ft. If the dry area was created by a wall or partition, the same dry area should be allowed explicitly by NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: 8.10.7.4 Shadow Areas. Shadowed areas shall be permitted in the protection area of a sprinkler where walls or partitions block direct spray patterns from reaching the floor provided the shadowed areas do not exceed 15 sq ft.Committee Statement: This change was made to correlate with other changes made. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: No technical substantiation has been submitted. ________________________________________________________________ 13-224 Log #56 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.10.8.2(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Section 8.10.8.2(4).Substantiation: The pocket rules for residential sprinklers are based on the original rules for standard spray sprinklers. The allowable volume was reduced from 1000 cu ft to 100 cu ft. The 10’-0” separation rule should be removed or at the very least scaled by the same ratio which would make the separation 12”. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30

Ceiling or roof

Obstruction

Wall

No additionalprotection isrequired

18 in. MinimumNo Maximum

24 in. Maximum

Figure 8.10.6.1.2(c) Residential Upright and Pendent Spray Sprinklers

2 ft

2 ft

13-55

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: No technical justification was provided by the committee for deleting the requirement. Based upon the text in the standard for ceiling pockets with other types of sprinklers, the same limit for the volume of ceiling pockets within the compartment should apply. ________________________________________________________________ 13-225 Log #4 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(8.11)________________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 13-117 (Log #208) which was held from the Annual 2009 ROC on Proposal 13-4a, 13-339, 13-349, 13-363, 13-382, 13-394, 13-418, 13-422.Submitter: Scott T. Franson, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Table 8.11.2.2.2 Protection Areas and Maximum Spacing for K19.6 CMSA Sprinklers.

8.11.2.2.3 The maximum allowable protection area of coverage for a K19.6 CMSA sprinkler shall be in accordance with the value indicated in Table 8.11.2.2.2. 8.11.2.2.3.1 Deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing are allowed to eliminate obstructions created by structural elements (such as trusses, bar joists, and wind bracing) by moving a sprinkler along the branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0.31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for the sprinkler does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met: (1) The average actual floor area protected by the moved sprinkler and the adjacent sprinklers shall not exceed 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) (2) Adjacent branch lines shall maintain the same pattern (3) In no case shall the distance between sprinklers exceed 12 ft (3.7 m). 8.11.2.2.3.2 Deviations from the maximum CMSA K19.6 sprinkler spacing are allowed to eliminate obstructions created by structural elements (such as trusses, bar joists, and wind bracing) by moving a single branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0.31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for the sprinklers on that branch line and the sprinklers on the branch line it is moving away from does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met: (1) The average actual floor area protected by the sprinklers on the moved branch line and the sprinklers on the adjacent branch lines shall not exceed 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) per sprinkler (2) In no case shall the distance between sprinklers exceed 12 ft (3.7 m) (3) It shall not be permitted to move a branch line where there are moved sprinklers on a branch line that exceed the maximum sprinkler spacing. 8.11.2.3.1 The minimum allowable protection area of coverage for a K19.6 CMSA sprinkler shall not be less than 64 ft2 (5.9 m2).

8.11.3.1.1 Under unobstructed and obstructed noncombustible construction and unobstructed combustible construction, the distance between sprinklers shall be limited to not more than 12 ft (3.7 m) between sprinklers, as shown in Tables 8.11.2.2.1 and 8.11.2.2.2. 8.11.3.1.2 Under obstructed combustible construction, the maximum distance between sprinklers shall be limited to 10 ft (3 m) or 12 ft (3.7 m) as shown in Tables 8.11.2.2.1 and 8.11.2.2.2. 8.11.3.1.3 Regardless of the storage or ceiling height arrangement, a CMSA K10.6 sprinkler shall be permitted to deviate from the maximum sprinkler spacing to eliminate obstructions created by trusses and bar joists by moving a sprinkler along the branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0.3 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for that sprinkler does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) where all of the following conditions are met: (1) The average actual floor area protected by the moved sprinkler and the adjacent sprinklers shall not exceed 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) (2) Adjacent branch lines shall maintain the same pattern (3) In no case shall the distance between sprinklers exceed 12 ft (3.7 m) 8.11.3.1.4 Where the branch lines are parallel to trusses and bar joists, a CMSA K19.6 sprinkler shall be permitted to deviate from the maximum sprinkler spacing to eliminate obstructions created by trusses and bar joists by moving a single branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0.3 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for the sprinklers on that branch line and the sprinklers on the branch line it is moving away from does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met: (1) The average actual floor area protected by the sprinklers on the moved branch line and the sprinklers on the adjacent branch lines shall not exceed 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) per sprinkler. (2) In no case shall the distance between sprinklers exceed 12 ft (3.7 m) (3) It shall not be permitted to move a branch line where there are moved sprinklers on a branch line that exceed the maximum sprinkler spacing. 8.11.3.2 The distance from sprinklers to walls shall not exceed one-half of the allowable distance permitted between sprinklers as indicated in Tables 8.11.2.2.1 and 8.11.2.2.2. 8.11.4.1.1.1 Under unobstructed construction, the distance between the sprinkler deflector for K19.6 CMSA sprinklers and the ceiling shall be a minimum of 6 in. (152 mm) and a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm). 8.11.4.1.3 Obstructed Noncombustible Construction. Under noncombustible obstructed construction, the sprinkler deflector of a K19.6 CMSA sprinkler shall be located in accordance with one of the following arrangements: (1) Installed with the deflectors located a minimum of 6 in. (152 mm) and a maximum of 12 in. (305 mm) from the ceiling. (2) Installed with the deflectors of sprinklers under concrete tee construction with stems spaces less than 7.5 ft (2.3 m) but more than 3 ft (0.9 m) on centers, regardless of the depth of the tee, located at or above a horizontal plane 1 in. (25.4 mm) below the bottom of the stems of the tees and shall comply with Table 8.11.5.1.2.

13/L4/A12/ROP

Table 8.11.2.2.2 Protection Area and Maximum Spacing for K19.6 CMSA Sprinklers Protection Area Maximum SpacingConstructionType

ft2 m2 ft m

Noncombustible unobstructed

100 9.3 10 3.7

Noncombustible obstructed

100 9.3 10 3.7

Combustible unobstructed

100 9.3 10 3.7

Combustible obstructed

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Rack Storage applications

100 9.3 10 3.7

Sprinkler

4 in.4 in.

4 in.

4 in.

C

D

A

Installationprohibited

Installationprohibited

Plan View of Column Elevation View of Truss

Ceiling

A 3C or 3D(Use dimension C or D, whichever is greater) 4 in. D

C

4 in.

A

Figure 8.11.5.2.1.4 Minimum Distance from Obstruction K19.6 CMSA Sprinkler

13-56

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 8.11.5.4 Obstructions at or Near the Ceiling. 8.11.5.4.1 CMSA K19.6 sprinklers must be arranged to comply with Table 8.11.5.1.2 and Figure 8.11.5.1.2 for obstructions at or near the ceiling such as beams, ducts, lights and top chords of trusses and bar joists. 8.11.5.4.2 The requirements of 8.11.5.4.1 shall not apply where sprinklers are spaced on opposite sides of obstructions less than 24 in. (610 mm) wide, provided the distance from the centerline on the obstructions to the sprinklers doesn’t exceed one half the allowable distance between sprinklers. 8.11.5.5 Isolated Obstructions Below the Elevation of Sprinklers. CMSA K19.6 sprinklers shall be arranged with respect to obstructions in accordance with one of the following: (1) Sprinklers must be installed below isolated noncontinuous obstructions that restrict only one sprinkler and are located below the elevation of sprinklers such as light fixtures and unit heaters. (2) Additional sprinklers are not required where the obstruction is 2 ft (0.6 m) or less in width and the sprinkler is located horizontally 4 in. (102 mm) or more from the nearest edge of the obstruction. (3) Additional sprinklers are not required where sprinklers are positioned with respect to the bottom of obstructions in accordance with Table 8.11.5.1.2 and Figure 8.11.5.1.2 (4) Additional sprinklers are not required where the obstruction is 4 in. (102 mm) or less in width and in compliance with Figure 8.11.5.2.1.4, which illustrates sprinklers shall be positioned such that they are located at least a distance three times greater that the maximum dimension of the obstruction from the sprinkler, but never closer than 4 in. (102 mm) horizontally. 8.11.5.6 Continuous Obstructions Below the Sprinklers. CMSA K19.6 sprinklers shall be arranged with respect to obstructions in accordance with one of the following: (1) Sprinklers must be installed below continuous obstructions, or they must be arranged to comply with Table 8.11.5.1.2 and Figure 8.11.5.1.2 for horizontal obstructions entirely below the elevation of sprinklers that restrict sprinkler discharge pattern for two or more adjacent sprinklers, such as ducts, lights, pipes, and conveyors. (2) Additional sprinklers shall not be required where the obstruction is 4 in. (102 mm) or less in width and installed in accordance with Figure 8.11.5.2.1.4. (3) Additional sprinklers are not required where the obstruction is 1 ft (0.3 m) or less in width and located at least 1 ft (0.3 m) horizontally from the sprinkler (4) Additional sprinklers are not required where the obstruction is 2 ft (0.6 m) or less in width and located a minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m) horizontally from the sprinkler. (5) Ceiling sprinklers are not required to comply with Table 8.11.5.1.2 where a row of sprinklers is installed under the obstruction. 8.11.5.7 Bottom Chords of Bar Joists or Open Trusses. CMSA K19.6 sprinklers shall be positioned a minimum of 4 in. (102 mm) horizontally from the nearest edge to any bottom chord of a bar joist or open truss. Substantiation: Proposals 13-339, 13-349, 13-363, 13-382, 13-394, 13-418, and 13-422 recommending the addition of the K19.6 CMSA sprinkler to various Tables described in Chapters 12 - 17 were all rejected as a result of no obstruction data and lack of a complete Fire Test report. Proposal 13-4a recommended the replacement of all references to “Large Drop” with “CMSA” in the entire document. Large scale fires with obstructions were successfully conducted at Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL on the K19.6 CMSA sprinkler and the installation instructions have been developed in accordance with the results. A copy of the installation instructions along with the complete Fire Test report has been submitted to NFPA headquarters. With this comment we are proposing to revise and/or add the appropriate paragraphs of Chapter 8 as indicated. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I do not think that this proposal should have been accepted at this time, because the instructions that it contains is contrary to 8.11.1.1 which says that pendent CMSA sprinklers are to be installed as per the manufacturers installation instructions. Currently there are three such pendent CMSA sprinklers on the market and the other two versions each have very different installation criteria. Until we can put the rules for all pendent CMSA sprinkler into the standard, it would be better to exclude all three. To have to go to the standard for one type and then to have to go the manufacturer’s literature for the others can only lead to confusion and misapplication. Further to the above, I must point out that the referenced supporting material was not distributed to all of the members of the TC and this omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. Also, I am not sure that this matter should have been sent to the SSD TC. I believe that this is an installation matter and that by rights the proposal should have been sent to the SSI TC. Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: I agree with the Accept vote, however I feel that we could shorten it up by simply having it basically follow the guidelines currently in place for the other CMSA sprinklers. ISMAN, K.: You can’t have a Table 8.11.2.2.2 without a section 8.11.2.2.2

that goes with it. Current section 8.11.2.2.2 has nothing to do with spacing of k-19.6 sprinklers. Was the intent to renumber the existing section or lose it? What text is going to be in 8.11.2.2.2 that will reference the table? Instead, section 8.11.2.2.1 should be changed to reference Table 8.11.2.2.1(a) and 8.11.2.2.1(b). ________________________________________________________________ 13-226 Log #324 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.11.4.1.2(2))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.11.4.1.2(2) Installed with the deflectors within the horizontal planes 1 in. to 6 in. (25.4 mm to 152 mm) below wood joist, or composite wood joist construction, solid obstructed noncombustible, or solid obstructed limited combustible construction, to a maximum distance of 22 in. (559 mm) below the ceiling/roof or deck. Where CMSA sprinklers are installed under open wood joist construction, their minimum operating pressure shall be 50 psi (3.4 bar) for a K-11.2 (160) sprinkler or 22 psi (1.5 bar) for a K-16.8 (240) sprinkler in accordance with 16.2.2.4, 16.3.2.4, and 17.2.2.4.Substantiation: If CMSA sprinklers are allowed to be installed under wood joists, they should also be able to be installed under noncombustible members like beams. The pressure requirements should be mentioned here so they are not missed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I am in agreement with this action, with regard to the upright K-11.2 and K-16.8 CMSA sprinklers that are available today, there are also pendent K-19.6 and K-25.2 CMSA sprinklers available now, so I think that some further consideration of this matter may still be needed. ________________________________________________________________ 13-227 Log #533 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.11.5.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.11.5.2.2 Branch Lines, Upright sprinklers Sprinklers shall be positioned with respect to branch lines in accordance with one of the following: (1) Upright sprinklers Sprinklers shall be permitted to be attached directly to branch lines less than or equal to 2 in. (51 mm) 4 in. (100 mm) nominal in diameter. (2) Upright sprinklers Sprinklers shall be permitted to be offset horizontally a minimum distance of 12 in. (305 mm) from the pipe. (3) Upright sprinklers Sprinklers shall be permitted to be supplied by a riser nipple (sprig) to elevate the sprinkler deflector a minimum of 12 in. (305 mm) 13 in. (330 mm) from the centerline of 2-1/2 in. (64 mm) pipe any pipe over 4 in. (100 mm) nominal in diameter.(4) Sprinklers shall be permitted to be supplied by a riser nipple to elevate the sprinkler deflector a minimum of 15 in. (380 mm) from the centerline of 3 in. (76 mm) pipe.Substantiation: Research conducted by FM Global has demonstrated that sprinklers will operate properly as long as the sprinkler’s thermal element is located within the required vertical distance between it and the ceiling above. In addition, testing has demonstrated that there is not a sizable reduction in actual delivered density when upright sprinklers are installed in the presence of a 4 in. wide object located directly below them. This testing is what led to the allowance in FM Global Data Sheet 2-0, Section 2.2.3.5.2 of upright Storage sprinklers to tolerate objects up to 4 in (100 mm) in width located below them. As a result, it is my opinion that sprigs or riser nipples are not necessary for upright sprinklers as long as the diameter of the pipe does not exceed 4 in (100 mm). Also, this section applies only to upright sprinklers so the word upright was added to the text. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAHADORI, H.: No test data has been provided to demonstrate the discharge will not be affected. LINDER, K.: While the change is probably OK, no data was submitted to justify the change other than “testing by FM.” ________________________________________________________________ 13-228 Log #326 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.12.2.2.3, 8.12.2.2.4, 8.12.3.1(3), and 8.12.3.1(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.12.2.2.3: Deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing shall be permitted to eliminate obstructions created by structural elements (such as trusses, bar joists, and wind bracing) by moving a sprinkler along the branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0,31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for that sprinkler does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met:

13-57

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Revise Section 8.12.2.2.4: Deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing shall be permitted to eliminate obstructions created by structural elements (such as trusses, bar joists, and wind bracing) by moving a single branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0,31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for the sprinklers on that branch line and the branch line it is moving away from does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met: Revise Section 8.12.3.1(3): Regardless of the storage or ceiling height arrangement, deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing shall be permitted to eliminate obstructions created by trusses and bar joists by moving a sprinkler along the branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0,31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for that sprinkler does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met: Revise Section 8.12.3.1(4): Where branch lines are parallel to obstructions trusses and bar joists, deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing shall be permitted to eliminate obstructions created by trusses and bar joists by moving a single branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0.31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for the sprinklers on that branch line and sprinklers on the branch line it is moving away from does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met: Substantiation: Any obstruction can pose a problem for an ESFR sprinkler. So ESFR sprinklers should be able to be moved to avoid any obstruction, not just structural members. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is the intent of the committee to allow this alternate spacing when the obstruction is created by structural elements. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: An obstruction is an obstruction and there is no technical justification to limit the option of moving the sprinkler(s) to only those obstructions created by building structural elements. It should be left to the building owner, AHJ and the contractor to decide if moving the sprinkler or moving the obstruction is the best way to address the obstruction issue. Limiting the option of moving the sprinkler to only structural elements is unnecessarily restrictive and eliminates what may be a far easier and less costly alternative. ________________________________________________________________ 13-229 Log #325 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.12.2.2.3(2) and 8.12.3.1(3)(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.12.2.2.3(2) Adjacent branch lines shall be shifted to maintain the same pattern. Revise Section 8.12.3.1(3)(b) Adjacent branch lines shall be shifted to maintain the same pattern. Substantiation: This will clarify that the intent of this section is to make sure that sprinklers on the adjacent branch lines are to be moved to maintain the new pattern created by the moved sprinkler and not to maintain the old pattern. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The revise wording does not add any clarity to the requirement. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-230 Log #251 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.12.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.12.3.1(3) Regardless of the storage or ceiling height arrangement, deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing shall be permitted to eliminate obstructions created by trusses and bar joists structural elements (such as trusses, bar joists, and wind bracing) by moving a sprinkler along the branch line a maximum of 1 ft (0.31 m) from it allowable spacing, provided coverage for that sprinkler doesn’t to exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) where all the following conditions are met:….. 8.12.3.1(4) Where branch lines are parallel to trusses and bar joists, deviations from the maximum sprinkler spacing shall be permitted to eliminate obstructions created by trusses and bar joists structural elements (such as trusses, bar joists, and wind bracing) by moving a single branch line a minimum of 1 ft (0.31 m) from its allowable spacing, provided coverage for the sprinklers on that branch line and the sprinklers on the branch line it is moving away from does not exceed 110 ft2 (10.2 m2) per sprinkler where all of the following conditions are met:...”. Substantiation: This change uses the same wording with regard to structural members in 8.12.2.2.3 and 8.12.2.2.4. This change addresses other structural elements such as wind bracing. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-231 Log #538 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.12.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.12.4.1 Distance Below Ceilings 8.12.4.1.1 Sprinklers Pendent sprinklers with a nominal K-factor of 14 16.8 or less shall be positioned so that the centerline of their thermal elements deflectors are a maximum 13 in. (330 mm) 14 in. (356 mm) and a minimum 4 in. (102 mm) 6 in. (152 mm) below the ceiling.8.12.4.1.2 Pendent sprinklers with a nominal K-factor of 16.8 shall be positioned so that deflectors are a maximum 14 in. (356 mm) and a minimum 6 in. (152 mm) below the ceiling. 8.12.4.1.3.2 Sprinklers Pendent sprinklers with a nominal K-factor of 19.6 or greater 22.4 and 25.2 shall be positioned so that that the centerline of their thermal elements deflectors are a maximum 17 in. (432 mm) 18 in. (457 mm) and a minimum 4 in. (102 mm) 6 in. (152 mm) below the ceiling.8.12.4.1.4.3 Upright sprinklers with a nominal K-factor of 14 and 16.8 shall be positioned so that the deflector is 3 in. to 12 in. (76 mm to 305 mm) below the ceiling. 8.12.4.1.5 Upright sprinklers with a nominal K-factor of 16.8 shall be positioned so that the deflector is 3 in. to 12 in. (76 mm to 305 mm) below the ceiling. 8.12.4.1.6.3 With obstructed construction, the branch lines shall be permitted to be installed across the beams, but sprinklers shall be located in the bays and not under the beams. Substantiation: This cleans up this section by referencing the centerline of the thermal elements as well as adds the requirements for the K19.6 pendent ESFR sprinkler Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Measurement for spacing and location of sprinklers utilizes the deflector throughout the standard. It is impractical to measure to the fusible element in the field in part due to caps and straps as well as concern for damage to fusible element from tape measure under spring tension as an anchor point. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-232 Log #327 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.12.5.2(6))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.12.5.2(6): Additional sprinklers shall not be required where a single obstruction is 48 in. by 48 in. or less in area and located a minimum of 36 in. below the deflector. Substantiation: 48 in. by 48 in. is the size of a typical single pallet. A single pallet load on a rack is not an obstruction to an ESFR sprinkler. Therefore, an object the same size as a pallet, more than 36 in. below the sprinkler should not be considered an obstruction either. This was the subject of a proposed Formal Interpretation that the NFPA refused to process since the subject had not been previously considered by the committee. It is being submitted now to help foster this discussion. Sections 8.12.5.2 and 8.12.5.3 state that sprinklers need to be installed a certain distance horizontally away from objects up to 24 in. wide. There is no maximum distance below the sprinkler to which this rule applies, therefore, it could be considered to go all the way to the floor. The only exceptions are for sprinklers placed under the objects or for items 2 inches or less in width that are more than 24 in. below the sprinklers. At the same time, section 8.12.6 clearly permits pallet loads of storage (nominally 4 ft x 4 ft x 4 ft in dimension) that are at least 36 in. below the sprinklers, and the implication of this section is that the pallet loads are not considered obstructions regardless of whether or not those pallet loads are directly under sprinklers, therefore, sprinklers do not need to be spaced horizontally away from the pallet loads nor are sprinklers required under the pallet loads. Given these facts, NFPA 13 is certainly clear that the situation shown in Figure 1 is permitted without a sprinkler below the pallet load high up in the racks.

13-58


So, an object such as a light fixture should be able to be placed in the same exact position as the pallet shown in Figure 1, 36 inches or more below ESFR sprinklers, without being considered an obstruction and without regard for placement with respect to the sprinklers as long as the object is not larger than 4 ft in any dimension and as long as the object is not directly over any of the transverse or longitudinal flue spaces as shown in Figure 2 (assumes that supports for the object will comply with 8.12.5.2).

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Submitter has not provided test data in support of allowing obstructions greater than the current allowance of 2 ft wide. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-233 Log #328 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.12.5.2(6))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add Section 8.12.5.2(6): Additional sprinklers shall not be required where a single obstruction is 48 in. by 40 in. or less in area, the obstruction is located a minimum of 36 in. below the deflector, and the obstruction is completely below the level of the racks in the building. Substantiation: 48 in. by 40 in. is the size of a typical single pallet. A single pallet load on a rack is not an obstruction to an ESFR sprinkler. Therefore, an object the same size as a pallet, more than 36 in. below the sprinkler should not be considered an obstruction either. This was the subject of a proposed Formal Interpretation that the NFPA refused to process since the subject had not been previously considered by the committee. It is being submitted now to help foster this discussion. The committee is being presented with two options. The first is to consider any obstruction similar to the size of a pallet that is more than 36 in. below the sprinkler. The second is this option to only allow the object when it is below the level of the racks in the building, which makes it even more comparable to a pallet load. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Submitter has not provided test data in support of allowing obstructions greater than the current allowance of 2 ft wide. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-234 Log #537 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.12.5.3.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.12.5.3.2.1 The requirements of 8.12.5.3.2 shall not apply where upright sprinklers are located over the bottom chord s of bar joists or open trusses that are 4 in (102 mm) maximum in width. Substantiation: Testing at FM Global has demonstrated that upright ESFR sprinklers can be installed directly over objects up to 4 in. wide without an appreciable reduction in the amount of actual delivered density. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: The design of automatic sprinkler systems is beyond the scope of owners, leasing agents, and some AHJ’s. Sprinkler systems are now life safety systems and as the submitter noted, national engineering association have defined design as the practice of engineering. The Committee’s reason for the rejection is not based on technical merit, engineering and science. ________________________________________________________________ 13-235 Log #158 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.13)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.13 12.7 In-Rack Sprinklers Transfer entire section and renumber paragraphs. Renumber remainder of Chapter 12 accordingly. Substantiation: This information belongs in the storage section.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The current location is proper.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: BAHADORI, H.: The responsibility should not be passed to the owners and their designated representatives who are not technically qualified. ________________________________________________________________ 13-236 Log #399 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.x (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank L. Van Overmeiren, FP&C Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.15.x Elevator Machine Rooms.8.15.x.1 Unless the requirements of 8.15.x.2 are met, sprinkler protection shall be required in elevator machine rooms. 8.15.x.2 Sprinklers shall not be required in elevator machine rooms where all of the following conditions are met. (1) The room is dedicated to elevator machine equipment only. (2) No combustible storage is permitted to be stored in the room. (3) Equipment is installed in a separate rooftop penthouse, a 1 hour fire-rated enclosure in buildings with a 1 hour fire resistance rating, or a 2 hour fire-rated enclosure in buildings with a 2 hour fire resistance rating including the protection of penetrations. Substantiation: 1. A detailed review of available NFPA fire loss data was conducted. Fires originating in elevator machine rooms are rare. The data does not indicate any fatalities and very few injuries (usually responding emergency personnel) from fires in elevator machine rooms. 2. In an elevator machine room fire, the equipment is normally expected to be fully retested if reused or is replaced. Activation of sprinklers on energized or non-energized equipment is us usually not a factor. 3. Code conflicts exist in some jurisdictions regarding the ability to install sprinklers in elevator machine rooms. 4. The installation of sprinklers in elevator machine rooms normally requires the installation of heat detectors and electrical power shunt equipment. The fire loss data does not support the additional cost and required testing for this equipment. 5. Computer modeling was conducted for different elevator controller, elevator motor, various storage/furniture materials and the combined total contents fires. In all cases the maximum room temperature was notably less than the standard time temperature curve for a 60 minute fire rated enclosure. The failure criteria for the study was calculated and compared to the standard time/temperature curve from the E-119 standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No statistics submitted and there was no supporting material. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: The proponent has demonstrated the lack of fire hazard and history. The standard has an exception for electrical equipment rooms. The Committee has recommended approval of Proposal 13-251. While being practical, allowing persons to use elevators does not make the situation safer than this proposal. KEEPING, L.: In light of the action taken on Proposal 13-251 (Log #371), this matter should be reconsidered. If it is feasible to omit sprinklers from elevator machine rooms that control (occupied) elevators for occupant evacuation or for fire fighter use, then it should equally be allowed to omit them from (unoccupied) elevators that are used in other premises, as long as the same restrictions are applied.

13-59

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-237 Log #11 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Terry Karan, Winnipeg, MBRecommendation: Revise text as follows: (Existing) 8.15.1 Concealed Spaces. (Proposed) 8.15.1 Concealed Spaces Excluding Crawlspaces.Substantiation: 8.15.1.2.1 and 8.15.1.2.2 are being used by designers to waive crawlspace sprinklering in buildings required to be sprinklered in conformance with NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The standard addresses this already…No definition of crawl space (8.15.6) Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-238 Log #527 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Christopher Born, Clark Nexsen Architecture and EngineeringRecommendation: Revise 8.15.1.2.1.1 to read as follows: The space shall be considered a concealed space even with small openings such as those used as return air for a plenum, provided that the openings consist of gaps between the walls and ceiling not exceeding 6 in. in width or ceiling diffusers not exceeding 2 ft x4 ft in size. Add new 8.15.1.2.1.2 to read as follows: The space shall be considered a concealed space even with architectural gaps between the walls and ceiling not exceeding 6 in. in width at the room perimeter, or gaps between ceiling sections not exceeding 4 in. in width on the interior of the room provided that the aggregate area of such interior gaps does not exceed 2% of the room area.Substantiation: The current language is subject to interpretation when the openings aren’t used specifically for return air but rather as an architectural feature. The proposed language explicitly references dimensional criteria relative to return air openings. Additionally, a new section is added to address architectural features that are not used specifically as return air openings. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is currently waiting for data that either supports or refutes this proposal. Also see 13-24 (Log #CP406). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: GERDES, R.: I support the effort of the committee’s task group in Proposal 13-24. During the Comment period this should get resolved. ________________________________________________________________ 13-239 Log #530 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kuma Sumathipala, American Wood Council / Rep. Engineered and Traditional Wood Products Recommendation: Add a new section 8.15.1.2.19 to read as follows: 8.15.1.2.19 Concealed spaces with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage of combustibles, formed by a roof assembly of wood truss construction with a slope having a pitch of 4:12 or greater and wood trusses with chords and webs of nominal 2 x 4 lumber placed at 24” on center or greater, in which the exposed combustible materials, other than the wood trusses, are constructed of fire-retardant treated wood as defined by NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant Impregnated Wood and Fire Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, shall not require sprinkler protection. Substantiation: The American Wood Council conducted a series of fire tests of combustible attic spaces. The tests demonstrated that the above truss assemblies performed well and should be exempt from sprinklers. A further series of fire tests are planned with input from the NFPA 13 technical committee. This proposal provides design flexibility while maintaining the same level of protection from accidental fire exposures in combustible concealed attic spaces. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No new test data from previous proposals in previous cycles has been submitted. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: As with previous cycles I believe there is some merit in the proposal, as shown in the previously submitted fire test data. MCPHEE, R.: The Technical Committee did not provide any specific response or direction to the proponent with regard to additional testing or sprinkler arrangement that they (the proponent) might include in planned fire testing, which would provide alternative arrangements compared to earlier fire test information reviewed by the Committee. In addition, the fire test

information previously reviewed indicates that some minimal sprinkler protection arrangement in such a space would offer sufficient fire protection. ________________________________________________________________ 13-240 Log #159 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.2.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.1.2.7 Copncelaed spaces entirely filled with full of noncombustible insulation with a maximum 2 in. (50.8 m) air space between the roof deck material and the top of the insulation shall not require sprinkler protection.Substantiation: This allows for the need to ventilate roof and correlates with the text in 8.15.1.2.17. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is not always a roof/ceiling arrangement. It can exist anywhere in the building. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: There is merit in the proposal, regardless if a roof/ceiling assembly or another location. KEEPING, L.: I believe that this matter should be reconsidered. As I understand it, if a space that is filled with insulation, be it between floors or between a ceiling and a roof, or wherever it is within a building, has a minimum 2 inch air gap at the upper surface, a fire would not be able to sustain itself. Therefore, the current requirement to fill a space completely with insulation is not completely necessary and a 2 inch gap, comparable to the one in 8.15.1.2.17, should be allowed in 8.15.1.2.7. ________________________________________________________________ 13-241 Log #8 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.2.10)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid limited-combustible materials are used and the exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials have been demonstrated not to propagate fire when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extending for an additional 20 minutes in the form configuration or position in which they are installed, shall not require sprinkler protection. Substantiation: Based on the explanatory text for 8.15.1.2.10 in the Automatic Sprinkler System Handbook on page 330, the proposal is intended to make the intent of the provision more clear. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Lack of substantiation to make the provision more restrictive, and 8.15.1.2.2 already addresses spaces of limited combustible construction. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-242 Log #9 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.2.12)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.1.2.12 Noncombustible concealed spaces having exposed noncombustible insulation with an unexposed combustible facing, where the heat content of the facing and substrate of the insulation material does not exceed 1000 Btu/ft² (11,356 kJ/m²), and such insulation is permitted to be used in buildings or areas of noncombustible construction by the applicable building and fire codes shall not require sprinkler protection. Substantiation: The use of paper faced insulation with the paper facing exposed in an otherwise noncombustible concealed space creates a combustible concealed space. The existing provision puts no limits on the area of exposed paper facing or restrictions on the positioning or configuration of the facing. It would appear that the exposed paper could be used in the horizontal and vertical planes, thereby creating a condition that could result in the rapid spread of flame throughout the space. The proposal is an attempt to provide some restrictions to ensure a fire out of control does not occur is hidden spaces, thereby endangering building occupants, the structure, and firefighters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Completely changes the intent of paragraph to that which is already covered in 8.15.1.2.1. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-60

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-243 Log #34 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.2.19)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen D. Pennington, Dept. of Health/Construction Review Services, Matthew Campbell Recommendation: Add new text as follows: Concealed spaces with limited access between noncombustible roof or floor assemblies and suspended noncombustible lay-in ceiling systems shall not require sprinkler protection provided the building elements within the concealed space are of limited-combustible material or noncombustible material. Substantiation: This proposal addresses the presence of building elements within concealed spaces such as piping, non-metal ducting and cabling that do not meet the definition of limited-combustible material per NFPA 13-3.3.13 or noncombustible material per NFPA 13-3.3.14. This is consistent with the intent of formal interpretation 80-14 of the 1999 version of NFPA 13 and Section 5-13.1.1 to not permit limited combustibles in concealed spaces if the exposed surfaces have been demonstrated to propagate fire in the form in which they are installed. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Paragraphs 8.15.1.2.1 and 8.15.1.5 provide sufficient requirement to address the presence combustible material in these spaces. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-244 Log #252 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.1.5(2))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (2) If the exposed combustibles are in the horizontal plane, sprinklers shall be provided above and below the combustibles. The area of the combustibles shall be permitted to be protected with sprinklers on a light hazard spacing. Additional Sprinklers shall be installed no more than 6 ft (1.8 m) outside the outline of the area and not more than 12 ft (3.7 m) on center along the outline. When the outline returns to a wall or other obstruction, the last sprinkler shall not be more than 6 ft (1.8 m) from the wall or obstruction. (3) If the exposed combustibles are in the horizontal plane and less than 4 ft wide, a single row of sprinklers above the combustibles no more than 6 ft (1.8 m) outside the outline of the area and not more than 12 ft (3.7 m) on center along the outline shall be permitted to protect the surface. The first and last sprinklers in such a row shall not be over 5 ft (1.5 m) from the ends of the exposed combustibles.Substantiation: The current wording allows a combustible platform but only requires protection below and one line of sprinklers on the side. This clarifies protection above and below the combustible platform. Number 3 addresses a combustible platform less than 4 ft wide. Only a row of sprinklers is required above it. Sprinklers are not required below it according to the existing obstruction rules. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is not the intent of the section to require sprinklers below the elements. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-245 Log #568 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mark Fessenden, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise 8.15.1.6 Sprinklers used in horizontal combustible concealed spaces (with a slope not exceeding 2 in 12) with combustible wood truss, wood joist construction or Bar Joist Construction having a combustible upper surface and where the depth of the space is less than 36 in. (914 mm) from deck to deck or with double wood joist construction with a maximum of 36 in. (914 mm) between the top of the bottom joist and the bottom of the upper joist shall be listed for such use. Substantiation: Bar Joist Construction with a combustible upper surface should also be included in this section. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and reject this proposal. As per A.3.7.2, bar joist construction is a just form of unobstructed construction and with or without combustible upper surfaces, concealed spaces with bar joist have been successfully protected with standard spray sprinklers since the type was first developed. No reports of failures of SSP or SSU sprinklers under bar joist spaces has been reported and no real substantiation for the switch to “concealed space sprinklers” has been offered, There is no justification for NFPA 13 to require this special type of sprinkler in any type of ceiling spaces other than those for which those special sprinklers were

expressly designed and tested to protect. MCPHEE, R.: There was no technical information provided with this proposal that would indicate that standard spray sprinklers installed in such spaces with bar joist construction would not provide acceptable protection. ________________________________________________________________ 13-246 Log #333 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.15.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise 8.15.3.1 to read as follows: 8.15.3.1 Combustible Construction. 8.15.3.1.1 Sprinklers shall be installed at the top of the shaft. 8.15.3.1.2 Sprinklers shall be installed under the landings at each floor level. 8.15.3.1.3 Sprinklers shall be installed beneath the lowest intermediate landing where the space is capable of being used for storage. 8.15.3.1.4 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from exterior combustible stairs that are open and have no cover. Substantiation: There are currently no requirements for sprinklers to be installed at the top of combustible stairways. Also, the rule about putting sprinklers under “all stairways” needs to be clarified. In stairs with both floor landings and intermediate floor landings, the interpretation has been that the sprinklers need to be installed under both, but that would be overkill. We believe that the original intent of this section was to protect at the floor landings. Finally, there needs to be some clarification about what to do with exterior combustible stairs. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise Proposed Language as follows: 8.15.3.1.1 sprinklers shall be installed at the top of combustible stair shafts 8.15.3.1.2 Sprinklers shall be installed under the landings at each floor level. A.8.15.3.1.2 sprinklers at each floor level landing should be positioned to protect both the floor level landing and any intermediate landing. 8.15.3.1.3 Sprinklers shall be installed beneath the lowest intermediate landing where the space is capable of being used for storage. 8.15.3.1.4 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from exterior combustible stairs that are open and have no cover.Committee Statement: Additional language was necessary for the location of the sprinklers at the floor landings. Combustible stair shafts should be entirely protected without exception to storage capability or exterior location. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-247 Log #329 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.3.2.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.15.3.2.3.1 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from beneath landings or stairways when the space under the stairs is blocked off so that storage cannot occur.Substantiation: The concept of eliminating the sprinkler at the bottom of the stairs has always been implied by NFPA 13, but the statement needs to be made more explicit for most AHJ’s. Where the egress path is the only available space in the stairwell, sprinklers should not be necessary. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: This is to add a new section, not revise.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-248 Log #330 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.3.2.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Insert a new section 8.15.3.2.5 as follows: 8.15.3.2.5 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from open exterior stairs with no cover. Substantiation: While section 8.15.3.2.4 covers stair towers, many exterior stair situations are not in a tower and the space occupied by these stairs should not require sprinkler protection. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is covered in 8.15.3.2.4 Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-61

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-249 Log #331 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.15.3.3: Stairs Serving Two or More Fire Divisions Areas. Sprinklers shall be installed in the stair shaft at each floor landing where two or more doors open from that landing into separate fire divisions portions of the building on opposite sides of a fire barrier.Substantiation: A “fire division” is not defined by NFPA 13. The section is frequently questioned and misunderstood. Clarification of the intent is needed. The real issue is making sure that fire does not spread from one fire area into another through a stairwell. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: The additional sprinkler protection is not necessary. The stair enclosure will be required to have the same rating the fire barrier with the same opening protection. We do not require additional sprinklers at every door in a fire barrier. While the change clarifies the issue my argument is essentially to delete the section entirely. ________________________________________________________________ 13-250 Log #332 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Insert a new 8.15.3.4 as follows: 8.15.3.4 Interior Stair. For interior stairs that are not enclosed in a stair shaft, a sprinkler shall be installed below the intermediate landing where intermediate landings are present. Substantiation: Guidance is needed on how to protect stairs that are not enclosed in shafts. The current 8.15.3 assumes that all stairs are in some sort of enclosed shaft. But there are many circumstances where stairs allow transit between floor levels of a building without entering an enclosed shaft. In these cases, the sprinklers at the ceiling will protect the upper surface of the stairs themselves, and a sprinkler should only be required under an intermediate landing, if such a landing is provided. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is addressed under the obstruction rules or as a continuation of the ceiling sprinkler spacing depending on the configuration. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-251 Log #371 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David W. Frable, US General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 8.15.5.3 Automatic fire sprinklers shall not be installed in elevator machine rooms and elevator machine spaces serving occupant evacuation elevators or first responders use elevators installed in accordance with the applicable provisions in NFPA 101, or the applicable building code, where all of the following conditions are met: (1) The elevator machine room and spaces are dedicated to elevator equipment only. (2) The elevator machine room and spaces are protected by smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection, installed in accordance with NFPA 72. (3) The elevator equipment room or space is separated from the remainder of the building by walls and floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assemblies having a fire resistive rating of not less than 2 hours. (4) No combustible storage is permitted to be stored in the room or space. (re-number rest of section) Substantiation: The intent of the new proposed text is to ensure that fire sprinklers are not installed in elevator machine rooms and spaces dedicated for occupant evacuation elevators and first responders use elevators. The above proposed text is similar to the current exemption in NFPA 13 for electrical equipment (8.15.10) and provides sufficient safeguards to safely omit sprinklers from these spaces. In addition, we contend that the scope of the proposed new text is much narrower than the electrical equipment exemption since it only applies to specific elevator machine rooms and spaces that are also protected by a smoke detection system. It should also be noted that representatives of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) are currently developing new requirements for ASME A17.1/CSA B44, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators and are also recommending that elevator machine rooms and spaces serving elevators for occupant evacuation and/or the fire service are not be protected by automatic fire sprinklers since the presence of sprinklers dictates the installation of shunt trip for automatically disconnecting power to the elevators prior to the fire sprinklers discharging water, as it is unsafe to operate elevators while fire sprinkler water is discharged. The presence of a shunt trip breaker conflicts with the need for occupant evacuation elevator and the first responders use

elevator, as it disconnects power without assuring the subject elevators are first returned to a safe floor so as not to trap occupants and first responders. In addition, it should also be noted that current code text in NFPA 101, Annex E.4.2 and NFPA 5000, Section 54.12.9 currently states that fire sprinklers shall not be installed in these areas. Therefore, this subject matter is also a correlation issue that may also need to be resolved by the NFPA Standards Council. Lastly, to the best of our knowledge based on NIFIRS data, the probability of a fire starting in an elevator machine room is relatively low, and the need to install fire sprinklers in these spaces that are adequately protected to ensure a uncontrolled fire will not occur is no longer justified. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 4 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: DORNBOS, D.: The proposal should be rejected. Such spaces are likely to accumulate stored materials over time. The standard should not mandate elimination of sprinklers from such spaces. KETNER, C.: Buildings tend to use any available space for storage, the elevator machine room is no exception. We should not be removing sprinklers from these spaces. MILLER, T.: While the proposal has merit for traction elevators, it should not apply to rooms with hydraulic elevators where hazardous volumes of combustible fluids are present. VICTOR, T.: I disagree with the concept of deleting sprinkler protection in elevator machine rooms and elevator machine spaces. Although the submitter states that four conditions need to be met to do so, the ability to enforce the fourth one is next to impossible. These rooms and spaces are typically used by the building occupants for storage of combustible materials and therefore should have sprinkler protection. ________________________________________________________________ 13-252 Log #30 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.15.5.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas A. Noble, City of Henderson, Building & Fire SafetyRecommendation: Add the words “shafts” behind elevators.Substantiation: The way it is written, it appears the Standard is looking for sprinkler heads to be installed at the top and bottom of elevators. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: Errata 10-1 corrected this paragraph (8.15.5.6)Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-253 Log #378 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.5.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Delete text to read as follows:8.15.5.6 Sprinklers shall be installed at the top and bottom of elevator hoistways where elevators utilize polyurethane-coated steel belts or other similar combustible belt material.Substantiation: Section 8.15.5.6 was added last cycle without any technical justification. All that was stated was “some manufacturers use combustible steel belts inside the hoistway that create a combustible loading.” How much combustible loading? Is it of sufficient amount to warrant installing sprinklers in both the top and bottom of the hoistway? Will sprinklers at either location provide any positive benefit? Do sprinklers installed at the top of the hoistway, which must be integrated with the elevator shutdown circuit, add a greater risk than what might be gained by protecting against a belt fire? Without having the answers to these questions, this requirement should not be in the standard. (Note: it should not be incumbent upon the proponent to come up with data to remove this requirement, when no data was originally provided to make this change in the first place). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The provision is consistent with other requirements for protection of combustibles in other sections of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and accept this proposal. The proponent is correct, during the last cycle the requirement was added, based on only the shakiest of substantiations, with no data presented to quantify this amount of combustible loading, so the requirement should never have been added in the first place. Comment on Affirmative: MILLER, T.: The hazard is from the combustibles and fire on the stage. Therefore, the deluge sprinklers should be on the stage side and not the auditorium side. This will apply water to the side of the curtain that is receiving the heat load.

13-62

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-254 Log #401 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.5.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Wayne D. Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.5.6 Sprinklers shall be installed at the top and bottom of elevator hoistways where elevators utilize combustible suspension means such as, non-circular elastomeric polyurethane coated coated steel belts, or other similar combustible belt material. The sprinklers in the elevator hoistway shall not be required when the suspension means provide not less than an FT-1 rating when tested to the vertical burn test requirements of UL 62/UL 1581.Substantiation: 1. The A17.1-2010/B44-10 and A17.6 Elevator Suspension Means Standard, do not recognize the term polyurethane-coated steel belts. The correct suspension means alluded to is “noncircular elastomeric coated steel belts”. 2. In the current requirement, there is no provision to permit fire retardant “non-circular elastomeric coated steel belts” so as not to require sprinklered hoistways. As noted in one of the negative votes, sprinklers are not required for hoistway wiring where a combustibility rating is achieved. The current requirement does not reference a Standard or rating to provide for noncombustible “noncircular elastomeric coated steel belts”. 3. Wire and cable combustibility is also determined by similar “standardized” testing so this approach would be consistent with other NFPA standards. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: See my comments concerning Proposal 13-253 (Log #378). ________________________________________________________________ 13-255 Log #98 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read:8.15.6 Spaces Under Ground Floors, Exterior Docks, and Exterior Platforms. 8.15.6.1 Unless the requirements of 8.15.6.2 are met, sprinklers shall be installed in spaces under all combustible ground floors, exterior docks, and exterior platforms.8.15.6.2 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from spaces underground floors, exterior docks, and exterior platforms where all of the following conditions prevail: (1) The space is not accessible for storage purposes and is protected against accumulation of wind-borne debris. (2) The space contains no equipment such as conveyors or fuel-fired heating units. (3) The floor over the space is of tight construction. (4) No combustible or flammable liquids or materials that under fire conditions would convert into combustible or flammable liquids are processed, handled, or stored on the floor above the space. Substantiation: We believe the intent of this section is for exterior platforms and the proposed text clarifies that. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent of the section is to address all platforms…exterior or interior. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-256 Log #379 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.7 through 8.15.7.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Delete “similar projections” in the title and wherever it appears in this section. Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.7* Exterior Roofs, Canopies, Porte-Cocheres, Balconies, or Decks, or Similar Projections.Substantiation: The NFPA Manual of Style strongly discourages the use of lists, unless they are complete. Using the term “Similar Projections” in the title (and elsewhere in this section) indicates that the existing list of items are simply examples and not all encompassing. This is subject to variable interpretation and enforcement. Therefore, this text needs to be deleted in the title, and anywhere else it appears in this section. If another circumstance is applicable, add it to the title or discuss it in the annex. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The use of the term “or similar projections” is necessary to include consideration of components that project from the building where different terms are used for their description. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-257 Log #57 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.8.1.1, 8.15.8.1.2, and 8.15.8.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.15.8.1.1* Unless the sprinklers are required by 8.15.8.1.2 or 8.15.8.1.3, s Sprinklers shall not be required in bathrooms that are located within dwelling units of hotels and motels, that do not exceed 55 ft sq (5.1 m sq) in area, and that have walls and ceilings of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials with a 15-minute thermal barrier rating, including the walls and ceilings behind any shower enclosure or tub. Delete Sections 8.15.8.1.2 and 8.15.8.1.3. Substantiation: Bathrooms in dwelling units other than hotel/motel can have substantial fuel loads that are not in a controlled environment similar to a hotel/motel. This standard requires that a closet 2 sq ft with some towels (a linen closet) be sprinklered yet a room 55 sq ft that can have some or all of the following items not be sprinklered? (Linens, towels, paper, magazines, candles, etc). The technical justification is that some people do not use their bathroom as intended. Retrofits of existing condos have shown that some elderly people will use the 2nd bathroom as a storage room. There are also many documented cases of hoarding. If this standard is intended for property protection, these bathrooms need to be protected. This committee agreed in the last cycle and it was overturned on the floor. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: Acceptance of this proposal will set up conflict within NFPA standards. Committee rules establish that occupancy standards overrule installation standards. This exception has been in NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code for years without negative affect. The NFPA membership spoke last cycle to retain the existing allowance. KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and reject this proposal. Prior to the 1991 edition of NFPA 13, sprinklers were only allowed to be omitted from the washrooms in hotels, but for that edition, the allowance was opened up to all dwelling units as long as they were no larger than 55 sq. ft. and enclosed within a 15 minute thermal barrier. At that time adequate technical substantiation was offered to validate the change. Since that time, no adverse fire losses have been brought to the Committee’s attention that would support this backward step. Further the conditions inside the 55 sq.ft. bathrooms of today are no different from those that were found in 1991, so the current submitter’s substantiation is not correct. Also, as the proponent himself noted, a very similar proposal was overturned on the floor by the during the last cycle, and the wishes of the membership should be respected now, since no new data has been presented. MILLER, T.: While the submitter is correct about some small bathrooms having dangerous amounts of combustible material, bathrooms of other than hotels and motels should also be considered. Most health care facilities typically do not contain hazardous amounts of combustible material. These would now require sprinklers. ________________________________________________________________ 13-258 Log #35 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.8.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety AmericaRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.15.4* Wet Pipe Systems. A wet pipe system installed in unheated attic spaces above dwelling units shall be permitted in areas subject to freezing, where sprinkler piping is completely with insulation. Installation should follow the guidelines of the insulation manufacturer. A.15.4 (insert Figures A.8.3.1(a) through Figure A.8.3.1(e) from NFPA 13D) and re-number accordingly. Add the following commentary from the NFPA 13D handbook as annex material:

13-63


Wet pipe systems, covered by 8.15.4. have water-filled pipes up to the sprinklers. Where pendent sprinklers are installed on the top floor of a dwelling unit, the piping is typically run in the attic Where there is a risk that the pipe will be exposed to cold temperatures and freeze up. One way to protect the pipe is to put sufficient insulation over the pipe to trap the heat from the floor below. The annex text for 15.8.4 shows a number of ways that batt insulation can be used to trap the heat and keep the pipe from freezing. By placing the insulation over the pipe, the area under the insulation becomes a space reliably maintained at 40°F (4°C) (assuming that the heat works in the home) and the pipe is permitted in the attic. The key to making this installation work is making sure that the insulation is not under the pipe so that it is open to the heat from below. Blown-in insulation can be used to protect wet pipe sprinkler systems. However. care needs to be taken to ensure that the insulation does not get between the pipe and the warm space below so that the heat from the space below is trapped by the insulation and keeps the pipe from freezing. Where the insulation is permitted to fill around and under the pipe, it can actually insulate the wet pipe system from the heat below, which might allow the water in the pipe to freeze. One way to protect the piping is to cover it with thick plastic sheets before the insulation is blown over the pipe. By tacking the sheets to the joists, an air pocket can be created around the pipe with the blown-in insulation over the plastic trapping the heat in the pocket. A combination of batt insulation over the sprinkler piping and blown-in insulation in adjacent areas is also another potential method of protecting the pipe from freezing. Whichever method of insulation is chosen, the final arrangement should ensure that piping is protected and remains protected from freezing. Insulation, especially blown-in insulation, might move over time and expose the pipe. Some method for keeping the insulation in place might be a good consideration. Substantiation: With the well documented problems associated with antifreeze solutions, alternate options for protecting piping from freezing in dwelling unit attic areas are needed. Since this is a proven and accepted method of accomplishing this task for one and two family dwellings, it seems logical to assume it will be sufficient for similar occupancies protected by NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is not necessary as insulation is already permitted as an alternative (See TIA 1003) Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: In light of the recent TIA limiting antifreeze solutions based upon life safety concerns, it seems more important now to provide guidance for freeze protection options which, as noted in the submitters substantiation, is already provided in NFPA 13R and 13D. I agree this is already permitted, the standard needs to provide guidance on “how to” so it will be useful and acceptable to AHJ’s. CAPUTO, R.: In light of the recent TIA limiting antifreeze solutions based upon life safety concerns, it seems more important now to provide guidance for freeze protection options which, as noted in the submitters substantiation, is already provided in NFPA 13R and 13D. I agree this is already permitted, the standard needs to provide guidance on “how to” so it will be useful and acceptable to AHJ’s. Comment on Affirmative: MEEHAN, M.: In light of the recent TIA limiting antifreeze solutions based

13-64

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 upon life safety concerns, it seems more important now to provide guidance for freeze protection options which, as noted in the submitters substantiation, is already provided in NFPA 13R and 13D. I agree this is already permitted, the standard needs to provide guidance on “how to” so it will be useful and acceptable to AHJ’s. ________________________________________________________________ 13-259 Log #380 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.9 and A.8.15.9)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.15.9* Library Stack Areas and Medical Record Storage. High Density Storage Where books or medical records are stored in fixed open shelving or in movable shelving book shelves, sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with one of the following: Rest unchanged A.8.15.9 Examples of high density storage includes paper or film record areas and library stack areas. Library stacks are high-density book storage areas and should not be confused with the typical library bookshelves and aisles in the general browsing areas. Substantiation: The title for this section has been changed to “High Density Storage” to broaden areas where these provisions should be applied, and to not limit these requirements to only library stack areas and medical records. The term “high density” was chosen because this term is currently used in the annex. “Movable shelving” was added because the NFPA 13 handbook indicates the provisions of this section could be applied to “high density mobile shelving.” (Note: ok by me to use the term “mobile” instead of “movable” if better suite.) The annex was revised to indicate that library stack and a variety of record storage areas are examples of “high density” storage, so not to limit this to only “medical” records. Note: the aforementioned changes are meant only to be editorial and not intended to make any technical changes. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Delete “Medical” from records (FI on 1999 and revision 2002 edition added medical records in fixed open book shelves for clarification of the application of this section Record storage on moveable shelving is covered in 20.6. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-260 Log #512 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.15.9 and A.8.15.9 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David P. Klein, US Department of Veterans Affairs / Rep. NFPA 99/NFPA 13 Intercommiittee Task Group on Sprinkler Protection Recommendation: Add a new 8.15.9 and renumber existing 8.15.9 through 8.15.22 8.15.9* Hospital Clothes Closets. Sprinklers shall not be required in clothes closets of patient sleeping rooms in hospitals where the area of the closet does not exceed 6 ft2 (0.55 m2) provided the distance from the sprinkler in the patient sleeping room to the back wall of the closet does not exceed the maximum distance permitted by 8.5.3.2.3. A.8.15.9. This exception is limited to hospitals as nursing homes and many limited care facilities may have more combustibles within the closets. The limited amount of clothing found in the small clothes closets in hospital patient rooms is typically far less than the amount of combustibles in casework cabinets that do not require sprinkler protection such as nurse servers. In many hospitals, especially new hospitals, it is difficult to make a distinction between clothes closets and cabinet work. The exception is far more restrictive than similar exceptions for hotels and apartment buildings. NFPA 13 already permits the omission of sprinklers in wardrobes (see 8.1.1(7)). It is not the intent of this paragraph to affect the wardrobe provisions of NFPA 13. It is the intent that the sprinkler protection in the room covers the closet as if there was no door on the closet (see 8.5.3.2.3).Substantiation: This proposal is based on the work of the NFPA 99 / NFPA 13 Intercommittee Task Group on Sprinkler Protection. This task group includes representatives from NFPA 13, NFPA 99, and NFPA 101. This new paragraph is based on a virtually identical paragraph that has been proposed for NFPA 101 (and extracted into NFPA 99). This route has been chosen by the task group since NFPA 101 is a cycle ahead of NFPA 13 and needs the material for the 2012 Edition of NFPA 101. It is planned that if this material is accepted into NFPA 13 it can either be removed from NFPA 101 or extracted into NFPA 101 from NFPA 13. This proposed exception is based on the limited amount of combustibles (i.e., clothing) typically found in hospital patient room closets. In many of today’s hospitals, it is difficult to differentiate between clothes closets and cabinet work. Many closets are smaller in volume than nearby cabinet work or casework which is not required to be protected by sprinklers. Nurse servers, which are as large in cubic footage and typically contain significantly more combustibles, are not required to be protected by sprinklers (see 8.1.1(7) of NFPA 13). This new exception is limited to hospitals as it is the opinion of the Task Group that nursing homes and many limited care facilities may have more combustibles in the closet. The 6 ft2 maximum area is based on a very informal

survey of hospitals which showed that this number is a reasonable upper limit for hospitals. In NFPA 101, hotels are currently allowed 24 ft2 and apartment buildings are allowed 12 ft2. The amount of clothing in a hospital closet is far less than in an apartment closet and depending on the occupant of the hotel room probably less than most hotel rooms. The requirement in these other occupancies that the least dimension not exceed 3 feet is not needed due the limited size being proposed. The limitation on non-combustible or limited combustible in these other occupancies will not work as many new closets are constructed like built-in cabinets and therefore have wood inside. NFPA 13 specifically exempts wood wardrobes which could easily be 12 ft2 and full of clothes (see 8.1.1(7)), yet the closets often found in hospitals are essentially built in-wardrobes, therefore since this comment presents a far safer arrangement, it should be permitted. It should be noted that the overall water supply demand for the sprinkler system will not be impacted by this – see 22.4.4.6.2 of NFPA 13 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleChange the reference from 8.5.3.2.3 to 8.5.3.2. Committee Statement: Corrected the referenced section.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-261 Log #253 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.16.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.16.2 Where proscenium opening protection is required, an automatic, fixed waterspray deluge system shall be provided with open sprinklers located not more than 3 ft (0.9 m) away on the auditorium side from the stage side of the proscenium arch and spaced up to a maximum of 6 ft (1.8 m) on center, and shall be arranged so that the entire face of the curtain will be wetted. (See Chapter 11 for design criteria.)Substantiation: There is some confusion of the location of the deluge system, stage side or auditorium side. This is to align with NFPA 101. NFPA 101 – 2009 Edition:13.4.5.7.2 In lieu of the protection required by 13.4.5.7.1(1), all the following shall be provided: (1) A noncombustible opaque fabric curtain shall be arranged so that it closes automatically. (2) An automatic, fixed waterspray deluge system shall be located on the auditorium side of the proscenium opening and shall be arranged so that the entire face of the curtain will be wetted, and the following requirements also shall apply: Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to submit a drawing showing where the sprinklers are to be located in relation to the proscenium opening. Also remove the terminology “fixed water spray”. The submitter should correlate the requirements and terminology with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-262 Log #97 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.15.18.1 and 8.15.18.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety AmericaRecommendation: Revise paragraph 8.15.18.1 as follows: Unless the requirements of Sections 8.15.18.3, 8.15.18.4 or 8.15.18.5 are met, return bends shall be used where pendent sprinklers are supplied from a raw water source, a mill pond, or open-top reservoirs. Add new paragraph 8.15.18.5 as follows: Return bends shall not be required for wet pipe systems where sprinklers with K-11.2 or greater are used.Substantiation: Current requirement for return bends include ESFR and CMSA sprinklers which have large enough orifices where sediment should not be problematic. Adding this section would be congruent with FM standards for ESFR sprinkler installation requirements. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-263 (Log #196).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-263 Log #196 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.18.1 and 8.15.18.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise paragraph 8.15.18.1 as follows: Unless the requirements of Sections 8.15.18.3, 8.15.18.4 or 8.15.18.5 are met, return bends shall be used where pendent sprinklers are supplied from a raw water source, a mill pond, or open-top reservoirs. Add new paragraph 8.15.18.5 as follows: Return bends shall not be required for wet pipe systems where sprinklers

13-65

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 with K-11.2 or larger are used.Substantiation: The requirements for return bends predates the development and use of larger orifice sprinklers including ESFR and CMSA sprinklers which have large enough orifices where sediment should not be problematic. Adding this section would be congruent with FM standards for ESFR sprinkler installation requirements where pendent sprinklers are attached without return bends with raw water sources. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-264 Log #2 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.19.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allan Seidel, William Tao & AssociatesRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25.4 mm) in diameter and fittings with nominal threads less than 1 in. (25.4mm) is not permitted in areas subject to earthquakes. Substantiation: The current wording refers to pipe nipples only. The intent of the section is to prevent the weakest portion of the sprinkler drop to occur at the maximum bending moment location for revamped sprinkler drops. Increaser fittings are used to circumvent what appears to be a loophole in the section. The resulting installation does not use the explicitly specified pipe nipple but is structurally similar to what the section prohibits. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is not opposed to using fittings.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-265 Log #334 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.19.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise 8.15.19.4.4 as follows: 8.15.19.4.4 Where an armover is attached to connect to a sprinkler, the use of pipe nipples less than 1 inch (25 mm) in diameter shall not be permitted where seismic design is required on the system. Substantiation: Short straight nipples used to revamp systems when changing the type of sprinkler should be permitted, even in earthquake areas. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The current language applies to more situations than the submitter proposed. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-266 Log #1 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.19.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allan Seidel, William Tao & AssociatesRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25.4 mm) in diameter and fittings with nominal threads less than 1 in. (25.4 mm) is not permitted in areas subject to earthquakes. Substantiation: The current wording refers to pipe nipples only. The intent of the section is to prevent the weakest portion of the sprinkler drop to occur at the maximum bending moment location for revamped sprinkler drops. Increaser fittings are used to circumvent what appears to be a loophole in the section. The resulting installation does not use the explicitly specified pipe nipple but is structurally similar to what the section prohibits. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The current language applies to more situations than the submitter proposed. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-267 Log #254 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.15.19.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.15.19.5.4 The use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter shall not be permitted in areas subject to earthquakes where seismic design is required on the system.Substantiation: Matches the wording provided in 8.15.19.4.4. The building codes indicate that all areas are subject to earthquakes and this section would no longer be applicable. If seismic bracing is has to be provided, that should be the trigger to apply this section. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28

Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-268 Log #335 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.19.5.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise 8.15.19.5.4 as follows: 8.15.19.5.4 Where an armover is attached to connect to a sprinkler, the use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25mm) in diameter shall not be permitted where seismic design is required on the system. Substantiation: Short straight nipples used to revamp systems when changing the type of sprinkler should be permitted, even in earthquake areas. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: 8.15.19.4.4 Where an armover is attached to connect to a sprinkler, the use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25mm) in diameter shall not be permitted where seismic design is required on the system. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-269 Log #463 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.15.20.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where necessary to place pipe that will be under air or nitrogen pressure underground, the pipe shall be protected against corrosion. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-270 Log #562 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.20.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where necessary to place pipe that will be under pressure underground, Nitrogen shall be used to protect the pipe against corrosion. Substantiation: Adding “nitrogen” and eliminating “air” will significantly add life to the piping (i.e. by eliminating the oxygen, corrosion will be inhibited). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Not the intent to eliminate “air”…minimum installation standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-271 Log #255 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.23 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.15.23 Architectural Ceiling Features8.15.23.1 Dormers. Except as provided in 8.15.23.2, sprinklers shall be required in all dormers. 8.15.23.2 Sprinklers shall not be required in dormers where all of the following are met: (1) The total ceiling area of the dormer does not exceed the maximum area of coverage of the sprinkler for the occupancy. (2) The entire floor under the unprotected dormer is protected by sprinklers at the lower ceiling elevations, (3) The unprotected dormer has noncombustible or limited-combustible finishes. (4) Quick response sprinklers are utilized throughout the compartment. 8.15.23.3* Suspended Ceiling Panels. Except as provided in 8.15.23.4 and 8.15.23.5, sprinklers shall be required above and below suspended ceiling panels. A.15.23.3 These architectural features are also referred as decorative ceiling clouds. These panels are suspended from a roof deck or ceiling to create an architectural effect and may obstruct sprinkler patterns of spay. 8.15.23.4* Sprinklers are permitted to be omitted below the suspended ceiling panels when the clearance and obstruction rules for each type of sprinkler are met. A.8.15.23.4 The suspended ceiling panels should be located to maintain the clearances to allow the pattern of spray to fully develop. The panel should be less than 4 ft wide or as required for each type and style of sprinkler used. Gaps should be provided between each suspended ceiling panel to allow water spray to reach the hazard. Suspended ceiling panels that give the appearance of a solid ceiling should have sprinklers above and below the panels. 8.15.23.5* Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from above the ceiling or roof deck when sprinklers are installed under ceiling panels and the ceiling

13-66

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 panels are located within the maximum distance below the ceiling for each type and style of sprinkler. A.8.15.23.5 A suspended ceiling panel can be located 11 in. (280 mm) down from the ceiling and sprinklers can be installed under the suspended ceiling panels for unobstructed construction using standard spray sprinklers. Sprinklers would not be required above the suspended ceiling panels since the deflector is located within 12 in. (305 mm) of the ceiling or roof deck. 8.15.23.6* Gaps in the Ceiling. Except as provided in 8.15.23.7, sprinklers shall be located above and below suspended ceilings when gaps or openings are provided that are greater than 6 in. (150 mm) wide. 8.15.23.7* Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from the above ceiling space when the gap is 6 in. (150 mm) or less wide provided the concealed space meets the requirements of 8.15.1. A.8.15.23.7 A gap can be located along the wall or a gap between a row of sprinklers can be provided to give an architectural effect such as a floating ceiling. Fire modeling has shown that there will be heat loss to the above ceiling space when these gaps are present. Sprinklers activate on the lower ceiling level when the gap is 6 in. or less in width. The sprinklers take longer to activate when the gap is larger than 6 in. and there is heat collection above the ceiling. It is not the intent to limit the gap width if fire modeling shows acceptable sprinkler activation results for that specific application. Gaps provided between each sprinkler should be treated as suspended ceiling panels or ceiling clouds. Substantiation: These architectural features are common and there is no specific guidance in NFPA 13. Sprinklers should not be required in small dormers since the heat plume will continue to rise to the upper ceiling level. Fire modeling has shown it is difficult to activate sprinklers in the suspended ceiling panels or ceiling clouds unless the head is directly in the heat plume. The heat goes to the upper ceiling level in the gaps between the panels or clouds. The ceiling gap width was determined from fire modeling results. Gap widths exceeding 6 in. showed delayed sprinkler activations and heat collecting in the above ceiling space. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is currently waiting for data that either supports or refutes this proposal. Also see 13-24 (Log #CP406). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-272 Log #381 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.15.23 and A.8.15.23)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.15.23* Audiometric Booths. Sprinkler protection shall be permitted to be omitted from an audiometric booths where the booth is installed within a 2-hour fire-rated enclosure including protection for penetrations, the doors serving the booth are equipped with self or automatic closing and positively latching fire rated doors, and the booth is not used for storage.A.8.15.23 It is not the intent to omit sprinklers in rooms housing audiometric booths or above the booth itself, unless there is insufficient space to install sprinklers.Substantiation: Sprinklers can be detrimental to the performance of an audiometric (audiology) booth. However, that does not give these booths an automatic exemption from sprinklers because fires can initiate from within these booths. But if the booth is constructed of fire resistance rated materials that effectively isolates it from adjacent spaces and the booth is not used for storage, it should be afforded the same exception as offered from electrical equipment rooms housing dry type electrical equipment. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is not the intent to remove sprinklers from occupied spaces. An occupied space needs to be protected. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-273 Log #85 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.1.1.1.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen J. DiGiovanni, Clark County Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.16.1.1.1.4 Valve rooms shall be lighted and heated.Substantiation: Throughout NFPA 13, the only discussion about valve rooms occurs in Section 7.2.5.2, specifically regarding dry pipe system valves. Other riser valves serving other types of systems, such as wet, deluge, and preaction systems, need to be protected in a similar manner as dry pipe system valves are. This proposal copies the language from Section 7.2.5.2.1, and places that language into 8.16, where it will apply to all valves. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The requirements for heating the spaces are addressed in Chapter 7 as noted. There are many configurations where a valve is located in a closet or access panel area that would not necessitate lighting within. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28

Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-274 Log #86 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.1.1.1.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen J. DiGiovanni, Clark County Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.16.1.1.1.5 The source of heat shall be of a permanently installed type.Substantiation: Throughout NFPA 13, the only discussion about valve rooms occurs in Section 7.2.5.2, specifically regarding dry pipe system valves. Other riser valves serving other types of systems, such as wet, deluge, and preaction systems, need to be protected in a similar manner as dry pipe system valves are. This proposal copies the language from Section 7.2.5.2.2, and places that language in to 8.16, where it will apply to all valves. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The requirements for heating the spaces are addressed in Chapter 7 as noted. There are many configurations where a valve is located in a closet or access panel area that would not necessitate lighting within. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-275 Log #87 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.1.1.1.6 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen J. DiGiovanni, Clark County Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.16.1.1.1.6 Heat tape shall not be used in lieu of heated valve enclosures to protect the valve and supply pipe from freezing.Substantiation: Throughout NFPA 13, the only discussion about valve rooms occurs in Section 7.2.5.2, specifically regarding dry pipe system valves. Other riser valves serving other types of systems, such as wet, deluge, and preaction systems, need to be protected in a similar manner as dry pipe system valves are. This proposal copies the language from Section 7.2.5.2.3, and places that language into 8.16, where it will apply to all valves. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd to Chapter 7.1 for wet systems as new 7.1.4. Change “Heat tape” to “Heat trace” Committee Statement: The requirement is more appropriate in chapter 7.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that, rather than the term “heat trace”, the proper phrase should be “heat tracing”. ________________________________________________________________ 13-276 Log #529 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.1.1.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dana Haagensen, MA Department of Fire ServicesRecommendation: Insert a new section in 8.16.1.1.2 prior to existing Section 8.16.1.1.2 to read as follows: 8.16.1.1.2 Townhouse Structures. 8.16.1.1.2.1 In townhouse structures where more than one dwelling unit is served by the same water supply pipe, each dwelling unit shall have an individual control valve that serves the fire sprinkler system in that dwelling unit and the owner shall have access to the valve that controls the sprinkler system in their unit. 8.16.1.1.2.2 The control valve shall be permitted to serve the domestic water supply. 8.16.1.1.2.3 In the situation addressed in 8.16.1.1.2.1, no valve controlling the sprinkler system in a unit shall be located in another unit.Substantiation: These are the same provisions that were adopted in NFPA 13D for the 2010 edition. Since NFPA 13 is applicable to townhouse structures, NFPA 13 should contain the same provisions. This is a relatively cost effective approach such that a fire incident in one unit does not necessarily force all other unit residents to be displaced due to shut down of the fire sprinkler system. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is not the intent to have separate control valves for each individual townhome. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: There should be a provision that a owner / tenant should be able to shut off the water to avoid further damage.

13-67

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-277 Log #58 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.1.1.2.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.16.1.1.2.5 A listed backflow prevention device shall be considered a control valve, and an additional control valve shall not be required.Substantiation: The standard allows a backflow device to be the system check valve in Section 8.16.1.1.3.2. This same allowance should apply to control valves. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise to read as follows: A listed backflow prevention assembly shall be permitted to be considered a control valve, provided both control valves are listed for fire protection system use and an additional control valve shall not be required.Committee Statement: Editorial rewrite.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-278 Log #59 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.1.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.16.1.2.3 A listed relief valve of not less than ½ in. (13 mm) in size shall be provided on the discharge side of the pressure-reducing valve set to operate at a pressure not exceeding 175 psi (12.1 bar) the maximum anticipated system pressure.Substantiation: Listed relief valves are inexpensive and should be required. Also, with new rules in NFPA 14 that allow higher pressures and many system components rated to 250-300 PSI, there should not be a 175 PSI limitation. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise to read as follows: A listed relief valve of not less than 1/2 in. (13 mm) in size shall be provided on the discharge side of the pressure-reducing valve set to operate at a pressure not exceeding the rated pressure of the components of the system. Committee Statement: Deleting 175psi allows for settings based on the components rated. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-279 Log #60 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.16.1.5.1 and 8.16.1.5.2)________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC Directs the PRI TC to review and act on Log#60 during the ROC.Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Sections 8.16.1.5.1 and 8.16.1.5.2.Substantiation: These are underground requirements and do not belong in NFPA 13. If they are important enough to be in NFPA 13, they should be placed in Chapter 10 of NFPA 24 so as to appear in the extract chapter. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The Committee feels this proposal should be addressed by the PRI committee during the ROC period. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: JOYCE, II, E.: I disagree with the committee action on this as these sections are part of a group that is covering valves which includes valve pits and P.I.V’s which can relate to undergrounds. Also sectional valves can be in the above ground mains. ________________________________________________________________ 13-280 Log #197 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.1.5.3, 8.16.1.5.4, and A.8.16.1.5.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC does not believe further action is necessary by the PRI TC. This proposed language in this proposal falls under the jurisdiction of the SSI TC. Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.16.1.5.3* Multistory buildings exceeding two stories in height shall be provided with a floor control valve, check valve, main drain valve and flow switch for isolation, control and annunciation of water flow on each floor level.8.16.1.5.4 The floor control valve, check valve, main drain valve and flow switch required by Section 8.16.1.5.3 shall not be required where sprinklers on the top level of a multistory building are supplied by piping on the floor below. A.8.16.1.5.3 It is not the intent of this section to require floor control valve assemblies in all multistory buildings. Where small buildings such as multilevel condominiums or apartments are under the control of a single owner or management firm, a single control vale should be adequate for isolation,

control and annunciation of water flow.Substantiation: The standard does not currently require floor control valves for any condition. Building code requires floor control valves only when high rise and/or combination standpipes are installed. This results in mid-rise buildings without floor controls, which require draining entire buildings for improvements and repairs on a single level. Floor controls are needed in the interest of water conservation and good practices to keep areas of the building in service while performing improvements or repairs on other floor levels. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Send to PRI for inclusion in NFPA 24.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Negative: 6 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: This proposal which provides an opportunity to require control valves for non-high-rise multi-story buildings, where we currently accept taking as much as 156,000 ft2 of area out of service just to perform a tenant improvement or replace a single sprinkler in a three story building. This proposal should be accepted. CAPUTO, R.: I believe there is a typo in the committee statement with regard to sending this proposal to NFPA 24 (should read NFPA 14). However, in light of the committee’s continued support of limiting system sizes to 52,000 ft² (and 40,000 ft²) it seems incongruent that we reject a proposal which provides an opportunity to require control valves for non-high-rise multi-story buildings, where we currently accept taking as much as 156,000 ft² of area out of service just to perform a tenant improvement or replace a single sprinkler in a three story building. This proposal should be accepted and added to both NFPA 13 and NFPA 14. DORNBOS, D.: I agree with submitters’ proposal and substantiation. JOYCE, II, E.: To start with what the submitter is discussing has nothing to do with underground piping and is not related to NFPA 24. He is talking about above ground piping systems not underground or private mains. Additionally it appears he is addressing issues of a non-standpipe offshoot of 8.17.5.2. LINDER, K.: This proposal should be accepted as any modifications/maintenance in these buildings results in a larger impairment than needed. VICTOR, T.: I agree with the submitters proposal and substantiation. These devices are necessary to isolate and alarm or annunciate individual floors in a multi-story building. Water conservation, and in some areas drainage control, is becoming a big problem. Subdividing buildings by floor as proposed will conserve water and provide better fire protection in the buildings when performing maintenance and repairs. Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, there is a typographical error in the Committee Statement. Since the subject matter for this proposal is floor control valves, the reference to sending the matter to NFPA 24 is inappropriate. ________________________________________________________________ 13-281 Log #394 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.1.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnellRecommendation: Revise current 8.16.1.6.3 text to read: 8.16.1.6.3 The separate indicating valves shall be permitted to be arranged as sectional control valves tied into the ceiling sprinkler system where the racks occupy less than 50% only a portion of the area protected by the ceiling sprinklers. Substantiation: The current text is not clear that the sectional control valves can be attached to the overhead system. The current text does not state what portion of the overhead system floor area the racks can cover with just a sectional control valve. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 8.16.1.6.3 The separate indicating valves shall be permitted to be arranged as sectional control valves supplied from the ceiling sprinkler system where in-racks sprinklers are required and the racks for occupy less than 10% 50% only a portion of the area protected by the ceiling sprinklers. Committee Statement: The committee agrees that a portion needs to be defined but 50% was too great an area. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: VICTOR, T.: While I agree with the committee action, I don’t agree with the change from 50% to 10%. Most authorities having jurisdiction are allowing 20% or more rack area on a sectional control valve.

13-68

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-282 Log #212 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.2.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip A. Brown, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:8.16.2.4.3.1 Where an interior sectional or floor control valve(s) is provided, it shall be provided with a check valve to prevent negative flow. Substantiation: The check valve is needed to allow draining of the floor being controlled without creating a situation that could allow other portions of the system to be drained. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Sectional control valves are used on various points of the system, not just floor control valves. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: The committee statement indicates that they didi not follow where the check valve was to be used. It is to be used with the Floor Control valve. ________________________________________________________________ 13-283 Log #61 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.16.2.4.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.16.2.4.7 Where drain connections for floor control valves are tied into a common drain riser, the drain riser shall be one pipe size larger downstream than the largest of each size drain connection tying into it.Substantiation: In many high rise buildings, you will have residential units at the higher levels and parking or mercantile on the lower portions. Currently if we have a 2” drain on the lower floors (or even the bottom floor) it would require a 2½” gang drain to the top of the building. This revised language only requires piping one size larger downstream of each connection. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-284 Log #391 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.2.5.3.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.16.2.5.3.8 Each low point drain installed per Section 8.16.2.5.3.5 shall have a sign with instructions for operation. A.8.16.2.5.3.8 The low point drain sign should include the following steps: (1) close top control valve. (2) Remove plug or cap from bottom valve outlet. (3) Open bottom valve and release moisture. (4) Close bottom valve and open top valve. (5) Open lower valve and release moisture. (6) Repeat procedure until all moisture is removed. (7) Reinsert plug or cap and leave bottom valve shut and top valve in the open position. Other devices that are listed for this service should have a sign with the manufacturer’s instructions.Substantiation: Removing water from a dry system is critical for system maintenance. This procedure is something that should be done on a regular basis. NFPA 25 provides the direction in regards to when the low point drains must be operated and in many cases it is expected that the owner perform this maintenance. Operating instructions at the drains will help ensure that the maintenance is performed and that it is done in the proper manner. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This may be a good idea but it would seem impractical to place this sign at every drain. Suggest rewording sign for simplicity. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action to reject the proposal, I disagree with the Committee Statement that a reworded sign might be more acceptable. This matter should be left with NFPA 25 due to differences in dry pipe system operations. Some systems with quick opening devices are very sensitive to minor air pressure changes and if directions similar to those suggested in this proposal were to be followed, the systems could inadvertently trip. ________________________________________________________________ 13-285 Log #336 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.16.2.6.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise Section 8.16.2.6.6: Drain Pipes shall be arranged to avoid exposing any part of the water-filled portion of the sprinkler system to freezing conditions. Substantiation: Only parts of the sprinkler systems with water in them are of concern for freezing.

Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-286 Log #CP409 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.16.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Revise section 8.16.4.1 to read as follows:Revise Section 8.16.4.1 8.16.4.1 Protection of Piping Against Freezing. 8.16.4.1.1 Where any portion of a system is installed in a location where the temperature cannot be maintained above 40°F (4°C), the system shall be installed as a dry pipe or preaction system. 8.16.4.1.1.1 The requirements of 8.16.4.1.1 shall not apply where alternate methods of freeze prevention are provided in accordance with one of the methods described in 8.16.4.1.2 through 8.16.4.1.5 8.16.4.1.2 Unheated areas shall be permitted to be protected by antifreeze systems or by other systems specifically listed for the purpose. 8.16.4.1.3 Where aboveground water-filled supply, pipes, risers, system risers, or feed mains pass through open areas, cold rooms, passageways, or other areas exposed to temperatures below 40°F (4°C), the pipe shall be permitted to be protected against freezing by insulating coverings, frostproof casings, or other means of maintaining a minimum temperature between 40°F (4°C) and 120°F (48.9°C). 8.16.4.1.4 Listed heat tracing systems shall be permitted in accordance with 8.16.4.1.4.1 and 8.16.4.1.4.2 8.16.4.1.4.1 Where used to protect branch lines, the heat tracing system shall be specifically listed for use on branchlines. 8.16.4.1.4.2 Electric supervision of the heat tracing system shall provide positive confirmation that the circuit is energized. 8.16.4.1.5 Water filled piping shall be permitted to be installed in areas where the temperature is less than 40°F (4°C) when heat loss calculation performed by a Professional Engineer are performed to verify that the system will not freeze. Substantiation: This proposal incorporates the thoughts of several public proposals. This was done to make the section read better. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-287 Log #92 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.4.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Brian Larkin, Tyco Thermal ControlsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Unless the requirements of 8.16.4.1.2, 8.16.4.1.3,8.16.4.1.4, and 8.16.4.1.5 are met, where portions of systems are is subject to freezing and temperatures cannot reliably be maintained at or above 40°F (4°C), sprinklers shall be installed as a dry pipe or preaction system. Substantiation: Paragraph 8.16.4.1.1 only referenced one of four paragraphs that set the parameters required for heat tracing systems. This proposal references the other three. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-286 (Log #CP409).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-288 Log #536 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.4.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 8.16.4.1.1.1 Sprinkler systems using a water mixture with propylene glycol at a maximum of 25% can be used to protect areas where the ambient temperature conditions will be above freezing. Substantiation: Section 8.16.4.1.1 currently limits the use of wet sprinkler systems to areas where the ambient temperature can be reliably maintained at or above 40°F (4°C). This requires that areas which will have ambient temperatures above 32°F (0°C) and up to a maximum of 40°F (4°C) be protected with a dry or pre-action sprinkler system. Propylene glycol in water at a concentration of 25% would be considered noncombustible and would provide the freeze protection required for this ambient temperature range. This would allow for all sprinkler types to utilize this anti-freeze solution thus eliminating the maintenance and corrosion issues associated with dry and pre-action sprinkler systems as well as allow the sprinkler system to be designed based on that of a wet sprinkler system. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to submit data to substantiate the reduction of concentration. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1

13-69

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and accept this proposal, the same as was done for Proposal 13-148, (Log #534). If a 25% by volume solution is okay for ESFR (ie suppression type) systems, it should be equally acceptable for other (control mode) types of system. ________________________________________________________________ 13-289 Log #91 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.4.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Brian Larkin, Tyco Thermal ControlsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Small Unheated areas are permitted to be protected by antifreeze systems or by other systems specifically listed for this purpose, including but not limited to listed heat tracing systems. Substantiation: Small areas are not defined in the standard so the description has no meaning and causes confusion to inspectors and AHJ’s. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: This action was accomplished in action on 13-286 (Log #CP409). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-290 Log #90 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.4.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Brian Larkin, Tyco Thermal ControlsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where aboveground water-filled supply pipes, risers, system risers, or feed mains, or branch lines pass through open areas, cold rooms, passageways, or other areas exposed to temperatures below 40°F (4°C), the pipe shall be protected against freezing by insulating coverings, frostproof casings, listed heat tracing systems, or other reliable means capable of maintaining a minimum temperature between 40°F (4°C) and 120°F (48.9°C). Substantiation: Adds branch lines to description to help interpretation and avoid confusion by AHJ and inspectors. Clarification of the use on branch lines is covered in Section 8.16.4.1.5. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Branch lines are not included in this section as the piping bulk delivery mains passing through unheated spaces. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and accept this proposal. Areas such as cold rooms and unheated passageways often need to be sprinklered, so adding “branch lines” to the 8.16.4.1.3 is an entirely appropriate suggestion. ________________________________________________________________ 13-291 Log #62 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.16.4.1.6 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.16.4.1.6 Piping shall be permitted to be installed in areas where the temperature is less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) when heat loss calculations performed by a Professional Engineer prove that piping will not freeze.Substantiation: NFPA already allows an engineer to step in and verify that a hanger will meet certain requirements. Heat loss calculations proving that a space will not encounter freezing temperatures should be allowed. There are reliable programs available to scientifically calculate low temperatures. There are many locations that encounter sub 40 degree temperatures but never approach freezing. If the user/building owner wishes to incur this expense to eliminate a dry system or antifreeze system, they should be allowed. Also, Sections 7.2.5.1 and 7.2.5.2.3 only specify that freezing should be prevented vs. a 40 degree requirement. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-286 (Log #CP409).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: It is unclear to this submitter what data is needed to substantiate the proposal. Is the committee asking whether a 25% solution of propylene glycol will actually freeze at temperatures above freezing? DORNBOS, D.: The proposal erodes the safety margin provided by the standard where it presently calls for the use of technical methods to prevent water filled pipe from exposure to temperatures where freezing can occur.

________________________________________________________________ 13-292 Log #63 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.4.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Section 8.16.4.2.4.Substantiation: Steel piping underground is addressed by Sections 10.1.2 and 10.1.3. This current language is in conflict with Section 10.1.2 which requires listed piping. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Steel piping can be used for FDCs and run underground and therefore this section is necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-293 Log #38 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.16.4.2.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allen Johnson, Nu Flow Technologies Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Where conditions are known to exist (due to moisture or fumes from corrosive chemicals or both), the interior of the pipe may be treated with an epoxy coating process that first dries the interior of the pipes, removes the corrosion and creates a profile for bonding using an abrading agent and then applies an epoxy barrier coating to the interior of the pipes used for fire sprinkler systems. Substantiation: This process would remove interior pipe corrosion, create a bonding profile and place an epoxy coating inside the metal pipes servicing fire sprinklers that would prevent corrosion (due to moisture and corrosive chemicals) that restricts flow and causes leaks. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is an option but is not required.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, I must point out that the referenced supporting material was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. ________________________________________________________________ 13-294 Log #565 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Air compressors or Nitrogen Generators shall be provided with 12 hour runtime alarms. Substantiation: Leaks developing within Fire Protection Systems may cause the air compressor or Nitrogen Generator to run constantly to keep up with supervisory pressure (i.e. well before the point where a low pressure alarm would activate due to a failure). Unnecessary runtime significantly decreases the life of these systems causing them to fail prematurely and potentially activate/trip the Fire Protection System. The 12 hour alarm would notify the building manager to schedule a sprinkler contractor to visit the location and sure-up, fix leaks within the Fire Protection System. The alarm would be ignored on the initial supervisory fill. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Advisory low pressure alarms are required for dry systems providing the necessary notification. This is not prohibited but should not be mandated. (Chapter 7 provision for all dry) Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-295 Log #26 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.1.1.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Recommendation: Add a new 8.17.1.1.1:8.17.1.1.1 Local Waterflow Alarm Signage. Approve identification signs shall be provided for outside alarm devices. The sign shall be located near the device in a conspicuous position, worded with 1 inch minimum high letters and shall be worded as follows: SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM – WHEN BELL RINGS CALL FIRE DEPARTMENT Substantiation: The placement of a bell outside of a building with no signage provides little value. Most lay members of the public and law enforcement officials have no knowledge as to the purpose of a bell attached to the exterior of a building. It may convey to them a burglar alarm signal, equipment activation, hazardous chemical release, or any number of other type activations.

13-70

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Without the signage, the emergency nature of the bell message may not be conveyed. This can result in unnecessary water damage. The committee felt strongly enough about the need for a sign to place text in the annex indicating that a sign “should be provided.” Without the mandatory code text, the sprinkler contractor and AHJ are unable to require this basic method of communicating emergency information to the public. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Sign is already required.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-296 Log #203 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.17.1.6(1))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael F. Meehan, VSC Fire & SecurityRecommendation: Revise text as follows: Where each sprinkler system on each floor is shall be equipped with a separate waterflow device, it shall be connected to an alarm system in such a manner that operation of one sprinkler will actuate the alarm system, and the location of the operated flow device shall be indicated on an annunciator and/or register. The annunciator or register shall be located at grade level at the normal point of fire department access, at a constantly attended building security control center, or at both locations. Substantiation: The requirement for flow switches on each floor of a high rise building was moved from the body of the standard to the annex in 2010 edition (21.20.2.1.1 became Annex material D.1.1.2.1) This requirement should not be annex material and needs to be noted in the body of standard. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-297 Log #207 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Hugh D. Castles, Entergy Services, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 8.17.2.2 The following systems shall not require a fire department connection: (1) Buildings located in remote areas that are inaccessible for fire department support (2) Large-capacity deluge systems exceeding the pumping capacity of the fire department (3) Single-story buildings not exceeding 2000ft2 (186 m2) in area (4) Locations with redundant water supplies, meeting or exceeding system design capacitiesSubstantiation: Locations with independent water supplies that typically exceed municipal supplies and fire department apparatus capacity should not be required to provide fire department connections for every individual system. Large industrial facilities, power generating stations, and other similar facilities typically have redundant water supplies, looped fire mains, etc.; and those water sources may be the only ones available to the local fire department. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent of the FDC is to supplement flow and pressure as there is a reduction in system pressure with the activation of more sprinklers. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action to reject the proposal, I disagree with the Committee Statement that the FDP is meant to supplement both the flow and the pressure. That statement is contrary to the information provided in Proposal 13-46, (Log #215), which clarifies that FDC’s are intended to supplement the water supply and not necessarily the water pressure. ________________________________________________________________ 13-298 Log #99 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.2.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise Section to read: 8.17.2.5.1 A listed check valve shall be installed in each fire department connection and shall be located in an accessible location for inspection, testing, and maintenance. Substantiation: NFPA 25 requires that each check valve be disassembled and internally serviced each 5 year period. There are many cases where the FDC check valve has been installed in an inaccessible location such as inside of a wall, causing considerable problems and expense for the property owner. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Accessibility shall be determined by the ahj. Number Eligible to Vote: 30

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and accept this proposal. Just as NFPA 13 requires control valves, system valves, gauges, alarm apparatus, drain valves and test valves to be accessible, it should also require major system components, such as check valves, to be similarly accessible. This is not a matter that should have to be determined to the AHJ. ________________________________________________________________ 13-299 Log #88 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.2.7 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen J. DiGiovanni, Clark County Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:8.17.2.7 The fire department connection shall be located not less than 18 in (457 mm) and not more than 4 ft (1.2 m) above the level of the adjacent grade or access lane.Substantiation: The intent of this change is to codify the height of the fire department connection in order to make the code easier to enforce. The language presented here is already provided in Appendix A at A.8.17.2. This change moves the wording into the code and changes “should” to “shall” to make this a mandatory requirement. Of note, this same FDC height requirement is provided in NFPA 14 Section 6.4.6. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Providing Annex material allows for guidance and flexibility for local enforcement. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-300 Log #563 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Scott Bodeman, South-Tek SystemsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: A nitrogen purity test connection shall be provided on all dry or preaction systems using supervisory Nitrogen. Substantiation: The nitrogen purity test connection will allow the sprinkler contractor to quickly check to ensure that a nitrogen purity of over 95% (proven corrosion inhibiting purity) has been reached within the zone. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The substantiation does not match the current allowances for the use of Nitrogen. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-301 Log #502 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Part(8.17.4.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: An alarm test connection not less 1 in. diameter, terminating in a smooth bore corrosion-resistant orifice, giving a flow equal to or less than one sprinkler of a type having the smallest orifice K factor installed on the particular system, shall be provided to test each waterflow alarm device for each system. Substantiation: The term “or less” is not necessary. The term “K factor” has replaced the term “orifice size” several editions ago. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartDo not delete “or less than” and accept the remaining changes. Committee Statement: Using an orifice that flow less than the smallest sprinkler is acceptable to the committee. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-302 Log #64 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.4.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A trip test connection or manifold not less than 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter, terminating in a smooth bore corrosion-resistant orifice, to provide a flow equivalent to equal to or less than one sprinkler of a type having the smallest orifice installed on the particular system, shall be installed provided to test each waterflow alarm device for each system. Substantiation: Even for dry systems the trip test connection should simulate the smallest or smaller orifice in the system. The language currently allows any orifice size. This language brings it in line with the section for wet systems. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent of the standard is to allow the use of any orifice size on the system. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-71

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-303 Log #503 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.4.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A trip test connection or manifold not less 1 in. diameter, terminating in a smooth bore corrosion-resistant orifice, to provide giving a flow equivalent equal to one sprinkler of a type installed on having the smallest K factor installed on the particular system, shall be installed.Substantiation: The term “K factor” has replaced the term “orifice size” several editions ago. The rest of the changes to match language in paragraph 8.17.4.2.1. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent of the standard is to allow the use of any orifice size on the system. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-304 Log #65 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.4.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The trip test connection or manifold shall be located on the end of the most distant sprinkler pipe in the upper story and shall be equipped with a two readily accessible shutoff valves and a plug not less than 1 in. (25 mm), of which at least one shall be brass. is piped to an acceptable location where water damage will not result.Substantiation: Why is this standard policing the actions of people after the fact? It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the sprinkler system after installation. This includes protection from vandalism. If the committee is so concerned, why not require that the valve handles be removed or the valve(s) be locked closed. Having to reconnect the drain piping every time a recurring inspection occurs is counter productive. I have proposed (2) valves as it is similar to a drum drip. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Security is necessary.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-305 Log #552 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.17.4.3.3 and 8.17.4.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: Revise 8.17.4.3.3 through 8.17.4.3.4 to read:8.17.4.3.3 8.17.4.3.4 In lieu of a plug, a nipple and cap shall be acceptable.8.17.4.3.4 When the capacity (volume) the dry pipe system has been determined in accordance with 7.2.3.2, 7.2.3.3, 7.2.3.3, 7.2.3.4 or 7.2.3.5 a trip test connection shall be permitted to provide a flow equivalent to one sprinkler in accordance with 8.17.4.3.1 through 8.17.4.3.3. 8.17.4.3.5 When the capacity (volume) the dry pipe system has been determined in accordance with 7.2.3.7 the following shall apply: (1) 8.17.4.3.3 When flow is from four sprinklers, the trip test manifold shall be arranged to simulate two sprinklers on each of two sprinkler branch lines (2) When flow is from three sprinklers, the test manifold shall be arranged to simulate two sprinklers on the most remote branch line and one sprinkler on the next adjacent branch line. (3) When flow is from two sprinklers, the test manifold shall be arranged to simulate two sprinklers on the most remote branch line. (4) When flow is from one sprinkler, the test manifold shall be installed as per the requirements for a trip test connection in accordance with 8.17.4.3.1 through 8.17.4.3.3.Substantiation: For continuity, the current 8.17.4.3.4 needs to be moved to immediately follow 8.17.4.3.2. The current 8.17.4.3.3 only provides guidance for a test manifold when flow is required from four sprinklers, but text should be provided to clarify the test arrangements when three sprinkler or two sprinkler or single sprinkler conditions are encountered. Guidance is also needed to describe when a single outlet trip test connection is satisfactory and/or when a multiple outlet trip test manifold is required. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-306 Log #464 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.17.4.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A test connection shall be provided on a preaction system using supervisory air or nitrogen.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-307 Log #465 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.17.4.4.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The connection used to control the level of priming water shall be considered adequate to test the operation of the alarms monitoring the supervisory air or nitrogen pressure.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-308 Log #553 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.17.4.4.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: Revise 8.17.4.4.5 to read:8.17.4.4.5 In lieu of a plug, a nipple and cap shall be acceptable. 8.17.4.4.6 When the capacity (volume) the double interlock preaction system has been determined in accordance with 7.3.2.3.1.1, 7.3.2.3.1.2 or 7.3.2.3.1.3 a trip test connection shall be permitted to provide a flow equivalent to one sprinkler in accordance with 8.17.4.4.3 through 8.17.4.4.5. 8.17.4.4.7 When the capacity (volume) the double interlock preaction system has been determined in accordance with 7.3.2.3.1.4 the following shall apply: (1) 8.17.4.4.5 When flow is from four sprinklers, the trip test manifold shall be arranged to simulate two sprinklers on each of two sprinkler branch lines. (2) When flow is from three sprinklers, the test manifold shall be arranged to simulate two sprinklers on the most remote branch line and one sprinkler on the next adjacent branch line. (3) When flow is from two sprinklers, the test manifold shall be arranged to simulate two sprinklers on the most remote branch line. (4) When flow is from one sprinkler, the test manifold shall be installed as per the requirements for a trip test connection in accordance with 8.17.4.4.3 through 8.17.4.4.5.Substantiation: For continuity, the proposed new 8.17.4.4.5 needs to follow 8.17.4.4.4.4 to explain that a nipple and cap may be installed in lieu of a plug (i.e., comparable to the current 8.17.4.3.4 for dry pipe system test connections). The current 8.17.4.4.5 only provides guidance for a test manifold when flow is required from four sprinklers, but text should be provided to clarify the test arrangements when three sprinkler or two sprinkler or single sprinkler conditions are encountered. Guidance is also needed to describe when a single outlet trip test connection is satisfactory and/or when a multiple outlet trip test manifold is required. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-309 Log #387 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(8.17.5.1.1.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:8.17.5.1.1.2 Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, the location of valves shall be permitted to exceed the distances specified in 8.17.5.1.1.Substantiation: The hose connections are primarily for fire department use and the location of valves should be per their discretion. For example, many fire departments prefer to have the connections near building access doors even though the distances may exceed the 130 ft² maximum. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-72

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-310 Log #337 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.5.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise the beginning of Section 8.17.5.1.3 as follows: 8.17.5.1.3 In storage occupancies, Hose hose connections shall be supplied from one of the following: Add a new section 8.17.5.1.3.1 as follows: 8.17.5.1.3.1 In non-storage occupancies, hose connections shall be permitted in accordance with 8.17.5.1.4 without regard for separate valves from the fire sprinkler system.Substantiation: As written, section 8.17.5.1.3 comes from the old NFPA 231 and 231C and requires hose connections to be fed from piping completely independent of the sprinkler system with different valves. This makes some sense for large warehouses with a demand for many hose connections. But it is also common to connect small hose stations to sprinkler systems in places like the backstage areas behind the proscenium wall. These small hose stations are typically connected to the sprinkler piping also serving the stage and should not need to be supplied from separately valved piping a long distance away from the stage. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The first part of the proposal is too restrictive and should not be limited to storage occupancies. The second part of the proposal is already permitted. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-311 Log #338 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(8.17.5.2.2(1))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.17.5.2.2(1) Each connection from a standpipe that is part of a combined system to a sprinkler system shall have an individual control valve of the same size as the connection. In high rise systems a check valve of the same size as the connection shall also be provided.Substantiation: Owners are finding that check valves are trapping high pressures from pump churn tests and causing problems in the systems. Buildings that are not high-rise buildings should not be forced to have this check valve. It was added by the standpipe committee because they did not want to shut control valves on many floors when draining a riser. But in non-high-rise buildings, shutting a few control valves during the few times that a riser needs to be drained makes much more sense than trapping pressures in all systems. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This would create a conflict with NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-312 Log #104 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.1.1.2 Hanger Performance Criteria: Hangers certified by a registered professional engineer to include all of the following shall be an acceptable alternative to the requirements of Section 9.1: (1) Hangers, components (e.g. pipe clamp, rod, beam clamp, u-bolt, pipe stand, etc.) shall be designed to support five times the weight of the water-filled pipe span plus 250 lb (114 kg) at each point of piping support. The stresses developed in hanger components due to this design load shall comply American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual, Allowable Stress Design (ASD), 9th Edition. Alternatively, hanger assembly comprised of Listed components in accordance with UL-203, except those exempted by 9.1.1.4, shall be acceptable.(2) These points of support shall be adequate to support the system. (3) The spacing between hangers shall not exceed the value given for the type of pipe as indicated in Table 9.2.2.1(a) or Table 9.2.2.1(b). (4) Hanger components shall be ferrous. (5) Detailed calculations shall be documented for record and available for submitted, when required by the reviewing authority, showing stresses developed in hangers components. piping, and fittings and safety factors allowed. Add E 1.2.15 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual, Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition. Substantiation: “Five times the weight of the water-filled pipe span plus 250 lb (114 kg) at each point of piping support” is a component Listing (Testing) Criterion (UL 203) and not a Performance (Design) Criterion. The performance (design) criteria for hanger component shall be consistent. For example, the trapeze

members are designed to support “weight of the water-filled pipe span plus 250 lb (114 kg) at each point of piping support” (See 9.1.1.6.1(a), footnote 2). Therefore it is justifiable that the rest of the hanger components (pipe clamps, c-clamps, etc.) shall be designed using the same performance criteria. Allowable Stress levels in NFPA is not consistent, e.g. a trapeze member stress limit is 15ksi (See 9.1.1.6.1(a), footnote 2) whereas that for a rod is 25ksi (See the Footnote in Table 10.8.3.1.2.2). Linking the allowable stress limits to the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual, Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition will provide consistency.

See Tables 1 and 2 on the next page.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Although the committee feels that additional information should be provided to the designing engineer the language presented does not adequately address the intent. If a specific stress level is needed for analysis that is consistent from one design to the next it should be presented for consideration. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: PATEL, J.: The proposal provides two distinct sizing methods for hanger components i.e. proper allowable yield stresses when ‘w+250’ (normal) load or ‘5w+250’ (testing) loads are applied. Other Piping Codes (ANSI B31.1 & 31.3) provide allowable stresses for various loading conditions. Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: I am sympathetic with the proposer and hope he brings a revised proposal to the meeting in September. KIRSCHNER, K.: NFPA 13 is the standard for an emergency- must dominate AISC. Can not ignore 5wt. +250#...it is a conservative simplifying assumption. Ch. 9 of NFPA 13 is the reference for listing by UL for 203 and 203A. ________________________________________________________________ 13-313 Log #CP412 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(9.1.1.2(6) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria, Recommendation: Add a new 9.1.1.2 (6) as follows: Engineered support assemblies for multi-trade shall be permitted. Substantiation: There are occasions where the support of building mechanical system components as well a sprinkler system components where the supports needs to be shared in transferring the loads to the building structure. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The TCC should assign this to the HBS.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-314 Log #105 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:9.1.1.4.1 Hanger Performance Criteria: Unless permitted by 9.1.1.4.2 or 9.1.1.4.3, the components of hanger assemblies that directly attach to the pipe or to the building structure shall be listed or qualified to support the design load determined using the Hanger Performance Criteria specified in 9.1.1.2 (1). Substantiation: This requirement will assure compliance with the Hanger Performance (design) criteria. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This proposal was contingent on 13-312 (Log #104) passing and its not performance criteria. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: PATEL, J.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104). Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: See my Comment on Affirmative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104).

13-73


TABLE – 1

Pipe

Nominal

Diameter

Sch. 40,

(Steel) (In.)

NFPA 13

Hanger

Span ‘l’

(ft)

Weight of

Water-Filled

Pipe per ft.

‘w’ Lb./ft

NFPA 13

Bldg. Steel

Design Load

W2 =

(W1+250) (Lbs.)

NFPA 13

Hanger

Design Load

W3 =

( 5W1+250) (Lbs.)

ASME B31

Hanger

Design Load

(MSS SP-58)

(Lbs.)

UL 203

Testing Load

‘P’ (Lbs.)

1 12 2.05 275 373 150 750

1 ¼ 12 2.93 285 426 150 750

1 ½ 15 3.61 304 521 150 750

2 15 5.13 327 635 150 750

2 ½ 15 7.89 368 842 150 850

3 15 10.82 412 1062 200 1050

3 ½ 15 13.48 452 1261 210 1250

4 15 16.40 496 1480 250 1500

5 15 23.47 602 2011 360 2000

6 15 31.69 725 2627 480 2650

Tensile Stress in Hanger Rod

TABLE 2

Pipe

Dia

Sch.40

Steel

(In.)

Rod

Size

(in)

Root

Area

(in2)

‘A’

NFPA 13

Bldg.Steel

Design

Load

W2 =

W1+250

(Lbs.)

TensileStress

(psi)

NFPA 13

Hanger

DesignLoads

W3 =5W1+250

(Lbs.)

TensileStress

(psi)

ANSI

B31.1 B31.3

Hanger

DesignLoads

(Lbs.)

TensileStress

(psi)

UL203Loads(Lbs.)

TensileStress

(psi)

Typical

Rated

Load

Capacity

‘P’

TensileStress

psi

1-4 3/8 0.068 496 7295 1480 21765 250 3677 1500 22059 610 8971

5-6 1/2 0.126 725 5758 2627 20850 480 3810 2650 21032 1130 8969

8 5/8 0.202 965 4780 3828 18951 760 3763 4050 20050 1810 8961

It can be seen that the UL 203 Test Loads are the highest loads and correspond to the NFPA 13 Hanger Design Loads W3 (except the loads for the pipe sizes 1 through 2)

1. Hanger Strength:

Let us compare the stresses developed in a threaded rod (considering the rod as the weakest link in a typical hanger assembly i.e. pipe clamp, threaded rod, and C- clamp). The stresses are tabulated in TABLE 2.

Rod Material A36: Yield Strength = 36,000 psi, Ultimate Strength = 58,000 psi, Modulus of Elasticity E = 30 x 106 psi.

The highest stress is developed when the rod is tested under the UL Testing criteria. The stress level corresponds very much to the stresses that developed due to NFPA 13 Hanger Design Load (5W+250).

It should be noted that the trapeze members are designed based on 15000 psi developed when subjected to a ‘Steel Design Load’ (W+250) [NFPA 13 (2007), Table 9.1.1.6.1(a)]. The stresses developed due to the ‘Steel’ (Design) Loads are smaller than that are allowed by the AISC ‘Allowable Stress Design’ (ASD) criteria i.e. 0.6 x Yield Stress = 0.6 x 36000 = 21,600 psi or 0.6 x 35000 = 21,000 psi for ASTM A53, Gr. B or A106, Gr. B Pipe.

13-74

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-315 Log #547 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Parks Moore, S & S Sprinkler Company, LLCRecommendation: Additional text should be added to provide guidance for the sizing and restraint of trapeze hangers providing cantilevered support of the piping whereby the trapeze member is attached to two joists or other structural members but extends out beyond the last joist to support the piping. Substantiation: No guidance is currently provided by NFPA 13 for the sizing or design of these types of supports which are, at times, required. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Submitter did not provide specific recommended text for the TC to review. TC encourages the submitter to provide specific text to the TC for review. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: KIRSCHNER, K.: Too many variables for the Ch. 9 trapeze protocol. Must certify by Engineer of Record on a case by case basis. ________________________________________________________________ 13-316 Log #549 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Parks Moore, S & S Sprinkler Company, LLCRecommendation: Design guidelines should be provided for the sizing and installation of wall-mounted hanger brackets frequently constructed of angle iron or other similar materials. Substantiation: These brackets are commonly needed where overhead support is not available or adequate. They are typically constructed by means of a vertical and horizontal member and an angular cross support, creating a triangular-shaped support. There are currently no provisions or guidelines for this type of support in NFPA 13 Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Submitter did not provide specific recommended text for the TC to review. TC encourages the submitter to provide specific text to the TC for review. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: KIRSCHNER, K.: Ch. 9 is clear on this. Use hanger criteria at 5 wt. + 250#. ________________________________________________________________ 13-317 Log #106 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.1.1.6.1 Trapeze members shall be designed in accordance with 9.1.1.2 (1). For trapeze hangers…Table 9.1.1.6.1(a). See Table 9.1.1.6.1(a) on the next page (1) Top values...”. (2) The Table is based on ……..stress of 21 ksi and a midspan concentrated load from maximum spans permitted in Table 9.2.2.1 (a). Substantiation: 1. This Table is for the American measurement system i.e. ‘foot-pound-second (fps)’ and shall not be mixed with Metric System. Or provide the Section Modulus data too, in mm3, here. 2. The criterion is already stated in the footnote of Table 9.1.1.6.1(a) and is consistent with Hanger Performance (design) Criteria proposed in 9.1.1.2 (1). 3. The allowable stress 21 ksi is based on 0.6 x Yield strength of ASTM A53, Gr B and ASTM A106, Gr. B (35 ksi) as permitted by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual, Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition. ASTM A36 is inclusive as its Yield Strength is 36 ksi. 4. Maximum span for 1” and 1 ¼” pipe is 12’ (not 15’). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: AISC 360 minimum bending stress allowable is.42FY which equals 15ksi. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: PATEL, J.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104).

________________________________________________________________ 13-318 Log #17 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Table 9.1.1.6.1(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stanley M. Shepp, Southwest Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Available section moduli of various sizes of uni-strut should be added to this table. Substantiation: I have seen exorbitant loads placed on uni-strut and AHJ’s that don’t know enough to question it when seen. Example: 10 ft span of uni-strut w/4 in. sch. 40 main 1 ft-o in. from one end & a second 4 in. sch. 40 main 1 ft-0 in. away from the first main. UNBELIEVABLE!!! Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The section modulus for strut can vary from one manufacturer to the next. It is proprietary information and should be provided from the manufacturer to the user. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: I am sympathetic with the proposer and believe we should provide some guidance in NFPA-13 on this subject. ________________________________________________________________ 13-319 Log #66 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:9.1.1.6.2 For trapeze hangers larger than 10 ft (3.0 m), a registered professional engineer shall certify the requirements of the trapeze member.Substantiation: There are more and more situations where construction requires trapeze spans larger than 10’-0”. A professional engineer should sign off on the member or the committee should add more options to Table 9.1.1.6.1(a). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The TC believes that trapeze members should be permitted to span more than 10 feet. Limitations will need to be added so that maximum hanger spacing values are not exceeded. Information will be developed to expand table 9.1.1.6.1(A) during the ROC. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-320 Log #107 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.1.1.6.5* All components of each hanger assembly……and be sized to support the suspended sprinkler pipe in accordance with 9.1.1.2 (1). 9.1.1.6.5* Hanger Components are ……..to that of the other hanger components. (Delete entirely)Substantiation: The criterion is already stated in the footnote of Table 9.1.1.6.1(a) and is consistent with the Hanger Performance (design) criteria proposed in 9.1.1.2 (1). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This proposal was contingent upon 13-312 (Log #104) passing and also directs the performance alternative which requires certification by a PE. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: PATEL, J.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104). Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: See my Comment on Affirmative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104). ________________________________________________________________ 13-321 Log #108 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: 9.1.1.6.6 Delete the section in its entirety. The ring, strap, or clevis installed ………trapeze member. (Delete entirely)Substantiation: Proposed 9.1.1.6.5 provides design criteria for the trapeze assembly components. Therefore, this section is not required. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent of this section is to clearly identify that rings larger than the trapeze size should not be used due to possible elongation and deformation over time. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: PATEL, J.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104).

13-75


________________________________________________________________ 13-322 Log #256 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.6.7 and 9.1.1.6.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:9.1.1.6.7 Holes for bolts or rod shall not exceed 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) greater than the diameter of the bolt. 9.1.1.6.8 Bolts or rods shall be provided with a flat washer and nut.Substantiation: The standard refers only to bolts. This will also apply to all thread rod. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: 1/16 in. is too restrictive for rods based on actual field variations. It is common practice to use slotted holes for connecting rods to the trapeze member. Submitter is encouraged to submit a comment citing specific slotted hole dimensions. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-323 Log #120 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.1.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Wilton Marburger, Myers Risk ServicesRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.1.1.7 Support of and Contact with Non-System Components. Sprinkler piping or hangers shall not be used t o support or come into contact with non-system components due to issues of increased stress from added weight, corrosion with steel and compatibility with CPVC piping. 9.1.1.7.1 Items including but not limited to flexible wire and cabling contain incompatible & environmental stress cracking agents which can cause system degradation through contact with CPVC plastic pipe and components. A.9.1.1.7 The rules covering the hanging of sprinkler piping take into consideration the weight of water-filled pipe plus a safety factor. No allowance has been made for the hanging of non-system components from sprinkler piping or any possible system degradation resulting from the contact of non-system components to the systems. NFPA 13 provides the option to support sprinkler piping from other sprinkler piping where the requirements of 9.1.1.2 are met. Substantiation: Multiple claims from system failure due to pipe breaks have

occurred from compatibility issues between flexible wire & cables and sprinkler pipe. Primarily, CPVC is proven to be incompatible with and endangered by some rubber and flexible plastic materials. Pipe failures are known to exist from these materials contacting sprinkler pipe at solvent cement joints and on stressed straight runs of pipe. Currently, 9.1.1.7 contains no explanation as to why support on non-system components is a serious danger and the Appendix portion of A.9.1.1.7 addresses solely weight concerns from added mechanical stress and provides no education or insight into the potentially hazardous and real world dangers of incompatibility. Furthermore, no mention of possible outcomes from non-system and system components contacting each other is addressed. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Material compatibility should not be addressed in Chapter 9. There are some materials in the field that do need to come into contact with some pipes. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-324 Log #109 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.1.2.2 Rods of smaller diameters than indicated in Table 9.1.2.1 shall be permitted where the hanger assembly has been tested and listed by a testing laboratory and installed within the limits of pipe sizes expressed in individual listings or the hanger assembly is analytically qualified to support design load specified in the Hanger Performance (Design) criteria in 9.1.1.2 (1).Substantiation: This requirement will assure compliance with the proposed Hanger Performance (Design) Criteria in 9.1.1.2 (1) and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual, Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This proposal was contingent upon 13-312 (Log #104) passing and also directs the performance alternative which requires certification by a PE. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1

1NFPA 13 Log #106 Rec A2012 ROP

Table 9.1.1.6.1 (a) Section Modulus Required for Trapeze Members (In3)

Nominal Diameter of Pipe Being Supported

Span Of Trapeze

1 1.25 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10

25 mm 32 mm 40 mm 50 mm 65 mm 80 mm 90 mm 100 mm 125 mm 150 mm 200 mm 250 mm

1’-6” 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.23

1’-6” 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.29

2’-0” 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.23 0.31

2’-0” 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.29 0.39

2’-6” 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.39

2’-6” 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.36 0.49

3’-0” 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.35 0.46

3’-0” 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.31 0.43 0.59

4’-0” 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.34 0.46 0.62

4’-0” 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.57 0.78

5’-0” 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.43 0.58 0.77

5’-0” 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.32 0.35 0.43 0.52 0.72 0.98

6’-0” 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.69 0.93

6’-0” 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.43 0.52 0.62 0.86 1.17

7’-0” 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.43 0.51 0.60 0.81 1.08

7’-0” 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.73 1.00 1.37

8’-0” 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.58 0.68 0.92 1.24

8’-0” 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.42 0.47 0.52 0.57 0.69 0.83 1.14 1.56

9’-0” 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.51 0.55 0.66 0.77 1.04 1.39

9’-0” 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.47 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.77 0.93 1.29 1.76

10’-0” 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.73 0.85 1.15 1.55

10’-0” 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.47 0.53 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.86 1.04 1.43 1.96

13-76

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: PATEL, J.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104). Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: See my Comment on Affirmative on Proposal 13-312 (Log #104). ________________________________________________________________ 13-325 Log #110 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.1.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.1.2.3* Hanger rods shall be installed so that lateral gravity loads due to gravity is are not induced on the rods.Substantiation: The sentence is revised to state the situation technically correct.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The language being modified no longer exists in the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-326 Log #257 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.2.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.2.3.2.2* Unless the requirements of 9.2.3.2.3 are met, where sprinklers are spaced less than 6 ft (1.8 m) apart, hangers spaced up to a maximum of 12 ft (3.7 m) shall be permitted. 9.2.3.2.3 For pipes provided with welded outlets, hanger spacing shall be according to Table 9.2.2.1(a) or Table 9.2.2.1(b). 9.2.3.2.34* Starter lengths less than 6 ft (1.8 m) shall not require a hanger, unless on the end line of a side feed system or where an intermediate cross main hanger has been omitted. A.9.2.3.34 Substantiation: This will address 21 ft, more or less, sticks of pipe provided with welded outlets. This will clarify that only one or two hangers will be required according to the table. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text for the following section: 9.2.3.2.2* Unless the requirements of 9.2.3.2.3 are met, where sprinklers are spaced less than 6 ft (1.8 m) apart, hangers spaced up to a maximum of 12 ft (3.7 m) shall be permitted. Add new section and renumber accordingly:9.2.3.2.3 For welded or mechanical outlets on a continuous section of pipe, hanger spacing shall be according to Table 9.2.2.1(a) or Table 9.2.2.1(b). Committee Statement: The terms mechanical outlet and continuous section were added to clarify that continuous sections of pipe may only require a single hanger. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: I agree with the concept, but the verbiage supplied is confusing when it is inserted into the document. Suggest simply adding a sentence to current Section 9.2.3.2.1, something to the effect of: “A continuous length of pipe with welded or mechanical outlets is considered to be a single section.” ________________________________________________________________ 13-327 Log #160 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.2.3.2.1.1 and A.9.2.3.2.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add the following text to read as follows:9.2.3.2.1.1 A single short section of pipe does not require a hanger when the cumulative distance between hangers on the branch line does not exceed the spacing required by 9.2.2. A.9.2.3.2.1.1. When a branchline contains two elbows to go around an obstruction, a short section of pipe is considered adequately supported by the hangers on the adjacent pipe sections when the overall distance between hangers does not exceed the requirements in Table 9.2.2.1(a). 9.2.4.1.1 A single short section of pipe does not require a hanger when the cumulative distance between hangers on the main does not exceed the spacing required by 9.2.2 A.9.2.4.1.1. When a main contains two elbows to offset the run of pipe, a short section of pipe is considered adequately supported by the hangers on the adjacent pipe sections when the overall distance between hangers does not exceed the requirements in Table 9.2.2.1(a).Substantiation: This text is similar to that from the Sprinkler Handbook but limits it to just one section of short pipe without a hanger. It seems appropriate to include the same criteria for the mains. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle

Add the following new sections and renumber accordingly: 9.2.3.2.5 A single section of pipe shall not require a hanger when the cumulative distance between hangers on the branch line does not exceed the spacing required by Table 9.2.2.1(a) and (b). A.9.2.3.2.5. When a branchline contains offsets, sections of pipe are considered adequately supported by the hangers on the adjacent pipe sections when the overall distance between hangers does not exceed the requirements in Table 9.2.2.1(a) and (b). The cumulative distance includes changes in horizontal direction. Multiple consecutive sections of pipe should be permitted to omit hangers. 9.2.4.6 A single section of pipe shall not require a hanger when the cumulative distance between hangers on the main does not exceed the spacing required by Table 9.2.2.1 (a) and (b). A.9.2.4.6. When a main contains offsets, sections of pipe are considered adequately supported by the hangers on the adjacent pipe sections when the overall distance between hangers does not exceed the requirements in Table 9.2.2.1(a) and (b). The cumulative distance includes changes in horizontal direction. Multiple consecutive sections of pipe should be permitted to omit hangers.Committee Statement: Additional changes were made to the proposal to clarify the applications in the field. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DENEFF, C.: This seems like it would allow a “U” shaped offset with dimensions of each leg to be 5 ft. An offset of this magnitude should probably have a hanger on the outstanding leg to support the “U” assembly. If the changes are made, Section 9.2.3.2.1 and 9.2.4.1 need to be modified to include the added sections. ________________________________________________________________ 13-328 Log #525 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(9.2.3.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Modify the sentence to begin, “For steel pipe,...”.Substantiation: The section that follows this one is indicated that it is for copper tube. However, a type of pipe is not specified on this section. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-329 Log #258 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:9.2.4 Location of Hangers on Mains. 9.2.4.1 Unless the requirements of Sections 9.2.4.23, 9.2.4.34, 9.2.4.45, or 9.2.4.56 are met, hangers for mains shall be in accordance with Section 9.2.2, between each branch line, or on each section of pipe, whichever is the lesser dimension. 9.2.4.2 For pipes provided with welded outlets, hanger spacing shall be according to Table 9.2.2.1(a) or Table 9.2.2.1(b). 9.2.4.23 For cross mains in steel pipe systems in bays having two branch lines, the intermediate hanger shall be permitted to be omitted, provided that a hanger attached to a purlin is installed on each branch line located as near to the cross main as the location of the purlin permits. 9.2.4.23.1 The remaining branch line hangers shall be installed in accordance with Section 9.2.3. 9.2.4.34 For cross mains in steel pipe systems only in bays having three branch lines, either side or center feed, one (only) intermediate hanger shall be permitted to be omitted, provided that a hanger attached to a purlin is installed on each branch line located as near to the cross main as the location of the purlin permits. 9.2.4.34.1 The remaining branch line hangers shall be installed in accordance with Section 9.2.3. 9.2.4.45 For cross mains in steel pipe systems only in bays having four or more branch lines, either side or center feed, two intermediate hangers shall be permitted to be omitted, provided the maximum distance between hangers does not exceed the distances specified in Section 9.2.2 and a hanger attached to a purlin on each branch line is located as near to the cross main as the purlin permits. 9.2.4.56 At the end of the main, intermediate trapeze hangers shall be installed unless the main is extended to the next framing member with a hanger installed at this point, in which event an intermediate hanger shall be permitted to be omitted in accordance with Sections 9.2.4.23, 9.2.4.34, and 9.2.4.45.Substantiation: This will address 21 ft, more or less, sticks of pipe provided with welded outlets. The “whichever the lesser dimension” statement requires a hanger between each welded outlet for branch lines on one pipe. This will clarify that only one or two hangers will be required according to the table. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd the following section and renumber accordingly:

13-77

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 9.2.4.2 For welded or mechanical outlets on a continuous section of pipe, hanger spacing shall be according to Table 9.2.2.1(a) or Table 9.2.2.1(b).Committee Statement: Revised language for consistency with 13-326 (Log #257). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DENEFF, C.: I believe there should be a hanger on mains between each branch line as is currently the case per 9.2.4.1. This change could allow multiple branch lines without an adjacent hanger. Also, the change seems to make what is being asked for confusing. 9.2.4.1 says “...between each branch line, or on each section of pipe, whichever is the lesser dimension.” So even for longer sections, the previous requirement still would have specified a hanger between each branch line. The new section contradicts this. Which should be applied? ________________________________________________________________ 13-330 Log #523 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.2.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add criteria for pipe stands to parallel that of NFPA 15.Substantiation: Actual text for the sections has not been included as a task group for NFPA 15 is still working on the recommendations and criteria. Information should be available by the time of the ROP meeting for the Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. In addition to sprinkler systems, other water-based fire protection systems use the guidelines provided in Chapter 9. Guidance should be provided on proper installation of a pipe stand. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No specific language has been submitted for the TC to review. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: VALENTINE, V.: This Committee is the one that holds the expertise on supporting water-based piping systems for fire protection. Although pipe stand use is minimal with NFPA 13 systems, they are still used. In addition, the information in NFPA 13 is referenced by many other water-based fire protection systems, some of which more regularly rely on pipe stands. Where the standard does not provide specific guidance it will be sought from other locations, such as the requirements in NFPA 15. This Committee should review that information to see if it is appropriate and considers all of the necessary components. One example that needs to be addressed is NFPA 15 referencing NFPA 13 for earthquake protection, but there is no mention of even the considerations necessary for a pipe stand when in an earthquake area. Pipe stands need to be reviewed. Comment on Affirmative: DEUTSCH, J.: The original proposal stated that “Actual text for the section has not been included...” and “Information should be available by the time of the ROP meeting...” Nothing was presented at the ROP meeting to the committee for review. KIRSCHNER, K.: Ch. 9 is clear regarding both pipe stands and brackets...5 wt. + 250# Pipe stand and bracket should both have a load rating. ________________________________________________________________ 13-331 Log #548 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.2.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Parks Moore, S & S Sprinkler Company, LLCRecommendation: The pipestand sizing rules and requirements that are currently included in NFPA 15 should be incorporated into NFPA 13. See NFPA 15, 2007 edition, section 6.3.2. Substantiation: NFPA 13 currently gives no sizing requirements for the support of piping when pipestands are necessary other than the requirement for the support of 5 times the weight of water-filled pipe plus 250 pounds. Pipestands are frequently needed for the support of piping where traditional hangers are not feasible or support of piping from the overhead structure is undesirable. It should be noted that the NFPA 15 T.C. currently has a task group assigned to the evaluation of the existing pipestand requirements in NFPA 15 Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No specific language has been submitted for the TC to review. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: KIRSCHNER, K.: NFPA 15 should reference NFPA 13.

________________________________________________________________ 13-332 Log #111 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.2.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.2.6.1 Pipe stand shall be designed to support a minimum of five times the weight of the water-filled pipe span plus 250 lb (114 kg).Substantiation: “five times the weight of the water-filled pipe span plus 250 lb (114 kg) at each point of piping support” is a component listing criteria (UL 203) and not a performance (design) criterion. The performance (design) criteria for hanger components shall be consistent. For example, trapeze members are designed to support “weight of the water-filled pipe span plus 250 lb (114 kg) at each point of piping support”. Therefore it is justifiable that the rest of the hanger components (pipe clamps, c-clamps, stand, etc.) shall be designed using the same performance criteria. Pipe stand is included in the new proposal on 9.1.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Although the committee feels that additional information should be provided to the designing engineer the language presented does not adequately address the intent. If a specific stress level is needed for analysis that is consistent from one design to the next it should be presented for consideration. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: KIRSCHNER, K.: This proposal is confusing hanger support criteria with bldg. support criteria. ________________________________________________________________ 13-333 Log #142 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.2.3(1)(c) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 9.3.2.3 Systems having more flexible couplings than required by this section shall be provided with additional sway bracing as required in 9.3.5.3.8. The flexible couplings shall be installed as follows: (1)* Within 24 in. (610 mm) of the top and bottom of all risers, unless the following provisions are met: (a) In risers less than 3 ft (0.9 m) in length, flexible couplings are permitted to be omitted. (b) In risers 3 ft to 7 ft (0.9 m to 2.1 m) in length, one flexible coupling is adequate. (c) Flexible couplings are permitted to be omitted on riser nipples, regardless of length. Substantiation: This is the intent of the current annex section A.9.3.2.3(1), and locating it in the standard itself clears any confusion on it’s applicability. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The annex language clearly addresses the submitters issue. Furthermore, the definitions of riser nipple and riser are different and should provide direction similar to the annex language. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-334 Log #520 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Modify the section to read: Flexible couplings for drops to hose lines, rack sprinklers, and mezzanines, and freezers shall be installed... “.Substantiation: A freezer may have a drop that is shorter than 15 ft (4.6 m), which means it may not be covered under Section 9.3.2.3(5). However, the freezer may have a differential movement that could subject the pipe to damage. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise the following sections to read: 9.3.2.4*Flexible couplings for drops to hose lines, rack sprinklers, and mezzanines, and free standing structures shall be installed regardless of pipe sizes as follows: (1) Within 24 in. (610 mm) of the top of the drop (2) Within 24 in. (610 mm) above the uppermost drop support attachment, where drop supports are provided to the structure, rack, or mezzanine (3) Within 24 in. (610 mm) above the bottom of the drop where no additional drop support is provided A.9.3.2.4 See Figure A.9.3.2.4. Drops that extend into freestanding storage racks should be designed to accommodate a horizontal relative displacement between the storage rack and the overhead supply piping. The horizontal relative displacement should be taken as the height of the top point of attachment to the storage rack above its base or the highest point of potential contact between the rack structure and the piping above its base, whichever is higher, multiplied by ±0.05 unless a smaller value is justified by

13-78

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 test data or analysis. The horizontal relative displacement should be accommodated by two or more flexible couplings, swing joints, or other approved means. Free standing structures include but are not limited to freezers, coolers, spray booths, and offices.Committee Statement: TC did not want to limit the application to freezers. The annex note provides examples of free standing structures. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-335 Log #130 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Page 13-100 9.3.3 Seismic Separation Assembly 9.3.3.3 “...Include a four-way brace bracing...”.Substantiation: Bracing denotes methodology and enhances clarity. AHJ’s often misconstrue four-way as a single assembly or product. Standardize terminology. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: TC revised the definition of four-way brace and added annex material. See 13-52 (Log #CP101). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-336 Log #198 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.4.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:9.3.4.8 Where required, the clearance shall be filled with a flexible an approved material that is compatible with the piping material. Substantiation: Model building codes require the annular space around piping penetrations through fire rated assemblies (other than sprinkler penetrations of ceiling membranes) to be filled with a listed penetration sealant tested in accordance with ASTM E 814, Test Methods for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, and that are flexible as installed. AHJ’s and specifically the CASFM will not accept clearances filled with certain brands of rated fire stop materials because flexibility values are either not known or thought to have not enough flexibility to meet the intent of Section 9.3.4.8. The standard should either provide a quantified percentage of flexibility required or remove the term from this section for clarity. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Approved is not an acceptable substitution for the term flexible. Classification of rated wall assemblies provide the acceptable materials. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-337 Log #442 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(9.3.4.10)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new Section 9.3.4.10 as follows:9.3.4.10 No clearance shall be required where piping is supported by holes through structural members as permitted by 9.1.1.5.3.Substantiation: Providing clearance through structural members in this case will prevent the structural member from properly supporting the pipe. The pipe will move with the structural member and therefore clearance will not be needed. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Negative: 4 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DENEFF, C.: I am persuaded by J. Deutsch’s comments from the initial circulation of the ballot. I think there is some merit to the proposal, but I do agree that the provision could be misinterpreted and allow situations where no clearance is provided around certain pipes that should have it. Perhaps the proposed language could be changed such that it says that clearance is not required at the bottom (where the pipe is supported) but is required around the rest of the pipe circumference, because, obviously if the pipe is supported on a member there is by definition no clearance. DEUTSCH, J.: With respect to section 9.3.4 and the existing 9 sub sections it seems clear that sprinkler pipe is not intended to be up tight to something substantially solid or strong such that it could break the pipe in a seismic event. Section 9.3.4.5 allows for an omission of clearance but only when flexible couplings are on either side of the penetration. These couplings are to let the pipe which is held tight in the penetration move without breaking. It appears

that this proposal would not require flexible couplings on either side of a penetration. By accepting this proposal, every penetration would not need clearance or couplings, every penetration would simply be considered to be providing support. An example would be pipe tight below composite wood joist which has to penetrate through a hole in a GLB or WF beam. Currently the penetration would need clearance or couplings but if this proposal is accepted then the hole would only need to be large enough for the pipe, the hangers on either side of the penetration would be eliminated as the penetration would be used for support. It is not good practice to eliminate clearance, couplings and hangers just to reduce the size of a penetration. If this is accepted, then every penetration will simply be considered to be providing support and clearance, couplings and hangers will not be provided. As written this proposal would be applicable to any penetration in a structural member and while this proposal may be appropriate in some situations like a parking garage, it is not appropriate for all situations. KIRSCHNER, K.: Existing text at 9.3.4.9 is sufficient and concise. In the practical construction environment, sprinkler pipe is installed through holes in structural elements that are oversized. When this hole provides support, clearance exists at the other 3 coordinates i.e. top - side - side, which shall conform to 9.3.4.9. THACKER, J.: Section 9.3.4.1 requires clearance between pipe and structural elements. Section 9.3.4.5 is an exception to be used when clearance is not provided and requires flexible couplings to be utilized when clearance is not provided. This new proposal as written does not require couplings if the penetration is used for support. Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: I am in agreement with the proposed change. However, I am requested an additional change to Section 9.3.4. I request that the following additional sentence be added to subsection 9.3.4.10 or be added as new subsection 9.3.4.11 that reads “A clearance of at least 2 in (50 mm) in all directions shall be provided between structural members and hard piped sprinkler risers, drops and heads”. As I discussed with the hanging and bracing committee at our February meeting, interaction between these items is a major source of failure during earthquakes. I believe this may already be required by Section 9.3.4.9 but is not clear. This addition will make the clearance requirement abundantly clear. GILLENGERTEN, J.: I support Bachmans’ recommendation that additional clarification is needed regarding the required clearance around hard piped sprinkler risers, drops, and heads. I request that the following additional sentence be added to subsection 9.3.4.10 or be added as new subsection 9.3.4.11 that reads “A clearance of at least 2 in (50 mm) in all directions shall be provided between structural members and hard piped sprinkler risers, drops and heads”. ________________________________________________________________ 13-338 Log #CP102 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(9.3.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:9.3.5 Sway Bracing Design9.3.5.1 General. [Text remains]9.3.5.210 Listing Assemblies.[Text moved from 9.3.5.10, title changed]9.3.5.210.1 Sway bracing assemblies shall be listed for a maximum load rating, unless the requirements of 9.3.5.210.2 are met.9.3.5.210.2 Where sway bracing utilizing pipe, angles, flats, or rods as shown in Table 9.3.5.8.7(a), Table 9.3.5.8.7(b), and Table 9.3.5.8.7(c) is used, the components shall not require listing. 9.3.5.210.2.1 Bracing fittings and connections used with those specific materials shall be listed. 9.3.5.210.3 The loads shall be reduced as shown in Table 9.3.5.210.3 for loads that are less than 90 degrees from vertical. 9.3.5.3 Component Material 9.3.5.3.1 Unless permitted by 9.3.5.3.2, components of sway brace assemblies shall be ferrous. 9.3.5.3.2 Nonferrous components that have been proven by fire tests to be adequate for the hazard application, that are listed for this purpose, and that are in compliance with the other requirements of this section shall be acceptable. 9.3.5.4 Sway Brace Design [Renumber current 9.3.5.2]9.3.5.5 Lateral Sway Bracing [Renumber current 9.3.5.3] 9.3.5.6 Longitudinal Sway Bracing [Renumber current 9.3.5.4]9.3.5.711 Pipes with Change(s) in Direction Attachments. [Relocated with title change.]9.3.5.7.111.2 Each run of pipe between changes in direction shall be provided with both lateral and longitudinal bracing, unless the requirements of 9.3.5.7.211.3 are met. 9.3.5.7.211.3 Pipe runs less than 12 ft (3.7 m) in length shall be permitted to be supported by the braces on adjacent runs of pipe. 9.3.5.8 Sway Bracing of Risers [Renumber current 9.3.5.5] 9.3.5.9 Horizontal Seismic Loads [Renumber current 9.3.5.6]9.3.5.10 Net Vertical Reaction Forces [Renumber current 9.3.5.7]9.3.5.11 Sway Brace Installation [Renumber current 9.3.5.8] Move current 9.3.5.11.1 as first paragraph of this section as modified by proposal Log #136 and renumber the current sections.

13-79

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 9.3.5.12 Fasteners [Renumber current 9.3.5.9]9.3.5.13 Braces to Buildings of Differential Movement [Renumber current 9.3.5.12] **The renumber of a section is to include both current text (with all subsections) and current annex language that is attached to those paragraphs. Substantiation: The Committee has moved the listing section forward for emphasis on its importance. It also parallels the presentation of information provided in the hanger section. The component material section is new but necessary to ensure the protection during a fire scenario. Section 9.3.5.11.1 of the 2010 Edition has been moved with the sway brace installation requirements. The remainder of 9.3.5.11 has been renamed to appropriately address the contents of the section. All remaining sections are unchanged by this proposal and strictly renumbered in the order shown for clarity purposes. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: In some cases, listed capacity of braces may already have been resolved to horizontal, in which case 9.3.5.2.3 would not need to be applied. Suggest changing that verbiage to “9.3.5.2.3 Where listed loads have not been resolved to horizontal, the listed load along the brace shall be reduced as shown in Table 9.3.5.2.3 for installations where the brace is less than 90 degrees from vertical.” HARPER, J.: The Committee needs to consider eliminating CPVC pipe from being permitted for use as sway bracing. Documentation presented at the ROP meeting showed that working stress of CPVC is 2,000 psi @ 73F, and @ 140 F, the working stress of CPVC is reduced 50% to 1,000 psi. Should a fire occur after an initial seismic event, it is entirely likely that CPVC sway bracing will be exposed to compartment temperatures in excess of 140 F even if sprinklers operate, thus jeopardizing the capability of the CPVC pipe to function as a sway brace in aftershock events. ________________________________________________________________ 13-339 Log #67 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.1.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:9.3.5.1.4 Bracing requirements of Section 9.3.5.1.1 shall not apply to drain piping.Substantiation: Drain piping is not a critical working component of the sprinkler system. Piping for the drains should be specifically exempt from bracing requirements. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new section and renumber accordingly: 9.3.5.1.4 Bracing requirements of Section 9.3.5 shall not apply to drain piping downstream of the drain valve.Committee Statement: Additional language was added to clarify where the bracing requirements cease to apply. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DENEFF, C.: I agree with J. Tauby’s comments from the initial circulation of the ballot. There is some merit to the proposal, but even drain lines should have some restraint in order to prevent them from falling or affecting the other portions of the system. In reality, wouldn’t drain lines be relatively small diameter pipe anyway and not need much in the way of bracing? Perhaps the bracing could be less (e.g., use provisions for branch line restraint). If drain lines are 2.5” or larger it seems like bracing should not be omitted. TAUBY, J.: The drain pipe needs to be braced as per ASCE 7-10 section 13.6.8. Just because the drain pipe is not a critical component of the system, does not mean it should not be braced. The building code requires pipe bracing, not based on critical usage, but on safety. One of the purposes of pipe bracing is to protect humans in the building from falling pipes during/after the earthquake. Section 13.6.8 of ASCE 7-10 does not exempt drain lines from bracing. All exceptions are based on the size of the pipe and which Seismic Design Category applies to the structure. By exempting drain lines, we would be in violation of the building code. ________________________________________________________________ 13-340 Log #131 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(9.3.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Page 13-100 9.3.5.2 Sway Bracing Design Listing9.3.5.2.1 Sway brace fittings and components directly attached to the brace element, system pipe or building structure shall be listed. 9.3.5.2.2 Sway brace fittings and components shall be tested for listing at maximum eccentricity.9.3.5.2 3 Sway Bracing Design. Component Material.9.3.5.3.1 Sway brace components shall be ferrous.9.3.5.2 4 Sway Bracing Design. RENUMBER SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS ACCORDINGLY.

Substantiation: Create new listing section and sequence similar to hanger section to enhance familiarity. Provides location for future standard requirements and refinements. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartDo not accept 9.3.5.2.2. Committee Statement: See action on 13-338 (Log #CP102). The TC agreed with the majority of the proposal and addressed it in 13-338 (Log #CP102). The TC did not agree with listing fittings and components for maximum eccentricity because specific listing criteria is not within the scope of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: KIRSCHNER, K.: TESTED FOR LISTING AT MAXIMUM ECCENTRICITY will provide a uniform basis of comparison. This is not specific listing criteria, as a products ability will vary unique to their design. It is important for the standard to include wording that reduces misapplication. Sway bracing is dynamic in practice, including many variables. This proposal documented many inconsistencies in product engineering sheets. The committee should discuss revised wording to address this documented problem. Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: Manufactured brace components typically have some eccentricity. Technically, they might be considered to violate Section 9.3.5.8.4 “All parts and fittings of a brace shall lie in a straight line to avoid eccentric loadings on fittings and fasteners.” Also, Annex material A.9.3.5.9.1 goes into great detail about prying action (caused by eccentricities). I think there is some value in incorporating different language into 9.3.5.8.4 to account for eccentricities. Something like: “All parts and fittings of a brace shall lie in a straight line to avoid eccentric loadings on fittings and fasteners unless the effects of the eccentric loadings have been accounted for by calculations or in determining the listed load capacity.” ________________________________________________________________ 13-341 Log #514 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.2.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise 9.3.5.2.5 to read as follows: The distance between the last brace and the end of the main shall not exceed 6 ft (1.8 m), or 12 ft (3.6 m) if the main ends in a connection to another main that is longitudinally braced.Substantiation: Current wording is confusing to the sprinkler industry, since it is not clear to some if the 6 ft requirement applies to all runs of main, or only those that have no further connections to other mains through elbows or tees. When the Committee reduced the allowable distance between the last lateral brace and the end of the main from 20 ft in the 2002 edition to 6 ft in the 2007 edition, the substantiation referenced concerns for the cantilevered loads of the end branch lines. This explanation was carried forward in the commentary in the NFPA’s Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook, but has led some to believe there is no concern if those loads are not cantilevered. If the intent is not to require a brace within 6 ft of the end of a run when the main turns, the Committee has failed to provide an alternative maximum distance. This means the brace spacing would default to the maximum 40 ft spacing between lateral braces. Where two runs are interconnected by an unbraced 10 ft jog (allowed by Section 9.3.5.11.3), this could easily be interpreted to allow a combined pipe run of 50 ft between lateral braces, and possibly even 90 ft, which we suspect is not the intent of the Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new section and renumber:9.3.5.3.6 Where there is a change in direction of the piping, the cumulative distance between consecutive lateral sway braces shall not exceed the maximum permitted distance in accordance with 9.3.5.3.2.Committee Statement: The TC agreed that a change in direction of piping needed to be addressed. The TC decided that the cumulative maximum distance is acceptable between lateral braces. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DENEFF, C.: The proposed committee wording is confusing. At a change in direction, the lateral braces brace perpendicular directions on the two connected pipes. Using this measurement does not seem to make sense. I would suggest using the wording given by the submitter. It parallels other requirements in the code: 9.3.5.11.3 Pipe runs less than 12 ft (3.7 m) in length shall be permitted to be supported by the braces on adjacent runs of pipe.

13-80

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-342 Log #443 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Section 9.3.5.3.1 to read as follows: Lateral sway bracing shall be provided on all feed and cross mains regardless of size and all branch lines and other piping with the exception of drain piping with a diameter of 2 ½ in. (65 mm) and larger. Substantiation: Earthquake bracing is in place to make sure that parts of the sprinkler system that are essential to system performance are kept in place during an earthquake. Drain piping is not necessary for the successful operation of a sprinkler system. The term “other piping” is currently being interpreted by many AHJ’s as applying to drain piping, which is causing unnecessary cost to brace such piping. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee Committee Action on 13-339 (Log #67). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 13-338 (Log #67). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DENEFF, C.: See comments on Proposal 13-339 (Log 67). A pipe that is more than 2.5” should be braced in my opinion. TAUBY, J.: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 13-339 (Log #67). Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: I am in agreement with the proposed change. However, I am requesting an additional change to Section 9.3.5.1. I request that the following additional sentence be added to the end of subsection 9.3.4.10 that reads “However, all branch lines are required to be laterally restrained in accordance with Section 9.3.6.4 regardless of diameter”. As I discussed with the hanging and bracing committee at our February meeting, I believe this is already required by Section 9.3.6.4 however I am finding that sprinkler system installers are interpreting Section 9.5.3.1 to mean that lateral restraints are not required for branch lines less than 21/2 inches in diameter. This addition will make the lateral restraint requirement abundantly clear. GILLENGERTEN, J.: I support Bachmans’ recommendation that branch lines be braced. I request that the following additional sentence be added to the end of subsection 9.3.4.10 that reads “However, all branch lines are required to be laterally restrained in accordance with Section 9.3.6.4 regardless of diameter”. VALENTINE, V.: The Committee statement is tied to 13-339 (Log #67). ________________________________________________________________ 13-343 Log #554 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 9.3.5.3.2(a) through 9.3.5.3.2(e))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: In Tables 9.3.5.3.2(a), 9.3.5.3.2(b), 9.3.5.3.2(c), 9.3.5.3.2(d) and 9.3.5.3.2(e) delete Footnote “f”: f ASTM A 106 Grade B or A 53 Grade B has an Fy = 35 ksi. An Fy = 30 ksi was used also as a conservative value to account for differences in material properties as well as other operational stresses.Substantiation: There is no “f” designation in any of the 5 tables and Footnote “f” is not applicable to the new tables for CPVC or copper pipe since the references to ASTM A 106 and A 53 are for steel pipe. Further, much of the Schedule 5 and Schedule 10 pipe used in sprinkler systems is made to the ASTM A 135 and ASTM A 975 specifications, rather than to A 106 or A 53. Even for Schedule 40 pipe, it is common to use Grade A material with a Fy of 30 ksi, rather than the better Grade B, so even for steel piping, Footnote “f” is inaccurate, misleading and unnecessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise Tables as follows: In Tables 9.3.5.3.2(a), (b) and (c), add footnote (f) to the title as follows: Table 9.3.5.3.2(a) Maximum Load (Fpw) in Zone of Influence (lb), (Fy = 30 ksi)(f) Schedule 10 Steel Pipe Table 9.3.5.3.2(b) Maximum Load (Fpw) in Zone of Influence (lb), (Fy = 30 ksi)(f) Schedule 40 Steel Pipe Table 9.3.5.3.2(c) Maximum Load (Fpw) in Zone of Influence (lb), (Fy = 30 ksi)(f) Schedule 5 Steel Pipe In Tables 9.3.5.3.2(d) delete footnotes (e) and (f). In Table 9.3.5.3.2(e), delete footnote (f). In Tables 9.3.5.3.2(a) and (b), place footnote (e) as follows: 6 and larger(e)

Committee Statement: Footnote F was deleted from Tables D and E because neither of those tables should be referencing steel materials. For Tables A,B,C the footnote has been added to the table to indicate where the footnote is

applicable. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-344 Log #113 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Table 9.3.5.3.2(d) and (e))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel Savannah River CompanyRecommendation: NFPA 13-2010, Page 13-101, Replace the table as follows:

Reason: CPVC has no yield stress data, ASTM F441/442 Burst Pressure limit = 2 ksi as design stress limit.

Reason: Fy = 32 ksi for Type M Copper tube is applied erroneously in the current version of the Table. The correct Fy for Type M Copper tube is = 11 ksi per ASTM B88.

Substantiation: Reason: CPVC has no yield stress data, ASTM F441/442 that requires to use Burst Pressure limit = 2 ksi as design stress limit.Reason: Fy = 32 ksi for Type M Copper tube is applied erroneously in the current version of the Table. The correct Fy for Type M Copper tube is = 11 ksi per ASTM B88.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The TC appreciates the need to verify the values and requests that the submitter submits the data for the other identified material so that the TC can make an informed decision. The information provided may not include all of the information on the acceptable materials in the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 23 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: BACHMAN, R.: The table emailed to us by NFPA-13 staff after the meeting provided adequate and sufficient justification to support the proposal. Therefore, I no longer support the committee action and believe the proposal should be approved. GILLENGERTEN, J.: Upon review, I believe based on the information provided the proposal should be approved. PATEL, J.: ASTM D1784 specifies 2,000 psi as ‘allowable stress’ for CPVC piping, and ASTM B88 provides 11,000 psi as allowable stress for all copper pipe that envelops all types of copper piping. ________________________________________________________________ 13-345 Log #404 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.5.3.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The distance between the last brace and the end of the pipe or a change in direction shall not exceed 6 ft (1.8 m). Substantiation: The current paragraph only identifies the end of a system main. The proposed change adds clarity to the intent of the standard and provides direction when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The TC believes that the cumulative distance braces is acceptable. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: See my comments on Proposal 13-341 (Log 514).

Table 9.3.5.3.2(e) Maximum Load (Fpw) in Zone of Influence (lb), (Fy = 11 ksi) Type M Copper Tube

Pipe (in.)

Lateral Sway Brace Spacing (ft)a 20 Ft 25 Ft 30 Ft 35 Ft 40 Ft

3/4 6 5 4 3 31 11 9 7 6 5

1 1/4 19 16 13 11 91 1/2 32 25 21 18 15

2 65 52 42 36 30f ASTM B88 has and Fy = 11 ksi.

Table 9.3.5.3.2(d) Maximum Load (Fpw) in Zone of Influence (lb), (Fy = 2 ksi) CPVC Pipe

Pipe (in.)

Lateral Sway Brace Spacing (ft)a 20 Ft 25 Ft 30 Ft 35 Ft 40 Ft

3/4 4 3 2 2 21 7 6 5 4 3

1 1/4 14 11 9 8 71 1/2 21 17 14 12 10

2 41 32 27 23 192 1/2 72 57 47 40 34

3 129 104 85 73 61f ASTM F441/442 Burst Pressure Limit = 2 ksi.

13-81

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-346 Log #418 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.3.9)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Randy R. Nelson, VFS Fire and Security ServicesRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The requirements of 9.3.5.3 shall not apply to pipes individually supported to the building structure by rods less than 6 in. (152 mm) long measured between the top of the pipe and the point of attachment to the building structure. Substantiation: Some contractors are using this paragraph for trapeze hangers, claiming that the rod from the trapeze to the top of pipe is less than 6 in., therefore eliminating lateral bracing on those pipes. The revision clarifies that paragraph 9.3.5.3.9 applies to hangers starting at the building structure. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new annex section:A.9.3.5.3.9 Suspended trapeze members are not considered building structure.Committee Statement: The new annex language clarifies that these types of trapeze hangers are not in line with the exemption for lateral braces under the 6 in. rod measurement. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-347 Log #132 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.5.3.10)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Page 13-104 9.3.5.3 Lateral Sway Bracing9.3.5.3.10 “...Table 9.3.5.8.7(b), and or Table 9.3.5.8.7(c) and fasteners as required by Section 9.3.5.9.Substantiation: Fasteners should conform to sway brace criteria.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent of the submitter was not clear to the TC. The submitter is encouraged to provide additional information during the ROC stage to clarify the intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: KIRSCHNER, K.: Fire Sprinklers are an emergency system with an importance factor of 1.5. Therefore, when we even allow hangers in lieu of sway braces, which is intellectually inconsistent, the ability of their fasteners should meet seismic fastener criteria of this standard. Comment on Affirmative: ________________________________________________________________ 13-348 Log #405 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(9.3.5.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The distance between the last brace and the end of the pipe or a change in direction shall not exceed 40 ft (12.2 m). Substantiation: The current paragraph only identifies the end of a system main. The proposed change adds clarity to the intent of the standard and provides direction when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-349 Log #133 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Page 13-102 9.3.5.5 Risers.9.3.5.5.1* Tops ….provided with a four-way brace bracing.9.3.5.5.2 “...brace bracing…. 9.3.5.5.3 …..a …. brace bracing…. 9.3.5.5.4 ….braces bracing...”.Substantiation: Align text with Section 9.3.5.5.5. Bracing denotes methodology and enhances clarity. AHJ’s often misconstrue four-way as a single assembly or product. Standardize terminology. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on 13-52 (Log #CP101).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.

________________________________________________________________ 13-350 Log #259 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete text to read as follows: 9.3.5.6.3* Where the authority having jurisdiction does not specify the horizontal seismic load, the horizontal seismic force acting on the braces shall be determined as specified in 9.3.5.6.2 with Cp = 0.5.Substantiation: Delete this section and renumber the remaining sections. First, AHJs do not specify horizontal seismic loads. This is calculated by the layout technician, designer, or PE. Secondly, there is sufficient information from the building codes or the online USGS to obtain the appropriate values. This section is incorrect and obsolete. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 9.3.5.6.3* Where data for determining Cp are not available, the authority having jurisdiction does not specify the horizontal seismic load, the horizontal seismic force acting on the braces shall be determined as specified in 9.3.5.6.2 with Cp = 0.5.Committee Statement: It is important that a default value remain in the standard, specifically outside of the united states where spectral response accelerations or general earthquake data is not readily available for application to the sprinkler system. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-351 Log #205 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.6.4 and 9.3.5.6.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Deutsch, City of Brea Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add new text as follows:9.3.5.6.4* The zone of influence for lateral braces shall include all branch lines and mains tributary to the brace, except branch lines that are provided with longitudinal bracing or as prohibited by Section 9.3.5.6.4.1.9.3.5.6.4.1 When riser nipples exceed 4’ in length and lines are 2½” or greater the longitudinal seismic force of the line shall not be tributary to lateral seismic load of the main. The longitudinal seismic load of each line shall be evaluated independently and lines shall be provided with longitudinal sway bracing as per Section 9.3.5.4.Substantiation: In the occurrence of a seismic event which creates forces parallel with the lines and perpendicular with the main, the lateral sway brace on the main is expected to keep all of the line piping and main piping within the zone of influence in place with the roof structure. The connection between the riser nipple and the main is the only thing keeping the line from moving longitudinally. If a piping configuration has riser nipples excessively long, the longitudinal force from the lines can not be effectively transferred down through the riser nipple to the main and to the lateral brace on the main which may be as much as 20’ away. This proposed code is to put a practical limit on how long a riser nipple can be before it becomes too long and can not effectively transfer forces to the main. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise Section 9.3.5.6.4 and add 9.3.5.6.4.1 w/equation: 9.3.5.6.4* The zone of influence for lateral braces shall include all branch lines and mains tributary to the brace, except branch lines that are provided with longitudinal bracing or as prohibited by 9.3.5.6.4.1.9.3.5.6.4.1* When the calculated value of the branch line within the zone of influence times the height of the riser nipple times the water filled weight of pipe as defined by 9.3.5.6.1 times the seismic coefficient Cp are all divided by the section modulus of the riser nipple is less than or equal to 2500 the longitudinal seismic load of each line shall be evaluated individually and lines shall be provided with longitudinal sway bracing as per 9.3.5.4. Formula: ( Hr * Wp * Cp ) / S <= 2500 Where: Hr = Height of RN (in feet) Wp = Tributary weight in pounds for the branchline or portion of branchline within the ZOI including the riser nipple Cp = Seismic coefficient S = Sectional modulus of the riser nipple pipe Note: Assumed steel strength 30,000 psi / 12 = 2500 A.9.3.5.6.4.1 Where schedule 10 and schedule 40 pipe are used, the section modulus can be found in Table 9.1.1.6.1(b).Committee Statement: The original proposal did not provide technical justification for the requirement. The revised language provides a calculation method to accommodate other pipe sizes and materials. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative:

13-82

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 DENEFF, C.: Would prefer to present this in a table, perhaps as length of branch line vs allowable height of riser nipple. The formula seems a bit complex. VALENTINE, V.: The formula should have subscripts for the second letter of each of the first three variables. The proper symbol should also be put in for “less than or equal to”. ________________________________________________________________ 13-352 Log #134 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.5.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Page 13-102 9.3.5.6* Horizontal Seismic Loads9.3.5.7 Net Vertical Reaction Forces. Where the horizontal seismic loads load used exceed exceeds 0.5 Wp and the brace angle is less greater than 45 60 degrees from vertical or where the horizontal seismic load exceeds 1.0 Wp and the brace angle is less greater than 60 45 degrees from vertical,...”.Substantiation: Revised text to enhance clarity. A 45 degree brace angle provides superior resistance to vertical force than does a 60 degree brace angle. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The concern addressed by the submitters substantiation is not achieved by the proposal presented. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-353 Log #147 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(Figure 9.3.5.9.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Replace “Length Under Head (in.)” with “Length In Timber (in.)” for lag screw/bolt length in Figure 9.3.5.9.1 table. See Figure 9.3.5.9.1 on the next page Substantiation: Length of lag screw/bolt under head is potentially misleading, as width of timber may not be enough to allow for screw/bolt to be completely contained within the timber. This clarifies the intent, which is to have the threads of a lag screw/bolt completely engaged in the timber. Further, it makes the text more consistent with similar language used for “through bolts” in the same figure. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-354 Log #444 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.5.9.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new section 9.3.5.9.1.1 with an annex note and figure as follows: 9.3.5.9.1.1 Fasteners shall not be permitted be attached vertically into the bottom of structural members where the depth of the structural member exceeds the width and where the brace forms an angle of more than 30° with the length of the brace unless the fastener is listed for installation in this position. A.9.3.5.9.1.1 See Figure A.9.3.5.9.1.1 for an example of an incorrect installation.

Substantiation: A fastener in this location will create an overturning moment on the structural member. Thin structural members will not be able to withstand this load. The annex information is intended to show in pictures what is prohibited by the body of the standard since the text can be confusing. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: While the noted connection may be a concern for members with higher loads, analyzing the geometry of structural members is beyond the capability of the TC. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: VALENTINE, V.: There are instances where the horizontal load imposed by an earthquake could overturn thin structural members, especially when they are connected to the bottom of a beam. Additional consideration should be given to this item. Comment on Affirmative: THACKER, J.: It is the responsibility of the structural engineer to determine weather or not the structural member is adequately restrained from over turning. Structural members are often equipped with flange braces or other such elements to prevent over turning. ________________________________________________________________ 13-355 Log #135 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.5.10.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Page 13-103 9.3.5.10 Assemblies. 9.3.5.10.1 Sway bracing brace...”.Substantiation: Standardize terminology to enhance clarity.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See 13-52 (Log #CP101).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-356 Log #524 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(9.3.5.10.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Modify the section as follows: The loads shall be reduced as shown in Table 9.3.5.10.3 for loads that are installations where the brace is less than 90 degrees from vertical.Substantiation: This is strictly an editorial change as the paragraph refers to the installation angle for application of the values in the table. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: See comments under Proposal 13-338 (Log CP 102): In some cases, listed capacity of braces may already have been resolved to horizontal, in which case 9.3.5.2.3 would not need to be applied. Suggest changing that verbiage to “9.3.5.2.3 Where listed loads have not been resolved to horizontal, the listed load along the brace shall be reduced as shown in Table 9.3.5.2.3 for installations where the brace is less than 90 degrees from vertical.” ________________________________________________________________ 13-357 Log #136 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(9.3.5.11.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Page 13-104 9.3.5.11 Attachments 9.3.5.11.1 Bracing….directly attached to feed and cross main. the system pipe.Substantiation: Bracing is not limited to FM and CM i.e. lines, pump house piping, etc. are appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-358 Log #68 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.6.1(6) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:(6) CPVC hangers utilizing two points of attachment.Substantiation: Cpvc hangers are very similar to U-hooks listed in Section 9.3.6.1(2). Listed CPVC hangers provide support and restraint to prevent sprinklers from moving above a ceiling during operation. This should be adequate for restraint of branch lines for seismic.

13-83


Fastener orientation

Angle A, B, or C

Angle D,E, or F Angle D, E, or F

Angle A, B, or C

Fastener orientation

Angle A = 30 to 44Angle B = 45 to 59Angle C = 60 to 90

Angle D = 30 to 44Angle E = 45 to 59Angle F = 60 to 90

Angle G = 30 to 44Angle H = 45 to 59Angle I = 60 to 90

Angle G, H, or IAngle G, H, or I

Minimum ¹⁄₂ depthof beam but not<3 in. (76 mm)

for wood beams

Minimum four fastener diametersbut not <¹⁄₃ beam depth and not<3 in. (76 mm) for wood beams

Load Perpendicular to Structural Member

Load Parallel to Structural Member

Diameter(in.)

Embedment(in.) A B C D E F G H I

23¹⁄₄

44³⁄₄

³⁄₈

⁵⁄₈

³⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Wedge Anchors in 3000 psi Normal Weight Cracked Concrete

557 591321 458173 308

553

717 1332 1523 2536 3155 35371332 12432638

1021 1159 19042008 23781021 956 2671713 15371358713 678 1741391 784 1215

678308 301

Wedge Anchors in 3000 psi Lightweight Concrete-Filled Metal DeckingDiameter

(in.)Embedment

(in.) A B C D E F G H I2

3¹⁄₄

4

³⁄₈

⁵⁄₈

¹⁄₂

116215369

216406673

420826

1282

—

——

—

——

—

——

—

——

—

——

—

——

Diameter(in.)


45

7¹⁄₂

³⁄₈

⁵⁄₈

¹⁄₂

Undercut Anchors in 3000 psi Normal Weight Concrete

1714 1571989 1171685 1106

1153 2041 2121 30223675 39022041 1997 44781479 258225521479 1483 2988855 1473 1975

18491106 1187

Connections to Steel (Values Assume Bolt Perpendicular to Mounting Surface)Diameter of Unfinished Steel Bolt (in.)

¹⁄₄ ³⁄₈

A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I

Diameter of Unfinished Steel Bolt (in.)¹⁄₂ ⁵⁄₈

A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I

400 458500 600 650300 325500 900 800 7351200 1200 12781550 10351400565

1600 1300 183014502050 2050 2260 2250 2045 28802550 2500 3300 3300 3557440039502850

Diameter(in.)


23¹⁄₄

44³⁄₄

³⁄₈

⁵⁄₈

³⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Wedge Anchors in 3000 psi Lightweight Cracked Concrete

410 492236 396110 206

344

446 859 1061 2078 2476 2706859 7741839

661 811 15691406 1876661 597 2055467 1239970467 426 1368245 559 1021

551206 191

Diameter(in.)


23¹⁄₄

44³⁄₄

³⁄₈

⁵⁄₈

³⁄₄

¹⁄₂


600 616346 473196 342

627

816 1498 1668 2653 3339 37701498 14142891

1147 1268 19902198 25131147 1088 2843797 16161477797 769 1842443 852 1264

711342 341

Diameter(in.)


23¹⁄₄

44³⁄₄

³⁄₈

⁵⁄₈

³⁄₄

¹⁄₂


661 648381 492232 394

750

976 1756 1882 2807 3587 40891756 16913261

1344 1428 21022474 26941344 1300 3077928 17201649928 916 1979528 951 1326

754394 402

A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I

230 235 255395135 130 155 155 155 180 170135 1901651151¹⁄₂2¹⁄₂ 140

175 250 200 200280 395 325 315 310 620 6101065360 360 925440515 535735560 960485

285 230 220 255 260755 730235200305 330 345 310 380350 485 405 440 455400600 685 635200 240 280 320 320 310 360 365615280225 255 575205 215550 495275480 410160

165180 120 170 300 355 325315 145550400380175

175200 200

190 200 200235245

230170 320 370 325 320435 525 425 460555 550 775320 145 195610420380 230

350190 170200 220 120 170310 80

80120380 80

175195 205 200 250 170 340 375 325 320465 540 430 460555 570 840325 145 195650435380 230120400 80

160165 185 1801903¹⁄₂

3¹⁄₂

4¹⁄₂

5¹⁄₂

5¹⁄₂6¹⁄₂

200 310 380 310 300215 270 220 270460 450530

Through-Bolts in Sawn Lumber or Glue-Laminated Timbers (Load Perpendicular to Grain)Bolt Diameter (in.)

Lag Bolt Diameter (in.)

¹⁄₂ ⁵⁄₈ ³⁄₄

A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I

³⁄₈ ¹⁄₂ ⁵⁄₈

Length ofBolt in

Timber (in.)

Length ofBolt in

Timber (in.)

Lag Screws and Lag Bolts in Wood (Load Perpendicular to Grain — Holes Predrilled Using Good Practice)

— — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Note: Wood fastener maximum capacity values are based on 2001 National Design Specifications (NDS) for wood with aspecific gravity of 0.35. Values for other types of wood can be obtained by multiplying the above values by the following factors:

For SI values, 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Multiplier0.36 thru 0.490.50 thru 0.650.66 thru 0.73

1.171.251.50

Specific Gravity of Wood

Figure 9.3.5.9.1 Maximum Loads for Various Types of Structures and Maximum Loads for Various Types of Fasteners to Structures.

13-84

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd new text to read as follows: (4) CPVC hangers utilizing two points of attachment. Relocate current list item (4) to end of list:(64)Other approved means.Committee Statement: Move the reference to other approved means to the end of the list for clarity. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: DEUTSCH, J.: With respect to section 9.3.4 and the existing 9 sub sections it seems clear that sprinkler pipe is not intended to be up tight to something substantially solid or strong such that it could break the pipe in a seismic event. Section 9.3.4.5 allows for an omission of clearance but only when flexible couplings are on either side of the penetration. These couplings are to let the pipe which is held tight in the penetration move without breaking. It appears that this proposal would not require flexible couplings on either side of a penetration. By accepting this proposal, every penetration would not need clearance or couplings, every penetration would simply be considered to be providing support. An example would be pipe tight below composite wood joist which has to penetrate through a hole in a GLB or WF beam. Currently the penetration would need clearance or couplings but if this proposal is accepted then the hole would only need to be large enough for the pipe, the hangers on either side of the penetration would be eliminated as the penetration would be used for support. It is not good practice to eliminate clearance, couplings and hangers just to reduce the size of a penetration. If this is accepted, then every penetration will simply be considered to be providing support and clearance, couplings and hangers will not be provided. As written this proposal would be applicable to any penetration in a structural member and while this proposal may be appropriate in some situations like a parking garage, it is not appropriate for all situations. KIRSCHNER, K.: NOT ALL CPVC hangers with two points of attachment are listed for restraint. Many CPVC are listed for restraint and they should be used. Comparison to U-Hooks is irrelevant. U-Hooks are vastly superior do to their leg angularity and material mass. Why over reach to provide expediency to contractors when no product problem exists? Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: I agree with K. Kirschner’s comments that only CPVC hangers that are listed for restraint should be used. Verbiage to that effect should be added. ________________________________________________________________ 13-359 Log #41 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bruce Kritz, S.C. State Fire Marshal’s OfficeRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:

Substantiation: The word “excessive” is subjective. It would be helpful to have a guideline for the minimum length of different size pipes that require restraint. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The standard requires that the end sprinkler be restrained on all branch lines. The restraint given in 9.3.6.1 provides the guidance needed for the degree of restraint. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.

________________________________________________________________ 13-360 Log #511 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.7.8 (New) and A.9.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Silva, HiltiRecommendation: Add new Section 9.3.7.8: Concrete anchors used to secure hangers to the building structure shall be prequalified for seismic applications in accordance with ACI 355.2, Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete and Commentary. and installed in accordance with manufacturer’ s instructions. Add new annex language to Section A.9.1.3: In areas that are subject to provisions for earthquake protection of mechanical systems, the fasteners in concrete will need to be prequalified. See Section 9.3.7.8 for further information. Substantiation: Similar language was added to the 2010 Edition of NFPA 13 for sway brace assemblies. However, the connection for hangers in areas subject to earthquake forces is equally important. Hangers must carry the vertical component resulting from nearby (angled) braces as well as vertical earthquake motions. Since failure of the hangers will result in loss of the system, the code should not permit a lower standard of quality and safety for the hanger anchorage if the building is subject to earthquake motions. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There is no technical documentation submitted for this proposal for hangers. There is no loss history of failures. The TC has developed a task group to review this issue and prepare a committee comment if it is warranted. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 6 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: BACHMAN, R.: I am of the opinion that the requested proposal is justified and consistent with current building code requirements. I therefore do no support the committee action. DEUTSCH, J.: This is already a requirement being enforced in many building codes. By rejecting this proposal we are just sticking our heads in the ground and hoping it will go away. GILLENGERTEN, J.: Upon review, I believe this proposal is consistent with requirements of the current building codes. KIRSCHNER, K.: Fire sprinkler are an emergency system with an importance factor of 1.5. Therefore, in a seismic area hanger fasteners are just as important as sway brace fasteners. THACKER, J.: This is already a requirement of the building codes. Also please explain, “and commentary” in the proposed section. VALENTINE, V.: This requirement is needed in NFPA 13 because it is required by the building codes, which supersedes NFPA 13. Section 1912 of the 2009 IBC states, “...this section shall govern the strength design of anchors installed in concrete for purposes of transmitting structural loads from one connected element to the other...” The load of the sprinkler system is a structural load, but the user is brought to this section where earthquake loads are involved. This section goes on to refer the user to ACI 318, Appendix D which in turn brings the user to ACI 355.2. The prequalification of all post-installed anchors is required in earthquake areas. Currently, NFPA 13 addresses this for use of concrete anchors in sway brace assemblies. However, the information should also be provided to the user for hangers where the system is subject to seismic forces. It should be noted that Section 1912 applies across the board for domestic water systems and other building systems. Comment on Affirmative: DENEFF, C.: The requirement to use ACI 355.2 for bolts to concrete is justified for braces because they are subject to a large concentrated force. For typical hangers (not near braces) gravity forces are often not large (15 ft. of Sch 40 steel pipe is under 100 lb for pipe 2 inches and less). It seems like overkill to require ACI 355.2 compliant bolts for these cases. The current California Division of the State Architect IR 19-1 allows expansion anchors for non-structural (e.g., equipment, piping) applications to be sized using allowable stress techniques using 80% of non-inspected tension values. It seems like a similar technique might be used by NFPA, particularly for piping that does not require bracing. Where pipes are larger and must be braced, perhaps a different approach could be taken (at least for the hangers adjacent to braces). Also, it seems like current Section 9.3.7.7 which requires powder-driven studs be listed for use in earthquake zones only where the horizontal force factor exceeds 0.5 Wp should be modified since these clearly would not meet ACI 355.2. The CA DSA only allows powder-driven fasteners for very light items like suspended ceilings. I note that a task group was formed regarding Proposal 13-360. I assume this means that a proposal will be generated for consideration in the ROC phase. This task group should also clarify what load the hanger anchor bolt should resist vs. what allowable (is it 5 times weight +250 per 9.1.1.2 vs ultimate or the values given in 9.1.3.9.3 vs. ultimate or weight of pipe + 250 vs. ASD value) since this is very confusing in the code.

Table 9.3.6.3 Minimum Branchline Length Requiring Restraint

Nominal Pipe Size Requires Restraint /A Longer Phan (Froln)

1 4.0

1 1/2 5.0

1 1/2 6.0

2 7.0

2 1/2 8.0

3 9.0

13-85

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-361 Log #445 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.3.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new section 9.3.8 as follows: 9.3.8 Revamping of Systems. Where a system is being revamped and pipe is being inserted into outlets where sprinklers used to be installed, the requirements of 8.15.19.4.4 and 8.15.19.5.4 shall be followed.Substantiation: Sections 8.15.19.4.4 and 8.15.19.5.4 deal with seismic issues and need to be cross referenced in the section of the standard dealing with earthquake protection. The committee on hanging and bracing should have some input on these sections and people reading the seismic protection rules should be aware that there are requirements in other parts of the standard that pertain to this subject. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This proposal is not applicable to the HBS TC.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: VALENTINE, V.: This is a pointer so that the user, when looking for earthquake requirements, can clearly note that there are a couple of sections that handle minimum pipe sizes when revamping a system in an area subject to earthquake forces. There are instances where an older section of an existing building may be brought up to current seismic protection standards. The minimum pipe sizes needs to be considered as part of that retrofit. ________________________________________________________________ 13-361a Log #573 AUT-AAC Final Action: Accept(9.3.11)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Recommendation: Where and when the TC’s use the term “Readily Accessible”, the TC’s are directed to better define their intent on a case by case basis. Substantiation: The AUT-PRI TC reviewed a proposal that used the term “Readily Accessible” and rejected the proposal as the term is not enforceable. The term shows up multiple times in the 2010 edition and should be reviewed and modified for clarity where appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept[The TCC ballot results were 20 voting members; of whom 19 voted affirmatively and 1 ballot was not returned (R. Spaulding)].________________________________________________________________ 13-362 Log #230 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(9.11.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.11.1 Unless the requirements of 91.1.1.2 are met, types of hangers shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.1. When a water mist sprinkler system is installed, all hanging, bracing and restraint of system piping requirements shall be determined in accordance with NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems.Substantiation: For installations of water mist systems in sprinkler applications, all installation requirements shall be determined by NFPA 750. This change is proposed for avoidance of confusion by AHJs in reviewing plans and installations for water mist. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: References to hanging and bracing of water mist systems belong in NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, not NFPA 13. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-363 Log #341 AUT-PRI Final Action: Reject(10.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Clarify the standards necessary to meet the coating and wrapping requirement. Substantiation: The committee is not clear as to what extent of coating and wrapping is sufficient. Is there a standard on the subject that can be required? Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This material was extracted from NFPA 24 Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, which has responsibility for these requirements. NFPA 13 cannot modify these requirements. This proposal will be addressed in NFPA 24, NFPA 24-26 (Log #CP4). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Bonds, R., Frakes, B., Laguna, A., Twele, S.

________________________________________________________________ 13-364 Log #366 AUT-PRI Final Action: Reject(10.1.6.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:10.1.6.2 Steel pipe utilized in fire department connections and protected in accordance with the requirements of Section 10.1.3 shall not be required to be internally lined.Substantiation: This proposal clarifies that the lining being addressed is on the interior of the pipe. Some users of the standard have been incorrectly using this section to eliminate external coatings that are required by Section 10.1.3. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This material was extracted from NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, which has responsibility for these requirements. NFPA 13 cannot modify these requirements. This proposal will be addressed in NFPA 24, NFPA 24-28 (Log #CP6). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Bonds, R., Frakes, B., Laguna, A., Twele, S.________________________________________________________________ 13-365 Log #342 AUT-PRI Final Action: Reject(Figure 10.10.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a section of the figure for the forward flow test of a backflow preventer. Substantiation: Section 10.10.2.5.1 requires a forward flow test of the backflow preventer during the acceptance test. The proof that the test was run and the results need to be added to the test form. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This material was extracted from NFPA 24 Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, which has responsibility for these requirements. NFPA 13 cannot modify these requirements. This proposal will be addressed in NFPA 24, NFPA 24-35 (Log #CP5). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Bonds, R., Frakes, B., Laguna, A., Twele, S.________________________________________________________________ 13-366 Log #423 AUT-PRI Final Action: Reject(Figure 10.10.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise the “Test Description” portion of the figure (5th major category down from the top) by deleting the second and third sentences for “Flushing” and replacing them with a new sentence, Flush at one of the flow rates as specified in section 10.10.2.1.3 The “Flushing” section would then read as follows: Flushing: Flow the required rate until water is clear as indicated by no collection of foreign material in burlap bags at outlets such as hydrants and blow offs. Flush at one of the flow rates as specified in section 10.10.2.1.3.Substantiation: As written, the Figure only recognizes two of the three methods for determining appropriate flow conditions for the flush test. Rather than list all of the appropriate methods, it might be easier just to reference them. Alternately, the committee could add a check box to the form asking if the flow was obtained by the system demand, the 10 ft/s velocity, or the maximum flow available. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This material was extracted from NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, which has responsibility for these requirements. NFPA 13 cannot modify these requirements. This proposal will be addressed in NFPA 24, NFPA 24-36 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Bonds, R., Frakes, B., Laguna, A., Twele, S.________________________________________________________________ 13-367 Log #231 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: General. The requirements of Section 11.1 shall apply to all sprinkler systems unless modified by a specific section of Chapter 11 or Chapter 12.When a water mist system is installed, all design approaches shall be per NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems.Substantiation: For installations of water mist systems in sprinkler applications, all installation requirements shall be determined by NFPA 750. This change is proposed for avoidance of confusion by AHJs in reviewing plans and installations for water mist. Committee Meeting Action: Reject

13-86

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Statement: It is not the function of NFPA 13 to direct what standard should be applied for other types of suppression systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-368 Log #270 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(11.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 11.1.2* Adjacent Hazards or Design Methods. For buildings with two or more adjacent hazards or design methods, the following shall apply: (1) Where areas are not physically separated by a barrier or partition capable of delaying heat from a fire in one area from fusing sprinklers in the adjacent area, the required sprinkler protection for the more demanding design basis shall extend 15 ft (4.6 m) beyond its perimeter. (2) The requirements of 11.1.2(1) shall not apply where the areas are separated by a barrier partition that is capable of preventing heat from a fire in one area from fusing sprinklers in the adjacent area. (3) The requirements of 11.1.2(1) shall not apply to the extension of more demanding criteria from an upper ceiling level to beneath a lower ceiling level where the difference in height between the ceiling levels is at least 2 ft (0.6 m). Substantiation: The provisions of 11.1.2 should include the same provisions for the limit of extent of the more demanding design criteria between adjacent areas that is included in 12.3(3) where the design area at the upper ceiling need not extend beneath a lower ceiling that is at least 2 ft below. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-369 Log #346 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(11.1.6.1 and 11.1.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Sections 11.1.6.1 and 11.1.6.3.Substantiation: These sections were supposed to be deleted last cycle when Sections 11.1.5.2 and 11.1.5.3 were inserted into the standard. Sections 11.1.6.1 and 11.1.6.3 are insufficient for handling the wide range of situations where some combination of inside hose and sprinklers are fed from a pump and/or tank. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: We need to retain the essence of the last sentence from 11.1.6.3. as a reminder that even when the pump does not supply the hose demand that the evaluation of the water supply to the pumps must still address it. ________________________________________________________________ 13-370 Log #343 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(11.2.3.1.1(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new subparagraph (4) as follows: (4) Special design approaches in accordance with Section 11.3. Substantiation: There is currently no way to legally use Section 11.3 with hydraulically calculated systems, which certainly was not the intent of the committee. But only density/area or room design are currently allowed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: DENHARDT, J.: This proposal is not needed. Paragraph 11.1.1 which states, “A building or portion thereof shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with any applicable design basis at the discretion of the designer.”, already allows the designer to use any method which by default allows the deign to be in accordance with Section 11.3. We should reject this proposal. HUGGINS, R.: There are two problems with accepting this proposal. The first one is that 11.3 is a totally separate and nonrelated section from 11.2 so such a reference in 11.2 is inappropriate. It’s like having something in 8.6 on SSU&P sprinklers addressing sidewall sprinklers. The second point is that it is unnecessary. The general criteria of 11.1 covers all hydraulically calculated systems. If there is no legal way to currently use 11.3 without this change then there is no legal way to use any of the storage chapters. This is not the case since they AND 11.3 are covered by 11.1.

________________________________________________________________ 13-371 Log #344 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(11.2.3.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Section 11.2.3.1.2 to add, “as calculated using one of the methods in Section 11.2.3.1.1” so that the sentence reads, The minimum water supply as calculated using one of the methods in Section 11.2.3.1.1 shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 11.2.3.1.2. Substantiation: NFPA 13 used to contain the concept that the water supply only needed to last for the duration specified in the table for the remote area. Somehow, this important clarification has disappeared in the rewrite of the chapters. Without this information, AHJ’s are requiring the duration to be calculated using the sprinklers closest to the water supply, because they will be the sprinklers that discharge the most water. This has never been the intent of NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-372 Log #123 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.2.3.1.4(3))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a sentence at the end of 11.2.3.1.4(3) to read as follows: The term “adjacent” shall apply to any sprinkler system protecting a space above, below or next to the qualifying concealed space except where a barrier with a fire resistance rating at least equivalent to the water supply duration completely separates the concealed space from the sprinklered area. Substantiation: Clarification is needed on where to apply the 3000 sq ft rule. The word “adjacent” is not always interpreted as meaning above or below, but a sprinkler system above an unsprinklered concealed space should have the additional design area in case the fire breaks out of the concealed space above the concealed space. However, the 3000 sq ft rule should not apply to a sprinkler system on the other side of a fire resistance rated barrier from an unsprinklered concealed space. The fire should not be able to penetrate the barrier during the time that the fire sprinkler system is designed to be discharging water. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAccept proposal and add Annex note as second paragraph to existing text as follows: A.11.2.3.1.4(3) In order for the minimum 3,000 sf requirement for the size of the remote area to not be extend to the adjacent area, the qualifying concealed space must be separated by the entire fire rated assembly. Such assemblies often have combustibles structural members separating the exterior membranes that can create a concealed combustible space that may qualify for omitting sprinkler protection. If the fire rated assembly is the qualifying concealed space, an interior fire would greatly reduce the assigned fire rated duration.Committee Statement: Clarification needed on separation of the concealed space. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-373 Log #161 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.2.3.1.4(4)(k))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add allowance to 11.2.3.1.4(4) that omitting protection per 8.15.1.2.17 does not require a 3,000 sf remote area. Substantiation: This section was added last cycle to chap 8 and provides a level pf protection that does not warrant requiring a 3,000 sf ft minimum remote area. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-374 (Log #559). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-374 Log #559 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(11.2.3.1.4(4)(k))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven J. Scandaliato, SDG, LLCRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: (k) Concealed spaces formed by noncombustible or limited-combustible ceilings suspended from the bottom of wood joists and composite wood joists with a maximum nominal chord width of 2 in., where joist spaces are full of noncombustible batt insulation with a maximum 2 in. air space between the roof decking material and the top of the batt insulation. Facing must meet the requirements for noncombustible or limited-combustible material covering the surface of the bottom chord of each joist and secured in place per the

13-87

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 manufacturer’s recommendations. Substantiation: This combustible concealed space exemption should be added to the list of those types of non-sprinklered combustible concealed spaces that do not require the 3000 sf. remote area. This combustible concealed space exemption closely mirrors several of those already in the list and should be added for consistency. It typifies the creation of a non or limited combustible concealed space in which a fire that ignites in this space would not be expected to grow at a rate that would necessitate the doubled area of operation. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-375 Log #69 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.2.3.2.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 11.2.3.2.2.3 For extended coverage sprinklers, the minimum design area shall be that corresponding to the hazard in Figure 11.2.3.1.1 or the area protected by five sprinklers whichever is greater except as allowed by Section 11.2.3.3.7.Substantiation: This section should recognize that there can be a design area for extended coverage sprinklers with less than 5 sprinklers. For instance there is one sprinkler on the market that will result in a 3 sprinkler design at maximum spacing along a corridor. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This section is for all occupancy classifications and room configurations whereas the referenced section 11.2.3.3.7 is a different design method that applies just to corridors in a light hazard occupancy. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-376 Log #531 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Figure 11.2.3.2.3.1 and A.11.2.3.2.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John C. Moore, Louisiana Office of the State Fire MarshalRecommendation: Replace Figure 11.2.3.2.3.1 and the formula with the revised Figure 11.2.3.2.3.1 based on the revised formula of: “y = -4x + 80 “ Add Annex: “A.11.2.3.2.3.1 The area reduction formula can also be used to derive the formula for y = the percentage of the base design area to be calculated: “y = 4x + 20”, which begins at 60 percent of the design area at 10 ft and reaches 100 percent of the design area at 20 ft.”

Substantiation: The current formula of 13:11.2.3.2.3.1; “y = (-3×/2) + 55” creates a sudden 25% drop in design area for the 1/8” drop in ceiling height, from 20.01’ to 20’ which is visibly irrational. The revised formula continues to acknowledge the effect of the quick response sprinklers by beginning a reduction at 20 ft with a more rational bend in the line and produces the 40 percent reduction in design area at a ceiling height of 10 ft. Further, line graphed from the revised formula is not only more rational, but the computation is more readily done without calculator (or pencil) and will result in savings in time and fewer errors. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No technical data submitted supporting reduction of the reduction of the allowance.

Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-377 Log #271 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.2.3.2.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add a new 11.2.3.2.7 and renumber remaining sections:11.2.3.2.7 Where K-11.2 (160) or larger sprinklers are used for extra hazard occupancies, the design area shall be permitted to be reduced by 25 percent, but not below 2000 ft2 (186 m2), regardless of temperature rating.Substantiation: The provisions of the new 11.2.3.2.7 should be added to recognize the benefit of the use of the K11.2 or larger sprinkler in reducing the operating area of system design as was added to 15.2.8 (2) (b) in the last revision cycle. This will allow the 25% reduction in area for the use of K11.2 or larger sprinklers for storage covered by Chapter 13 as referenced from 13.2.2. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Although allowed for storage, the fire dynamics is notably different for Extra Hazard so explicit technical data is needed to support proposed change. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: BELLAMY, T.: The original intention of the submission as indicated in the substantiation was to correct the allowance for a 25% reduction for storage applications covered by Chapter 13. The change should have been more appropriately made to the Chapter 13 reference back to Chapter 11. ________________________________________________________________ 13-378 Log #560 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.2.3.2.7.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven J. Scandaliato, SDG, LLCRecommendation: When 11.2.3.1.4 is applied, the required density may be adjusted for the determined remote area using Figure 11.2.3.1.1 (Density / Area Curve). Substantiation: Currently, the standard is vague when it comes to the application of single point criteria when adjusting the remote area for non-sprinklered combustible concealed spaces. This text would provide guidance. Substantiation is the same narrative in the handbook for 11.2.3.2.1.2 and 11.2.3.2.1.3. “Selection of a point on the high end - that is, larger operation area of the density/area curve allows for a lower density and, therefore, lower pressure, but a higher total water demand for the system, as well as a larger fire. Therefore, more sprinklers would be expected to operate.” This would be consistent with the philosophy for doubling the remote area for non-sprinklered combustible concealed spaces. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The 3,000 sf requirement applies just to the final size of the remote area and does not require a specific starting density such as at the bottom of the curve. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-379 Log #162 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.2.3.3.6, 11.2.3.3.7, and A.11.2.3.3.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete 11.2.3.3.6. 11.2.3.3.7 Where the area under consideration is a corridor protected by a single row of sprinklers with unprotected openings, in a light hazard occupancy, the design area shall include all sprinklers in the corridor to a mximum of five, or when extended coverage sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within 75 linear feet (22.9 linear meters) of the corridor. A.11.2.3.3.7 The required number of sprinklers is not affected by the presence of unprotected openings.Substantiation: Both 11.2.3.3.6 and 11.2.3.3.7 require a maximum of 5 sprinklers and the only difference is one says protected openings and the other says unprotected opening. In the 2002 edition, corridors with unprotected openings required seven sprinklers but in the 2007 edition, the criteria was changed and since the requirements are the same, there is no need for both paragraphs. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: 11.2.3.3.7 applies just to light hazard occupancies.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-88

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-380 Log #246 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.2.3.4.4 and 22.4.4.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Fraser S. Wylie, Telgian Corp.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 11.2.3.4.4 Automatic sprinklers under open gratings as discussed in sections 8.6.5.3.5, 8.8.5.3.4, 8.11.5.3.3 and 8.12.5.3.3 shall be designed to maintain a minimum discharge pressure of 15 psi (1 bar) for the most hydraulically demanding six sprinklers. Open gratings sprinkler demand shall not be required to be added to the ceiling sprinkler demand. Sprinklers under open gratings shall not protect an area of more than 100 sq ft. 22.4.4.1.3 Open Gratings. Automatic sprinklers under open gratings as discussed in sections 8.6.5.3.5, 8.8.5.3.4, 8.11.5.3.3 and 8.12.5.3.3 shall be designed to maintain a minimum discharge pressure of 15 psi (1 bar) for the most hydraulically demanding six sprinklers. Open gratings sprinkler demand shall not be required to be added to the ceiling sprinkler demand. Sprinklers under open gratings shall not protect an area of more than 100 sq ft.Substantiation: The provisions of 8.6.5.3.5, 8.8.5.3.4, 8.11.5.3.3 and 8.12.5.3.3 provide no mandatory guidance as to the appropriate design criteria for the sprinklers added under open gratings. Without mandatory design parameters the user is left without sufficient guidance to determine adequate protection for such arrangement. The proposed protection criterion was developed based on the outlined protection guidance for palletized, solid pile, bin box or shelf storage of class I through class IV commodities over 12 ft with walkways at vertical intervals of not over 12ft (section 14.5 (2)). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Although it is recognized that specific design criteria is needed for sprinklers installed under open grating, this proposal attempts to assign a design intended for sprinklers installed under generally narrow grated walkways (14.5(2)) to a more general situation where other design criteria such as a second remote area may be more appropriate. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-381 Log #70 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(11.3.1.1.1 and 11.3.1.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:11.3.1.1.1 When residential sprinklers are mixed with quick response sprinklers, the requirements of Sections 11.2.3.2 or 11.2.3.3 shall apply. 11.3.1.1.2 The residential sprinklers in Section 11.3.1.1.1 shall be capable of supplying the greater of the following: (1) In accordance with minimum flow rates indicated in individual listings (2) Calculated based on delivering a minimum of 0.1 gpm/sq ft (4.1 mm/min) over the design area in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8.5.2.1 or 8.6.2.1.2. Substantiation: Section 8.4.5.3 allows sprinklers other than a residential sprinkler to be in a compartment as long as that sprinkler meets the fast response criteria of 3.6.1(a)(1). Chapter 11 does not currently give guidance on how to calculate if they are mixed. With the addition of the 3000 sq ft requirement for unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces, one could also have a situation where residential and QR sprinklers could be mixed in a design area as there may not be enough residential sprinklers to reach the 3000 square feet. Since the preferred sprinkler to use in dwelling units is a residential sprinkler, this will allow a QR sprinkler with a longer throw than is available in residential to be used while still having residential sprinklers in the remainder of the dwelling unit. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Can not mix QR with Residential Heads in Design Basis. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-382 Log #367 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(11.3.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Section 11.3.1.2 as follows: Unless the requirements of Section 11.2.3.1.4(4) are met for buildings having unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces, as described in Sections 8.15.1.2 and 8.15.6, the minimum design area of sprinkler operation for that portion of the building shall be eight sprinklers 3000 ft2 (279 m2). Revise Section 11.3.1.2.1 as follows: The design area of eight sprinklers 3000 ft2 (279 m2) shall be applied only to the portion of the residential sprinklers that are adjacent to the qualifying combustible concealed space. Delete Section 11.3.2.2 When applying the 3000 ft2 (279 m2) design area, the rules of 22.4.4.1.1 and 22.4.4.6.1 shall be permitted to applySubstantiation: The requirement for a 3000 sq ft design area for residential sprinklers was new to the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 and is causing significant problems due to the dramatic increase in cost that the requirement is forcing.

The 3000 ft2 design area requirement was based on the idea that if there was an unsprinklered combustible concealed space then there would be a chance of a fire spreading through that space and causing a second fire of equal size to the first fire somewhere else. The original design area of 1500 ft2 was doubled to be able to provide protection for a second fire of equal size. Following this same logic, if one fire in a residential area can be controlled with four sprinklers, then two fires would require an eight sprinkler design. A 3000 ft2 design area is significantly larger than two residential sprinkler fires and is more than is necessary. Experience with residential sprinklers and NFPA 13 systems has been good for almost 30 years. The tremendous cost of the 3000 sq ft design cannot be justified on a cost/benefit analysis. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-383 Log #124 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.3.1.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a sentence at the end of 11.3.1.2.1 to read as follows: The term “adjacent” shall apply to any sprinkler system protecting a space above, below or next to the qualifying concealed space except where a barrier with a fire resistance rating at least equivalent to the water supply duration completely separates the concealed space from the sprinklered area. Substantiation: Clarification is needed on where to apply the 3000 sq ft rule. The word “adjacent” is not always interpreted as meaning above or below, but a sprinkler system above an unsprinklered concealed space should have the additional design area in case the fire breaks out of the concealed space above the concealed space. However, the 3000 sq ft rule should not apply to a sprinkler system on the other side of a fire resistance rated barrier from an unsprinklered concealed space. The fire should not be able to penetrate the barrier during the time that the fire sprinkler system is designed to be discharging water. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAccept proposal and add Annex note as second paragraph to existing text as follows: A.11.3.1.2.1 In order for the minimum eight sprinkler requirement for the size of the remote area to not be extend to the adjacent area, the qualifying concealed space must be separated by the entire fire rated assembly. Such assemblies often have combustibles structural members separating the exterior membranes that can create a concealed combustible space that may qualify for omitting sprinkler protection. If the fire rated assembly is the qualifying concealed space, an interior fire would greatly reduce the assigned fire rated duration.Committee Statement: Clarification on needed on separation of the concealed space. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-384 Log #CP307 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(12.1.3.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text as follows: 12.1.3.4.4 Where the clearance exceeds 10 ft for Section 16.3 and Chapter 17 or Section 17.2, protection shall be based upon the storage height that would result in a 10 ft distance between the ceiling and the top of storage or providing one level of supplemental, quick-response in-rack sprinklers located directly below the top tier of storage and at every flue space intersection. 12.1.3.4.5 Where the clearance exceeds 10ft for Section 17.3 protection shall be based upon providing one level of supplemental, quick-response in-rack sprinklers locvated directly below the top tier of storage and at every flue space intersection. 12.1.3.4.4.1 12.1.3.4.6 When applying the supplemental in-rack sprinklers...”.12.1.3.4.4.2 12.1.3.4.7 If in-rack sprinklers are required...”.Substantiation: The problem with allowing the option to artificially raise the storge height for plastic over 25 ft is that assigning additional height does not increase the applicable protection. For less then 25 ft, it triggers a higher ceiling density and more likely in-rack sprinklers. With in-racks for the <25 ft height, one would mimic the in-rack arrangement for the artificially assigned greater height of 25 ft. For a 30 ft rack assigned as a 40ft rack, the pattern stays the same as does the ceiling density. As such, only the supplemental in-rack option increases the applicable protection. The supplemental in-rack criteria applies to both 12.1.3.4.3 and 12.1.3.4.4 so making it a subset of just 12.1.3.4.4 seems inappropriate. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-89

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-385 Log #139 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 12.2.3.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add the following to bottom of Table 12.2.3.1.6>35 ft Roof/Ceiling Height - Not permittedSubstantiation: It is implied that ceiling heights greater than 35 ft-0” are not permitted by its omission. We have received a technical interpretation to the contrary. Adding this to the table makes it clear. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Correct reference is Table 15.2.6 - accept new language as a new note (5). Committee Statement: Editorial change to submitters reference to a previous standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-386 Log #163 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:12.5.2 Densities and areas shall be selected so that the final area of operation after the 30% increase is not greater than 6000 3900 ft2 (557.4 m2)Substantiation: Correlates with the 3000 sf maximum area.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Correct the metric conversion to (360m2).Committee Statement: Editorial.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-387 Log #272 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Delete the following text:12.5.2 Densities and areas shall be selected so that the final area of operation after the 30 percent increase is not greater than 6,000 ft² (557.4 m²).Substantiation: With the reduced allowable areas for storage the maximum possible final area with the 30% increase would only be 3,900 ft² making 12.5.2 unnecessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-386 (Log #163). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-388 Log #347 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.6.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Section 12.6.7 to put a comma between “ordinary hazard” and “storage of Class I”. Substantiation: Ordinary hazard is a separate hazard all by itself that can be protected with these sprinklers. The comma was in the 2007 and previous editions of NFPA 13 and was never supposed to be eliminated. The NFPA has created a problem by eliminating the comma because AHJ’s are now only allowing these sprinklers to protect storage. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept wording with the addition of “occupancies,” after light and ordinary hazard. Committee Statement: The addition of occupancy, after ordinary hazard helps to clarify the issue identified by the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-389 Log #449 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.6.7(1) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 12.6.7 (1) When utilizing ESFR sprinklers to protect ordinary hazard occupancies, pressure from the ESFR Tables shall be based on maximum ceiling height as well as the class 1 commodity.Substantiation: Although Section 12.6.7 allows for ESFR sprinklers to protect ordinary hazard occupancies, guidance is required for choosing the appropriate pressure

Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new 12.6.7.1 as follows: ESFR and CMSA sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect light and ordinary hazard occupancies. Committee Statement: The revised wording clarifies that any design in Chapter 12-20 is appropriate for light or ordinary hazard occupancies. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I do not agree with the Committee Action taken here by the SSD TC, because it is in conflict with the Action taken by the SSI TC on Proposal 13-181 (Log #315), where it was decided that quick response CMSA sprinklers can be used to protect light hazard and ordinary hazard occupancies while standard response CMSA sprinklers can only be used for ordinary hazard. These matters need to be reconsidered and coordinated by the two Committees. ________________________________________________________________ 13-390 Log #199 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.7.7.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Regardless of the design method selected, the minimum design density for any sprinkler system installed in a storage occupancy shall be not less than 0.15 gpm per ft2 after all adjustments are made.Substantiation: Chapter 16 provides scenarios with spray sprinklers at the ceiling plus with all rack levels protected, the final density prescribed can be (0.60) which is less than the density normally applied to residential and light hazard occupancy use groups. This seems wrong on many levels, especially if an occupant moves out and removes the racking. The storage sections should have (at the very least) the same minimum density requirements as the normal density for light hazard occupancies. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Strike “Regardless of the design method selected” Committee Statement: Striking the first part of the new text is more in line with the intent of the minimum design. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-391 Log #125 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(12.9.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a sentence at the end of 12.9.1 to read as follows: The term “adjacent” shall apply to any sprinkler system protecting a space above, below or next to the qualifying concealed space except where a barrier with a fire resistance rating at least equivalent to the water supply duration completely separates the concealed space from the sprinklered area. Substantiation: Clarification is needed on where to apply the 3000 sq ft rule. The word “adjacent” is not always interpreted as meaning above or below, but a sprinkler system above an unsprinklered concealed space should have the additional design area in case the fire breaks out of the concealed space above the concealed space. However, the 3000 sq ft rule should not apply to a sprinkler system on the other side of a fire resistance rated barrier from an unsprinklered concealed space. The fire should not be able to penetrate the barrier during the time that the fire sprinkler system is designed to be discharging water. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider this matter and revise it to correspond with Proposal 13-372, (Log #123), where it was decided to Accept in Principle and add the text describing “adjacent” in an Annex item A.11.2.3.1.4(3). Similarly, this matter should be added to the Annex as A.12.9.1. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: We need to add the new annex material from 13-372 (Log #123) and 13-383 (Log #124) on the same issue. ________________________________________________________________ 13-392 Log #101 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.12)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Sultan M. Javeri, SC EngineeringRecommendation: In the note at the bottom of table 12.12.1.2(a) revise as follows *For ceiling heights clearances that exceed 30 ft (9.1 m) 20 ft (6.1 m), apply the requirements in 12.1.3.4.3.

13-90

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: The present text contradicts the maximum building height in the table. It was not the intent of the committee to allow CMAD sprinklers to be used for protection of idle pallets in buildings above 9.1m. In its present form, the table allows you to protect 6m of idle wood palettes on the floor in a 12m building using a density of 24.5 over 186m² with ordinary temperature k 240 heads or 24.5 over 418m² using high temperature k160 heads. To my knowledge Protection of idle pallets using CMAD sprinklers in buildings over 9.1 in height have not been tested. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-394 (Log #175). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-393 Log #CP310 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(12.12.1.2, 12.12.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 12.12.1.2 * (delete the asterisk) A.12.12.1.2 No additional protection is necessary provided the requirements of 12.12.1.2 are met.12.12.2 Plastic Pallets. 12.12.2.1 Plastic pallets shall be permitted to be stored in the following manners: (1) Plastic pallets shall be permitted to be stored outside. (2) Plastic pallets shall be permitted to be stored in a detached structure. (3) Plastic pallets shall be permitted to be stored indoors where arranged and protected in accordance with the requirements of 12.12.2.2. Moved the following text to 12.12.2.2 (4) Indoor storage of plastic pallets shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with the requirements of Table 12.12.2.1. (5) Indoor storage of plastic pallets shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with the following arrangement: (a) Maximum storage height of 10 ft (3.05 m) (b) Maximum ceiling height of 30 ft (9.1 m) (c) Sprinkler density 0.6 gpm/ft2 (24.4 mm/min) over 2000 ft2(186 m2) (d) Minimum sprinkler K-factor of 16.8 (240) (6) Indoor storage of non-wood pallets having a demonstrated fire hazard that is equal to or less than idle wood pallets and is listed for such equivalency shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with 12.12.1. (7) When specific test data are available, the data shall take precedence in determining the required protection of idle plastic pallets. 12.12.2.2 Plastic pallets where stored indoors shall be protected as follows: Protection Criteria for Plastic Pallets Stored Indoors 12.12.2.2.1 (6) Indoor storage of Non-wood pallets having a demonstrated fire hazard that is equal to or less than idle wood pallets and is listed for such equivalency shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with 12.12.1. 12.12.2.2.2 (7) When specific test data are available, the data shall take precedence in determining the required protection of idle plastic pallets. 12.12.2.2.3 (4) Indoor storage of plastic pallets Protection with ESFR sprinklers shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with the requirements of Table 12.12.2.1. 12.12.2.2.4 Protection with spray sprinklers shall be in accordance with one of the following: 12.12.2.2.4.1 (1) Where stored in cutoff rooms, the following shall apply: (a) The cutoff rooms shall have at least one exterior wall. (b) The plastic pallet storage shall be separated from the remainder of the building by 3 hour–rated fire walls. (c) Sprinkler protection by one of the following: i. The storage shall be protected by sprinklers designed to deliver 0.6 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) for the entire room or by high-expansion foam and sprinklers designed to deliver 0.30 gpm/ft2(12.2 mm/min) for the entire room. ii. K-14 (200) ESFR upright sprinklers when the storage is on floor and the system is designed to supply all sprinklers in the room at 50 psi (3.4 bar) for a maximum of 30 ft (9.1 m) ceiling or 75 psi (5.2 bar) for a maximum 35 ft (10.7 m) ceiling. (d) The storage shall be piled no higher than 12 ft (3.7 m). (e) Any steel columns shall be protected by 1 hour fireproofing or a sidewall sprinkler directed to one side of the column at the top or at the 15 ft (4.6 m) level, whichever is lower. Flow from these sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from the sprinkler system demand for hydraulic calculations. 12.12.2.2.4.2 (2) Where stored without cutoffs from other storage, the following shall apply: (5) Indoor storage of plastic pallets shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with the following arrangement: (a) Maximum storage height of 10 ft (3.05 m) (b) Maximum ceiling height of 30 ft (9.1 m) (c) Sprinkler density 0.6 gpm/ft2(24.4 mm/min) over 2000 ft2(186 m2) (d) Minimum sprinkler K-factor of 16.8 (240) 12.12.2.2.4.3 Plastic pallets have no impact on the required sprinkler protection when stored as follows: (a) Plastic pallet Storage shall be piled no higher than 4 ft (1.2 m).

(b) Sprinkler protection shall employ high temperature–rated sprinklers. (c) Each pallet pile of no more than two stacks shall be separated from other pallet piles by at least 8 ft (2.4 m) of clear space or 25 ft (7.6 m) of stored commodity. d) Minimum ceiling design of OH2 12.12.2.3Idle plastic pallets shall be stored only in racks where protected in accordance with the requirements of Table 12.12.2.1. 12.12.2.3.1 When specific test data and a product listing are available, the data shall take precedence in determining the required protection of idle plastic pallets stored in racks. Substantiation: Provides clarification of protection criteria for plastic palletsCommittee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-394 Log #175 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 12.12.1.2(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete the following text: Footnote: * For ceiling heights that exceed 30ft (9.1 m), apply the requirements in 12.1.3.4.3Substantiation: The current wording directs that once the maximum ceiling height is extended, you can reduce the required protection. For instance, with 20 ft of storage in a 32 ft building, the criteria for 12 ft of storage applies. Obviously not the intent. A decision on whether the guidance for excessive clearance should allow exceeding a defined maximum ceiling height needs to be discussed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-395 Log #348 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Table 12.12.1.2(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Table 12.12.1.2(a) by changing the maximum ceiling heights in the following manner: 1. In the second row, make the maximum ceiling height 28 ft. 2. In the third row, make the maximum ceiling height 32 ft. 3. In the last two rows, make the maximum ceiling height 40 ft. 4. Delete the note at the bottom of the table. Substantiation: It does not make sense to have a table that limits the ceiling height to 30 ft and then give people a note that tells them how to increase the ceiling height above 30 ft. If the intent is to allow 40 ft ceilings when there is 20 ft of storage, then we need to say that in the Table. We recognize that the table needs to make sure that people don’t have excessive clearance, but the note at the bottom of the table is the wrong way to accomplish this goal. For storage up to 8 ft in height, a 30 ft ceiling violates the rule of a maximum of 20 ft clearance, so the ceiling height needs to be cut down to 28 ft. For 12 ft storage, the ceiling height should be permitted to be 32 ft. Even if the owner is only going to store to 10 ft, a ceiling height of 32 ft is okay because the ceiling sprinklers are designed for a height of 12 ft. Similarly, where storage is up to 20 ft, a ceiling height of 40 ft should be allowed. If the owner only stores up to 15 ft, a 40 ft ceiling is okay because the sprinkler protection at the ceiling has been designed for 20 ft of storage. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No data submitted to support this change, Proposal 13-394 (Log #175) eliminated the note to allow higher ceiling heights. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-396 Log #152 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 12.12.1.2(b) and (c))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bo Hjorth, AlbaCon ABRecommendation: Complete metric overview needed.Substantiation: In Table 12.12.1.2(c), in line 10 of the Minimum Operating Pressure column, 15 psi is translated to 1.6 bar. Correct pressure should be 1.0 bar. There are also inconsistencies in the metric conversions between the tables, i.e., 40 ft is 12.1 m in one table and 12.2 m in the other, etc. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-91

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-397 Log #CP319 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 12.12.1.2(c), 12.12.2.1, 14.4.1, 15.4.1, 16.2.3.1, 17.2.3.1, 17.3.3.1, 18.4(d), 19.1.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Remove the 40 ft (12.2 m) ceiling only option for K14 (200) ESFR in the following Tables: Table 12.12.1.2 ( c) Table 12.12.2.1 Table 14.4.1 Table 15.4.1 Table 16.2.3.1 Table 16.3.3.1 Table 17.2.3.1 Table 17.3.3.1 Table 18.4(d) Table 19.1.2.3 Substantiation: Sprinklers with 20 ft (6.1 m) high clearance with certain fire ignition scenarios have shown to be a concern. This combination of high clearance with a storage height capable of generating strong fire plumes exist only at the 40 ft (12.2 m) ceiling height for the K14 (200) ESFR. Data has been provided to justify the restriction of K14 (200) ESFR sprinklers to maximum 35 ft (10.7) for ceiling only applications. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: JAVERI, S.: This proposal does not address the issue. It seems from the data that a clearance of 6m and above is an issue but not the ceiling height. These sprinklers have had successful tests in 12.2m ceiling with 10.6m storage (clearance 1.6m) why are we now removing this scenario from being protected with K14 ESFR? The issue to address is to limit the clearance not the building height. Explanation of Abstention: KEEPING, L.: I feel I must abstain on this issue, because I have not yet seen the data that was supposed to be provided. It was not distributed to all of the members of the TC and this omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: Certainly this is one for the committee to follow-up on as it was a single sprinkler that failed the test as opposed to more than one currently listed for this application. The substantiation indicates that data was provided to limit the application to a maximum ceiling height of 35 ft. which I don’t remember being the case. Was test data submitted for a 35 ft high ceiling that would allow it to be limited to it? BELLAMY, T.: While the test data provides basis for removal of the allowance, it is suggested that advisory language might be in order within the Annex to provide guidance for existing installations that utilized such criteria to avoid high clearance storage configurations. ________________________________________________________________ 13-398 Log #439 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.12.1.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new section 12.12.1.4 as follows: 12.12.1.4 Nonwood pallets that have been testing and listed to be equivalent to wood pallets in accordance with 5.6.2.6 shall be permitted to be protected as wood pallets when stored as idle pallets. Substantiation: While section 5.6.2.6 states that it is acceptable to ignore the increase in commodity classification, there is no statement in the standard as to how to protect the storage of these idle pallets. There has been some concern expressed by AHJ’s about allowing the storage of these pallets in racks since the testing to prove equivalency to wood is performed on a solid pile. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise “testing” to “tested”. Committee Statement: Editorial.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-399 Log #273 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(12.12.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 12.12.3.2 Idle wood pallet storage shall be permitted to be stored on the lowest lower levels of storage only where no storage or shelves are located above the stored pallets and the applicable protection criteria referenced in Section 12.12 are applied. Substantiation: As written the provisions of 12.12.3.2 would not allow the

storage of idle pallets at the bottom tier of a rack where other storage of shelves are located above, but would allow the storage of pallets and any intermediate height above the lowest level even when other storage or shelves are located above such idle pallets. It would appear more appropriate to indicate “lower levels” to prevent such arrangements. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Storage of idle wood pallets is limited to the lowest level of storage. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-400 Log #454 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(12.12.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:12.12.3.3 Where idle pallet storage is above a door, the idle pallet storage height and ceiling height shall be calculated from the base of storage above the door using the applicable protection criteria referenced in Section 12.12. Substantiation: Since the storage height is allowed to be calculated from the base of storage, clarification is needed for where the ceiling height is considered from. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-401 Log #453 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(12.12.3.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 12.12.3.4 Idle pallet storage above a door with 1 rack level only shall be considered on floor storage for the purpose of design and calculations.Substantiation: The type of rack typically utilized in above door pallet storage if limited to 1 level is more “aligned” with on floor storage than the type of double row industrial rack commonly used in storage. This would also bring in line with Section 12.12.3.3 which considers the height of storage as starting from the base of pallets. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise section 12.12.3.2 to remove “wood” in the first sentence and add “for on floor storage” after” criteria referenced” Committee Statement: The revision of 12.12.3.2 will satisfy the criteria for on floor storage to be used for storage above a door. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-402 Log #151 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 13.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bo Hjorth, AlbaCon ABRecommendation: Complete metric overview needed.Substantiation: In this table there are substantial metric errors. In the column for Maximum ceiling height the metric equivalent is often missing, e.g., Class IV Commodity, both storage options; Cartoned plastics, rack storage option, etc. There are also incorrect conversions. For Group A Plastics, Cartoned, 32 ft has been translated to 5.4 m; 8.2 m and -. Correct value shall be 9.6 m. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: See Proposal 13-405 (Log #274) for metric conversions. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-403 Log #176 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 13.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Table 13.2.1 Delete the 5th row: >10 to < 12 with a 32 ft ceiling. Substantiation: This criteria applies only to racks and is redundant with the last row. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: Note: Delete the fifth row of the Group A plastics, cartoned, unexpanded and expanded, table. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-92

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-404 Log #200 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 13.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert G. Caputo, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Under Group A Plastic Storage section of Table 13.2.1, revise metric value for maximum ceiling height to 9.8 m in rows 5 and 6 (32 ft in imperial value column shows as 5.2 m and 8.2 m respectively in metric column - both are incorrect). Substantiation: Editorial only.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: See Proposal 13-405 ( Log #274) for metric conversions. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-405 Log #274 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 13.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add SI equivalents for the indicated maximum ceiling heights for: - Class IV, Palletized, bin box, and shelf storage >10 ft to =12 ft- Class IV, Rack back to back shelf storage >10 ft to =12 ft- Group A Plastic, Cartoned, Unexpanded and expanded, Rack to >10 ft to =12 ft- Group A Plastic, Exposed, Unexpanded and expanded, Palletized, bin box, and shelf back-to-back shelf storage >5 ft to =8 ft- Group A Plastic, Exposed, Unexpanded and expanded, Rack >10 ft to =12 ft- Tires, On floor, one side >5 ft to =12 ft - Tires, Single-row rack, portable, on thread or on side >5 ft to =12 ft- Tires, Single-row rack, fixed, on thread or on side >5 ft to =12 ft (w/o in-racks)- Tires, Single-row rack, fixed, on thread or on side >5 ft to =12 ft (w/ in-racks)- Rolled Paper Storage, Heavy and medium weight, On end =10 ft- Rolled Paper Storage, Tissue and light weight =10 ftCorrect SI equivalent for the indicated maximum ceiling height for Group A Plastic, Cartoned, Unexpanded and expanded, Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack and back-to-back shelf storage >10 ft to =12 ft from 5.2 m to 8.2 m.Editorially correct the Type of Storage column of Table 13.2.1 as follows: -[st entry Under Class I-IV Commodity Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack, and back-to-back shelf storage -[st entry Under Class I-IV Commodity Rack and back-to-back storage -[st entry Under Cartoned Group A Plastic Storage Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack, and back-to-back shelf storage -[st entry Under Exposed Group A Plastic Storage Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack, and back-to-back shelf storage-\nd entry Under Exposed Group A Plastic Storage Palletized, bin box, and shelf, rack, and back-to-back shelf storage -]rd entry Under Exposed Group A Plastic Storage Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack, and back-to-back shelf storage -^th entry Under Exposed Group A Plastic Storage Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack, and back-to-back shelf storage -`th entry Under Exposed Group A Plastic Storage Palletized, bin box, and shelf, and back-to-back shelf storage Substantiation: The indicated changes are necessary to complete the SI equivalent s and make the Table editorially correct. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise Table 13.2.2 to read as follows: See Table 13.2.1 on the next 2 pages Committee Statement: 1. Accept the grammatical changes 2. Item #6 - adding RACK is not grammatical. Rack has never been in the 2nd entry (5 – 8 ft in a 28 ft bldg) under exposed Group A plastic although it is allowed in 5-10 ft in a 15 ft building. The difference is 5 ft clearance vs a 20 ft clearance 3. Item 6 to 9: no legislative format Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

________________________________________________________________ 13-406 Log #275 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure 13.2.1, 14.2.4.1, 14.2.4.2, 16.2.1.3.2(a) through (g))________________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC directs the SSD TC to review all of the design curves for presentation and context for consistency during the next cycle.Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Rescale and/or truncate the upper portion of the Figures above 3,000 ft². Substantiation: The upper portion of the Figures are not longer needed with the reduction in allowable area to 3,000 ft². Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Truncate figures at 4,000 sf. Eliminate the graph above te 4,000 sf mark. Global change to do this for all the graphs. Committee Statement: Correlate with storage chapters. There is no need to have the graph go above the 4,000 sf mark as the curves to not go above that level. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-407 Log #349 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(13.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new Section 13.3.4 as follows: 13.3.4 In-Rack Sprinkler Location13.3.4.1 Where in-rack sprinklers are required for miscellaneous storage, they shall be placed at the rack tier at or above the one-half of the rack height.13.3.4.2 Where in-rack sprinklers are required for miscellaneous storage, they shall be placed in the longitudinal flue spaces at intersections with transverse flues with a maximum horizontal distance of 12 ft between sprinklers protecting Class I, II and III commodities and a maximum horizontal distance of 8 ft between sprinklers protecting Class IV commodities or Group A plastics.13.3.4.3 Where in-rack sprinklers are required for miscellaneous storage and no transverse flues exist, sprinklers shall be installed in longitudinal flue spaces not exceeding the maximum distances in Section 13.3.4.2.Substantiation: There are currently no requirements for spacing of in-rack sprinklers installed in accordance with Chapter 13. These rules have been adapted from the rules of Chapter 16 and Chapter 17 for storage under 25 ft in height. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise as follows: 13.3.3.4 In-Rack Sprinkler Locations 13.3.3.4.1 In-racks sprinklers for miscellaneous storage, shall be located at the first tier level at or above one-half of the storage height. 13.3.3.4.2 Maximum horizontal spacing of in-rack sprinklers in single- or double-row racks with nonencapsulated, Class I, II, III or IV commodities shall be in accordance with Table 13.3.3.4.2. For encapsulated Class I-IV commodities and Group A plastic commodities, maximum horizontal spacing shall be 8 ft (2.4 m).

13.3.3.4.3 In-rack sprinklers shall be located in the longitudinal flue at the intersection of the transverse flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules. 13.3.3.4.4 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules. 13.3.3.4.5 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules. Committee Statement: Text better correlates with 16.2.4 and 17.2.4.2Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment, that instead of using the Table13.3.3.4.2 (copied from the current Table 16.2.4.2.1) as presented in this proposal, the new version of Table 16.2.4.2.1 as found in Proposal 13-444, (Log #286) should be copied instead.

Table 13.3.3.4.2 In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing for Class I, II, III, and IV Commodities Stored Up to 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height

Commodity ClassAisle Widths I and II III IVft m ft m ft m ft m8 2.4 12 3.7 12 3.7 10 3.04 1.2 12 3.7 10 3.0 10 3.0

13-93


Table 13.2.1 Discharge Criteria for Miscellaneous Storage 12 ft (3.7 m) or Less in Height

Commodity Type of Storage

Storage Height

Maximum CeilingHeight

DesignCurveFigure13.2.1 Note

Inside Hose

TotalCombined Inside and

Outside Hose Duration(minutes)ft m ft m gpm L/min gpm L/min

Class I to Class IV

Class I

Solid-Piled, Palletized, bin box, shelf, and rack and back-to-back shelf storage

≤12 ≤3.7 — — OH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Class II ≤10 ≤3.05 — — OH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Class II >10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

— — OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Class III ≤12 ≤3.7 — — OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Class IV ≤10 ≤3.05 — — OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Class IV Palletized, bin box, and shelf, and Solid-Piled

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

32 9.8 OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Rack and back-to-back shelf storage

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

32 9.8 EH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

Group A Plastic Storage

Cartoned Unexpanded and expanded


≤5 ≤1.5 — — OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

>5 to ≤10

>1.5 to ≤3.05

15 4.6 EH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

>5 to ≤10

>1.5 to≤3.05

20 6.1 EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

17 5.2 9.8

EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

32 5.2 9.8

OH2 + 1 level of in-rack

0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Solid-Piled, Palletized, bin box, shelf, and back-to-back shelf storage

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

32 8.2 9.8

EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

Rack >10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

32 9.8 OH2 + 1 level of in-rack

0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

13-94


Table 13.2.1 Discharge Criteria for Miscellaneous Storage 12 ft (3.7 m) or Less in Height (continued)

Exposed

Unexpanded and expanded


≤5 ≤1.5 — — OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Solid-Piled, Palletized, bin box, and shelf and back-to-back shelf storage

>5 to ≤8 >1.5 to ≤2.4

28 — EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120


>5 to ≤10

>1.5 to ≤3.05

15 4.6 EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

Unexpanded


>5 to ≤10

>1.5 to ≤3.05

20 6.1 EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

Expanded

Rack >5 to ≤10

>1.5 to ≤3.05


0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Unexpanded and expanded

Solid-Piled, Palletized, bin box, and shelf and back-to-back shelf storage

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

17 5.2 EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

Rack

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7

17 5.2 EH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

>10 to ≤12

>3.05 to ≤3.7


0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Tire Storage

Tires

On floor, on side >5 to ≤12

>1.5 to ≤3.7

32 9.8 EH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

On floor, on tread or on side

≤5 ≤1.5 — — OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Single-, double-, or multiple-row racks on tread or on side

≤5 ≤1.5 —

— OH2

0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Single-row rack, portable, on tread or on side

>5 to ≤12

>1.5 to ≤3.7

32 9.8 EH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

Single-row rack, fixed, on tread or on side

>5 to ≤12

>1.5 to ≤3.7

32 9.8 EH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

500 1893 120

>5 to ≤12

>1.5 to ≤3.7

32 9.8

OH2

+ 1 level of in-rack

0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Rolled Paper Storage

Heavy and medium weight On end ≤10 ≤3.05 30 9.1 OH2 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 90

Tissue and light weight On end ≤10 ≤3.05 30 9.1 EH1 0, 50, 100

0, 189, 379

250 946 120

13-95

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-408 Log #539 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Chapter 14)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Rewrite Chapter 14 so that it applies only to Class 1, 2 and 3 commodities and arrange the protection provided within the section so that it applies to all three commodities (i.e. group Class 1, 2 and 3 commodities into a single protection table). Substantiation: The separation of commodity hazards into Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 categories made sense when ceiling-level protection options were limited to either K5.6 or K8.0 sprinklers. However over the years new ceiling-level sprinklers have been developed that allow for very little pressure difference between the protection needed between these three commodity listings. For example, Class 3 solid-piled storage maintained to 30 ft high and protected by a ordinary temperature rated sprinkler would require a density of about 0.54 gpm/ft2. With a K5.6 sprinkler on 10 ft x 10 ft spacing, this would require a minimum sprinkler pressure of 94 psi. However with sprinklers available on the market today, this pressure is greatly reduced; in fact a K14.0 sprinkler would only require 15 psi to meet this requirement. Therefore we no longer need to divide up the commodity hazards as we have in the past and should simply consider anything that is cellulosic in matter to apply to this chapter. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There is a need to have the flexibility to have separate protection methods for various commodity classes. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: The substantiation indicates there is a need to have flexibility for the various different commodity classifications of Class 1, 2 and 3. I would agree with this 10 years ago but between changes in commodities over the past 10 years as well as changes in ceiling-level sprinkler technology has made the gaps that once existed to be much closer compared to 40 years ago. The committee is assuming that what was acceptable protection based on testing, which there is none for Class 1, back in the late 1960’s still is applicable today, which is not the case. Not only do we have better sprinklers available to us for ceiling level protection, but Class 2 commodities now behave more like Class 3 commodities due to the manufacturing process used by companies that make corrugated cardboard. ________________________________________________________________ 13-409 Log #540 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Chapter 14 and 15)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Move the protection requirements in Chapter 14 for Class 4 into Chapter 15 and make them equal to that required for cartoned Group A plastics. Substantiation: The separation of commodity hazards into Class 4 and cartoned unexpanded Group A plastics made sense when ceiling-level protection options were limited to either K5.6 or K8.0 sprinklers. However over the years new ceiling-level sprinklers have been developed that allow for very little pressure difference between the protection needed between these two commodity listings. For example, Class 4 solid-piled storage maintained to 25 ft high and protected by an ordinary temperature rated sprinkler would require a density of about 0.55 gpm/ft2. With a K5.6 sprinkler on 10 ft x 10 ft spacing, this would require a minimum sprinkler pressure of 94 psi. However with sprinklers available on the market today, this pressure is greatly reduced; in fact a K16.8 sprinkler would only require 11 psi to meet this requirement. With cartoned unexpanded Group A plastics, the density increases to 0.70 gpm/ft2. With a K5.6 sprinkler on 10 ft x 10 ft spacing, this would require a minimum sprinkler pressure of 156 psi. However with sprinklers available on the market today, this pressure is greatly reduced; in fact a K16.8 sprinkler would only require 17 psi to meet this requirement. Therefore we no longer need to divide up the commodity hazards as we have in the past and should simply consider anything that that is in a cardboard box that contains unexpanded plastic matter to apply to Chapter 15. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Class IV does not require the same protection as a Group A plastic. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: Class IV protection does not require the same level of protection as cartoned nonexpanded plastics in NFPA 13, but based on testing I have witnessed the differences between what is needed for Class IV and cartoned nonexpanded plastics is small enough that with today’s sprinklers that can be installed at ceiling level there is no need to separate them anymore.

________________________________________________________________ 13-410 Log #542 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 14 through 17)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Revised the hose stream and duration requirements so that they are based on the size of the demand area or the number of sprinklers expected to open during a fire event. For demand areas of 1200 sq ft or less, arrange for the hose stream to be 250 gpm and the duration to be 1 hour. For demand areas up to 1500 sq ft, arrange for the hose stream to be 500 gpm and the duration to be 1-1/2 hours. For demand areas over 1500 sq ft arrange for the hose stream to be 500 gpm and the duration to be 2 hours. Substantiation: Currently the guidelines for hose stream and duration are linked to the type of ceiling-level sprinkler installed as well as the commodity hazard being protected. With this concept the hose stream and duration requirements are linked to the performance of the sprinkler installed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleDraft Version of Section 12.8 of Chapter 12 and Other Modifications to Chapters 12 Through 20 Based on Log No. 542 12.8 Hose Demand Stream Allowance and Water Supply Duration.12.8.1* Tanks shall be sized to supply the equipment that they serve.12.8.2* Pumps shall be sized to supply the equipment that they serve.12.8.3 Water allowance for outside hose shall be added to the sprinkler requirement at the connection to the city main or a yard hydrant, whichever is closer to the system riser. 12.8.4 Where inside hose stations connections are planned or are required, the following shall apply: (1) A total water allowance of 50 gpm (189 L/min) for a single hose stations connection installation shall be added to the sprinkler requirements.(2) A total water allowance of 100 gpm (378 L/min) for a multiple hose stations connection installation shall be added to the sprinkler requirements.(3) The water allowance shall be added in 50 gpm (189 L/min) increments beginning at the most remote hose stations connection, with each increment added at the pressure required by the sprinkler system design at that point. 12.8.5 When hose valves for fire department use are attached to wet pipe sprinkler system risers in accordance with 8.17.5.2, the following shall apply: (1) The water supply shall not be required to be added to standpipe demand as determined from NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems.(2) Where the combined sprinkler system demand and hose stream allowance of Chapter 12 and Chapters 14 through 20 exceeds the requirements of NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, this higher demand shall be used. (3) For partially sprinklered buildings, the sprinkler demand, not including hose stream allowance, as indicated in Chapter 12 and Chapters 14 through 20 shall be added to the requirements given in NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems.12.8.6 Unless indicated otherwise, the minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 12.8.6 to the water supply for sprinklers. Unless indicated otherwise, this supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 12.8.6. See Table 12.8.6 on the next page Note 1 – For CSMA and ESFR sprinklers the additional sprinklers included in the design area for obstructions do not need to be considered in determining the total number of sprinklers in this column.Other modifications needed in Chapters 12 through 20 as a result of this proposal are as follows: 12.7.2* Systems with Multiple Hazard Classifications. For systems with multiple hazard classifications, the hose stream allowance and water supply duration shall be in accordance with 12.8 as well as one of the following:12.7.4 The minimum water supply requirements shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 12.8 to the water supply for sprinklers as determined by Chapter 12 through Chapter 20. 12.7.5 The minimum water supply requirements determined from 12.7.4 shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 12.8.14.1.3* The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 14.1.3 to the water supply for sprinklers. 14.1.4 This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 14.1.3. (See Section C.8.)Remove Table 14.1.3 15.1.1 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 15.1.1 to the water supply for sprinklers. This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 15.1.1. (See Section C.8.)Renumber “15.1.2* Storage Conditions”. as “15.1.1* Storage Conditions”Remove Table 15.1.1 Remove Note (4) from Tables 15.2.6(a) and 15.2.6(b) 15.3.4 Hose stream allowance and water supply duration requirements shall be in accordance with Table 15.3.1.

13-96


13/L542

/Tb 12

.8.6/CA/A2

012/RO

P

Tab

le 1

2.8.

6 H

ose

Stre

am A

llow

ance

and

Wat

er S

uppl

y D

urat

ion

Spri

nkle

r T

ype

Spri

nkle

r Sp

acin

g T

ype

Num

ber

of S

prin

kler

s in

Des

ign

Are

a1 Si

ze o

f Des

ign

Are

a

Hos

e St

ream

Allo

wan

ce

Wat

er S

uppl

y D

urat

ion

(min

utes

) gp

m

L/m

in

Con

trol M

ode

Den

sity

/Are

a

Stan

dard

and

Ex

tend

ed-

Cov

erag

e D

NA

Up

to 1

,200

ft² (

111

m²)

25

0 95

0 60

Ove

r 1,2

00 ft² (

111

m²)

up

to

1,50

0 ft²

(139

m²)

500

1900

90

Ove

r 1,5

00 ft² (

139

m²)

up

to

2,60

0 ft²

(240

m²)

500

1900

12

0

Ove

r 2,6

00 ft

² (24

0 m

²) 50

0 19

00

150

CM

SA

Stan

dard

Up

to 1

2

DN

A

250

950

60

Ove

r 12

to 1

5 50

0 19

00

90

Ove

r 15

to 2

5 50

0 19

00

120

Ove

r 25

500

1900

15

0

Exte

nded

-C

over

age

Up

to 6

DN

A

250

950

60

Ove

r 6 to

8

500

1900

90

Ove

r 8 to

12

500

1900

12

0

Ove

r 12

500

1900

15

0

ESFR

St

anda

rd

Up

to 1

2

DN

A

250

950

60

Ove

r 12

to 1

5 50

0 19

00

90

Ove

r 15

to 2

5 50

0 19

00

120

Ove

r 25

500

1900

15

0

13-97

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 16.2.1.3.5* The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 16.2.1.3.5 to the water supply for sprinklers determined in 16.2.1.3. This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 16.2.1.3.5 (See Section C.8.)Remove Table 16.2.1.3.5 16.2.2.5 Hose stream allowance and water supply duration requirements shall be in accordance with Table 16.2.2.1.16.3.1.3 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 16.3.1.3 to the water supply for sprinklers determined in 16.3. This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 16.3.1.3. Remove Table 16.3.1.3 16.3.2.5 Hose stream allowance and water supply duration requirements shall be in accordance with Table 16.3.2.1.17.2.1.3* Water Supply. See Section C.8.17.2.1.3.1 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 17.2.1.3.1 to the water supply for sprinklers determined in 17.2.1. 17.2.1.3.2 This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 17.2.1.3.1. Renumber “17.2.1.4” as “17.2.1.3”Remove Table 17.2.1.3.1 17.2.2.5 Hose stream allowance and water supply duration requirements shall be in accordance with those for extra hazard occupancies in Table 17.2.2.1. 17.3.1.3 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 17.3.1.3 to the water supply for sprinklers determined in Section 17.3. This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 17.3.1.3. Renumber “17.3.1.4” as “17.3.1.3”Remove Table 17.3.1.3 Remove the Hose Stream Allowance column and the Water Supply Duration column from the following tables: Table 12.12.1.2(a) Table 12.12.1.2(b) Table 12.12.1.2(c) Table 12.12.2.1 Table 14.3.1 Table 14.4.1 Table 15.3.1 Table 15.4.1 Table 16.2.2.1 Table 16.2.3.1 Table 16.3.2.1 Table 17.2.2.1 Table 17.2.3.1 Table 17.3.2.1 Table 17.3.3.1 Committee Statement: The task group revised Section 12.8 to consolidate common hose allowance and water duration throughout chapters 12 to 20 where applicable based on area of operation or number of calculated sprinklers. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: MULTER, T.: Table 12.8.6 Hose Stream Allowance and Water Duration should be changed for the extended coverage sprinklers. For the 250 gpm allowance: up to 6 sprinklers for 196 square feet maximum area spacing and up to 8 sprinklers having a maximum 144 square feet area spacing. ________________________________________________________________ 13-411 Log #545 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 14 through 17)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Create a task group to reorganize the protection options listed in Chapters 14 through 17 so that designs for all sprinklers are: (1) based on the design format of number of sprinklers at a minimum operating pressure, and (2) based on the characteristics of the sprinkler (3) based on the actual test results of the sprinkler for the conditions it was tested to (4) Allow sprinkler designs to have the number of sprinklers based on the results of the actual full-scale fire test with a minimum safety factor of 50%. The minimum number of sprinklers in the design would not result in a demand area of less than 768 ft2 when installed on their maximum allowable area spacing. The five sprinkler characteristics would be K-factor, orientation, response time index rating, sprinkler spacing type and temperature rating. Substantiation: The protection designs in NFPA 13 are currently based on either density/area or number of sprinklers at a given pressure. With density/area, the designs have to apply to all sprinklers listed for the application and

thus must be based on the least efficient sprinkler. Also, the sprinkler spacing chosen can influence the design pressure; any sprinkler spacing less than the maximum allowable would result in a design pressure below what the sprinkler was tested to. The protection designs also do not allow for better performing sprinklers to differentiate themselves from those that do not perform as well. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleChapter 21 (New Chapter) Alternative Sprinkler System Designs for Chapters 12 Through 20

21.1* General.

21.1.1 Sprinklers intended to protect storage fire risks shall be permitted to be installed using water supply design criteria that is different from the design criteria specified for the sprinklers described in Chapters 12 through 20 when specifically listed for such use within the limitations described in this chapter.

21.1.2 The requirements of Chapter 12 through 20 shall apply unless modified by this chapter.

21.1.3 The in rack protection requirements of chapters 12 through 20 shall apply when storage racks are equipped with solid shelves and in-rack sprinklers are required per the applicable chapter.

21.1.4 The requirements of the applicable chapter shall apply when ceiling-only protection options are not available per this chapter.

21.1.5 The design criteria in this chapter shall not be used to permit a reduction in the water supply requirements for in-rack sprinkler protection.

21.1.6* Large scale fire tests shall be conducted to evaluate the ability of the sprinkler to protect storage fire risks that are representative of those described in the manufacturer’s installation and design parameter instructions and referenced in the listing.

21.1.7 The manufacturer’s installation and design parameter instructions for these sprinklers shall specify the end use limitations and sprinkler system design criteria including at least the following:

1) Commodity or commodities to be protected2) Storage arrangements allowed3) Installation guidelines including obstruction and ceiling construction

limitations4) Maximum ceiling and storage heights with associated minimum

operating pressures and number of sprinklers required to be included in the hydraulic calculation

5) Hose stream allowance and duration

21.1.8 The number of sprinklers to be used in the sprinkler system design shall be based on the worst-case result obtained from the full-scale fire test series increased by a minimum 50 percent.

21.8.1 Regardless of the number of sprinklers that operated during the worst-case full-scale fire test, the number in the sprinkler system demand shall be no less than the following:

(1) 12 sprinklers for standard coverage sprinklers or

(2) 8 sprinklers for extended coverage sprinklers based on a spacing of 12 ft. x 12ft.

(3) 6 sprinklers for extended coverage sprinklers based on a spacing of 14 ft. x 14 ft.

Once the number of sprinklers for a demand area has been established, the minimum operating area, based on the proposed sprinkler spacing, shall not be less than 768 ft² (71 m²).

21.2* Sprinkler Protection Criteria for Palletized, Solid Piled, Bin Box, Shelf Storage, or Back-to-Back Shelf Storage of Class I Through Class IV and Plastic Commodities. (Reserved)

21.3* Sprinkler Protection Criteria for Open-Frame Rack Storage of Class I Through Class IV and Plastic Commodities. (Reserved)

21.4 Hose Stream Allowance and Water Supply Duration.

21.4.1 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 21.4.1 to the water supply for sprinklers obtained from this chapter.

21.4.1.1 The water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 21.4.1.

13-98


21.5 Minimum Obstruction Criteria

21.5.1 General. The installation guidelines for obstructions to ceiling-level sprinklers shall be in accordance with the requirements of 21.5 for sprinkler system designs obtained from this chapter.

21.5.2 Standard Coverage Spacing Sprinklers

21.5.2.1 Sprinklers having standard coverage areas requiring up to 20 sprinklers to be included in the hydraulic calculation shall be installed in accordance with the obstruction criteria described in Section 8.12.5, unless large scale fire testing is conducted with a representative obstruction below the sprinkler that demonstrates equivalent performance.

21.5.2.2 CMDA and CMSA sprinklers having standard coverage areas requiring more than 20 sprinklers in the design area shall be installed in accordance with the obstructions to sprinkler discharge criteria described in section 8.11.5.

21.5.2.2.1 ESFR sprinklers having standard coverage areas requiring more than 20 sprinklers in the design area shall be installed in accordance with the obstructions to sprinkler discharge criteria described in section 8.12.5.

21.5.2.2.2 Other obstruction criteria shall be acceptable if large scale fire testing is conducted with a representative obstruction below the sprinkler that demonstrates equivalent performance.

21.5.3 Extended Coverage Spacing Sprinklers

21.5.3.1 Sprinklers having extended coverage areas requiring up to 10 sprinklers to be included in the hydraulic calculation shall be installed in accordance with the obstruction criteria described in Section 8.8.5.1, 8.12.5.2 and 8.12.5.3, unless large scale fire testing is conducted with a representative obstruction below the sprinkler that demonstrates equivalent performance.

21.5.3.2 CMDA and CMSA sprinklers having extended coverage areas requiring more than 10 sprinklers in the design area shall be installed in accordance with the obstructions to sprinkler discharge criteria described in sections 8.11.5 and 8.8.5.1.

21.5.3.2.1 ESFR sprinklers having extended coverage areas requiring more than 10 sprinklers in the design area shall be installed in accordance with the obstructions to sprinkler discharge criteria described in sections 8.12.5.2 and 8.12.5.3.

21.5.3.2.2 Other obstruction criteria shall be acceptable if large scale fire testing is conducted with a representative obstruction below the sprinkler that demonstrates equivalent performance.

A.21.1 General The intent of this chapter is to provide protection options for the commodity hazards and storage arrangements outlined in Chapters 12 through 20 based on the characteristics of the sprinkler, such as K-factor, orientation, RTI rating, sprinkler spacing type and temperature rating, and using a design format of number of sprinklers at a minimum operating pressure. The protection options offered in this chapter will be based on the results of full-scale fire testing, as outlined in A.21.2 or A.21.3, while incorporating a minimum 50% safety factor into the number of sprinklers provided in the design. The intent of this chapter is to offer protection options using sprinklers having a nominal K-factor of 11.2 (160) or higher.

A.21.2 Fire Tests for Palletized, Solid Piled, Bin Box Shelf Storage, or Back-to-Back Shelf Storage The protection options offered in 21.2 are intended to be based on the results of full-scale fire tests conducted at a recognized testing laboratory using the standardized testing methods established by the testing laboratory and supplemented within this chapter.

Protection options for this chapter can be based on storage arrangements other than palletized, solid piled, bin box, shelf storage, or back-to-back shelf storage provided that the tested storage arrangement (such as rack storage) is deemed more hazardous than the storage arrangements outlined for this chapter.

Ceiling-level sprinkler system designs for this chapter should include a series of tests to evaluate the ability of the sprinkler to control or suppress a fire under a range of test variables for the commodity to be protected when maintained in a storage arrangement applicable to 21.2. The sprinkler standards referenced in Table A.6.1.1 provide detailed information regarding representative test commodities, measurement of steel temperatures and the construction of igniters used to initiate the fire.

Test parameters to be held constant during the test series should include at least the following:

1) Minimum operating pressure of the sprinklers

2) Highest commodity hazard that will apply to the protection option

3) Storage arrangement type

Table 21.4.1 Hose Stream Allowance and Water Supply Duration

Sprinkler Type

Sprinkler Spacing Type

Number of Sprinklers in Design Area

Hose Stream Allowance

Water Supply Duration (minutes)

gpm L/min CMDA and

CMSA Standard Up to 12 250 950 60

Over 12 to 15 500 1900 90

Over 15 to 25 500 1900 120

Over 25 500 1900 150 Extended-Coverage Up to 6 250 950 60

Over 6 to 8 500 1900 90

Over 8 to 12 500 1900 120

Over 12 500 1900 150

ESFR Standard Up to 12 250 950 60

Over 12 to 15 500 1900 90

Over 15 to 25 500 1900 120

Over 25 500 1900 150

13-99

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Test parameters that may vary during the test series should include at least the following:

1) Ignition locations relative to the overhead sprinklers including the following:

a. Under one sprinkler b. Between two sprinklers on the same branch linec. Between four sprinklersd. ADD analysis can be used to choose either option (b)

or (c)2) Maximum ceiling height (see Table A.21.2 for ceiling height

variance) Representative tests at each ceiling height limitation that has a discrete minimum operating pressure or number of sprinklers required to be included in the hydraulic calculation

3) Storage heights that are based on the following clearances between the deflector of the ceiling-level sprinkler and the top of storage:

a. Minimum clearance, which is typically 3 ft (0.9 m), and

b. Nominal 10 ft (3.1 m) clearance, and

c. Nominal 20 ft (6.1 m) clearance for maximum ceiling heights of 40 ft (12.2 m) or higher

4) Minimum and maximum temperature ratings

5) Minimum and maximum sprinkler spacing

6) Maximum sprinkler distance below the ceiling when greater than 12 in (305 mm)

See Figure A.21.2.1 for an example of a nominal 25 ft. (7.6 m) high palletized storage fire test arrangement. See Table A.21.2.1 for a typical large scale fire test series to investigate the performance of a sprinkler covered by this chapter having a standard coverage area and a discrete minimum operating pressure for a 30 ft. (9.1m) ceiling height.

In addition to determining the number of operated sprinklers, the maximum 1 minute average steel temperature measured above the fire should not exceed 1000 ºF (538 ºC), and there should be no sustained combustion at the far end of the main test array and at the outer edges of the target arrays during each test. In addition, no sprinklers should operate at the outer edges of the installed sprinkler system.

The number of sprinklers to be used in the sprinkler system design will be based on the worst-case result obtained from the full-scale fire test series increased by a minimum 50 percent. Regardless of the number of sprinklers that operated during the worst-case full-scale fire test, the number in the sprinkler system demand will be no less than 12 sprinklers for standard coverage sprinklers or 6 sprinklers for extended coverage sprinklers.

Figure A.21.2.1 Typical Example of a 15 ft. (4.6 m) Palletized Storage Full-Scale Fire Test Arrangement

See Table A.21.2.1 on the next page

A.21.3 Fire Tests for Rack Storage The protection options offered in 21.3 are intended to be based on the results of full-scale fire tests conducted at a recognized testing laboratory using the standardized testing methods established by the testing laboratory and supplemented within this chapter.

Ceiling-level sprinkler system designs for this chapter should include a series of tests to evaluate the ability of the sprinkler to control or suppress a fire under a range of test variables for the commodity to be protected when maintained in a storage arrangement applicable to 21.3. The sprinkler standards referenced in Table A.6.1.1 provide detailed information regarding representative test commodities, measurement of steel temperatures and the construction of igniters used to initiate the fire.

Test parameters to be held constant during the test series should include at least the following:

1) Minimum operating pressure of the ceiling-level sprinklers

2) Highest commodity hazard that will apply to the protection option

3) Storage arrangement type

4) Minimum Aisle width

Test parameters that may vary during the test series should include at least the following:

1) Ignition locations relative to the overhead sprinklers including the following:

a. Under one sprinkler b. Between two sprinklers on the same branch linec. Between four sprinklersd. ADD analysis can be used to choose either option (b)

or (c)

21 ft(6.4 m)

26 ft(7.9 m)

12 in. (typ)(305 mm)

12 in.(305 mm)

42 in.(1.1 m)

5 in.(125 mm)

68 in.(1.7 m)

47 in.(1.2 m)

8 ft(2.4 m)

15 ft(4.6 m)nominal

10 ft(3.05 m)nominal

42 in.(1.1 m)

(typ)

Cardboardsheet target

– Ignition locationat base of array

Ceiling

Single stack

Plan View

Elevation View

StandardClass II

(typ)

Standardplastic(typ)

13-100


2) Maximum ceiling height (see Table A.21.2 for ceiling height variance) Representative tests at each ceiling height limitation that has a discrete minimum operating pressure or number of sprinklers required to be included in the hydraulic calculation

3) Storage heights that are based on the following clearances between the deflector of the ceiling-level sprinkler and the top of storage:

a. Minimum clearance, which is typically 3 ft (0.9 m), and

b. Nominal 10 ft (3.1 m) clearance, and

c. Nominal 20 ft (6.1 m) clearance for maximum ceiling heights of 40 ft (12.2 m) or higher

4) Minimum and maximum temperature ratings

5) Minimum and maximum sprinkler spacing 6) Maximum sprinkler distance below the ceiling when greater than 12

in (305 mm)

Historical testing has indicated that a double row rack storage arrangement is considered representative of single and multiple row rack storage. The ignition location relative to the sprinkler has been demonstrated to be a key variable associated with full-scale fire tests. The critical ignition scenarios include locating (1) one of the sprinklers directly above the center of the main storage array, (2) two of the sprinklers on the same branch line such that the midpoint between the two sprinklers is directly above the center of the storage array and (3) four sprinklers (two each on adjacent branch lines) such that the geometric center point between the four sprinklers is located directly above the center of the main storage array. The igniters for this testing should be place at the base of the storage array and offset from the center of the main array in the transverse flue space as illustrated in Figure A.21.3.1. Previous testing has demonstrated that an offset ignition location represents a challenging test scenario.

A double rack storage array should be a nominal 32 ft. (9.8 m) long with single row target arrays located on each side of the main array. The sprinkler branch lines should be installed in a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal flue spacing of the storage arrangement and the branch lines over the test array should be sized such that they represent the largest obstruction for upright style sprinklers. See Figure A.21.3.1 for an example of a nominal 30 ft. (9.1 m) high double-row rack storage fire test arrangement. See Table A.21.3.1(a)

and (b) for a typical full-scale fire test series to investigate the performance of a sprinkler covered by this chapter having a standard coverage area and a discrete minimum operating pressure for a 40 ft. (12.2 m) ceiling height.

In addition to determining the number of operated sprinklers, the maximum 1 minute average steel temperature measured above the fire should not exceed 1000 ºF (538 ºC), and there should be no sustained combustion at the far end of the main test array and at the outer edges of the target arrays during each test. In addition, no sprinklers should operate at the outer edges of the installed sprinkler system.

The number of sprinklers to be used in the sprinkler system design will be based on the worst-case result obtained from the full-scale fire test series increased by a minimum 50 percent. Regardless of the number of sprinklers that operated during the worst-case full-scale fire test, the number in the sprinkler system demand will be no less than 12 sprinklers for standard coverage sprinklers or 6 sprinklers for extended coverage sprinklers.

Once the number of sprinklers for a demand area has been established, the minimum operating area, based on the proposed sprinkler spacing, cannot be less than 768 ft² (71 m²).

Table A.21.2.1 Typical Example of a 25 ft (7.6 m) Palletized Storage Under a 30 ft (9.1 m) Ceiling Full-Scale Fire Test Series on Simulated Wet-Type Sprinkler System (considers ADD results)

Parameter Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

Storage type Palletized Palletized Palletized Palletized

Nominal storage height, ft (m)

20 (6.1) 25 (7.6) 20 (6.1) 20 (6.1)

Nominal ceiling height, ft (m)

30 (9.1) Adjusted to achieve minimum sprinkler

deflector to commodity clearance

30 (9.1) 30 (9.1)

Sprinkler temperature rating

Minimumtemperature rating

Maximum temperature rating


Minimum temperature rating

Nominal deflector to ceiling distance,in (cm)

Maximum specified by manufacturer




Sprinkler spacing,ft 20 ft (m 20 m)

Maximum permitted by NFPA 13


Minimum permitted by NFPA 13


Nominal discharge pressure, psig (kPa)

Minimum Operating Minimum Operating Minimum Operating Minimum Operating

Ignition location Under one Between two on same branch line or

Between four

Under one Between two on same branch line or Between

four

Test duration, minutes 30 30 30 30

13-101


Figure A.21.3.1 Typical Example of a 30 ft. (9.1 m) Double-Row Rack Storage Fire Test Arrangement

See Tables A.21.3.1(a) and A.21.3.1(b) on the next page

Committee Statement: New chapter 21 creates a performance based section with guidance of how and what to test for compliance. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22

Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: MULTER, T.: Table 21.4.1 Hose Stream Allowance and Water Duration should be changed for the extended coverage sprinklers. For the 250 gpm allowance: up to 6 sprinklers for 196 square feet maximum area spacing and up to 8 sprinklers having a maximum 144 square feet area spacing. ________________________________________________________________ 13-412 Log #276 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(14.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 14.2.1 Protection for Class I through Class IV commodities in the following configurations shall be provided in accordance with this chapter section: (1) Nonencapsulated commodities that are solid piled, palletized, or bin box storage up to 30 ft (9.1 m) in height (2) Nonencapsulated commodities on shelf storage up to 15 ft (4.6 m) in height (3)*Encapsulated commodities that are solid piled, palletized, bin box, or shelf storage up to 15 ft (4.6 m) in height Substantiation: The prescribed limits apply to CMDA applications and are contained in the Section dedicated to such. The correct reference would be to the Section rather than the Chapter. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-413 Log #126 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(14.2.1(5))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 14.2.1(5) and a new section 14.2.5 as follows: 14.2.1(5) Encapsulated storage of solid piled and palletized Class I through IV commodities shall be permitted in accordance with section 14.2.5 for storage heights over 15 ft up to and including 20 ft. 14.2.5 Encapsulated Storage Over 15 ft in Height up to and including 20 ft in Height 14.2.5.1 Encapsulated storage over 15 ft in height up to and including 20 ft in height shall be limited to solid piled and palletized storage. 14.2.5.2 Encapsulated storage over 15 ft in height up to and including 20 ft in height shall be protected by sprinklers with a k-factor of 11.2 or larger. 14.2.5.3 Encapsulated storage over 15 ft in height up to and including 20 ft in height of Class I commodity shall be protected with a density/area of at least 0.46 gpm per sq ft over 2000 sq ft (18.7 mm/min over 186 sq m). 14.2.5.4 Encapsulated storage over 15 ft in height up to and including 20 ft in height of Class II commodity shall be protected with a density/area of at least 0.53 gpm per sq ft over 2000 sq ft (21.7 mm/min over 186 sq m). 14.2.5.5 Encapsulated storage over 15 ft in height up to and including 20 ft in height of Class III and Class IV commodity shall be protected with a density/area of at least 0.6 gpm per sq ft over 2000 sq ft (24.5 mm/min over 186 sq m). Substantiation: The current limitation of encapsulated storage in Chapter 14 to 15 ft in height is difficult for users of the standard. There is currently no criteria for protecting encapsulated storage with standard spray sprinklers and there needs to be. Unfortunately, full scale fire testing is unavailable at this time for this commodity. The density/area criteria in this proposal for the Class I and Class II commodities comes from the 20 ft multiple-row rack protection criteria in Chapter 16 of NFPA 13 for encapsulated storage of Class I and Class II commodities without in-rack sprinklers. Multiple-row racks being protected without in-rack sprinklers represent much more difficult fires to control than solid piled or palletized arrangements with sprinklers at the ceiling. We believe this statement to be true for solid piled and palletized storage based on years of full-scale fire testing. We are not so sure that the rack storage rules can be used to develop criteria for bin-box and shelf storage, so we have not included them in this proposal. The Class III and Class IV criteria comes from the Group A plastics rules. If Group A plastics can be protected with this criteria, Class III and Class IV commodities should be fine. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

Class IIcommodity

Representativetest commodity

32 ft4 in.

(10 m)

Minimum aislewidth (typical)

6 in.(15 cm)

3 ft 10 in.(1.2 m)

29 ft 8 in.(9.0 m)

10 in.(0.5 m)

Main array

5 ft(1.5 m)

Ignition location

7 ft 6 in.(2.3 m) 3 ft 6 in.

(1.1 m)

8 ft 3 in.(2.5 m)

0 ft7¹⁄₂ in.

(1.9 cm)

Plan View

5 ft(1.5 m)

5 ft(1.5 m)

5 ft(1.5 m)

5 ft(1.5 m)

Elevation View

13-102


Table A.21.3.1 (a) Typical Example of a 35 ft (10.7 m) Rack Storage Under a 40 ft (12.2 m) Ceiling Full-Scale Fire Test Series on a Simulated Wet-Type Sprinkler System (considers ADD results)


Storage type Double row rack Double row rack Double row rack Double row rack


30 (9.1) 35 (10.7) 30 (9.1) 20 (6.1)




40 (12.2) 40 (12.2)














Minimum permitted by NFPA 13




Ignition location Under one Between two on same branch line or

Between four

Under one Between two on same branch line or

Between four


Table A.21.3.1(b) Typical Example of a 35 ft (10.7 m) Rack Storage Under a 40 ft (12.2 m) Ceiling Full-Scale Fire Test Series on a Simulated Wet-Type Sprinkler System


Storage type Double row rack Double row rack Double row rack Double row rack


30 (9.1) 35 (10.7) 30 (9.1) 20 (6.1)




40 (12.2) 40 (12.2)







Within 12 (30.5) Maximum specified by manufacturer




10 x 10 (3.0 x 3.0) 10 x 10 (3.0 x 3.0) 10 x 10 (3.0 x 3.0) 10 x 10 (3.0 x 3.0)



Ignition location Under one Between four Between two on same branch line

Between two on same branch line


13-103

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-414 Log #541 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(14.2.4.1 and Figure 14.2.4.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 14.2.4.1 Where using ordinary temperature-rated sprinklers having a K-factor of 8.0 or less, a single point shall be selected from the appropriate commodity curve on Figure 14.2.4.1. 14.2.4.1 Where using high temperature-rated sprinklers or ordinary temperature-rated sprinklers having a K-factor of 11.2 or greater, a single point shall be selected from the appropriate commodity curve on Figure 14.2.4.2. FIGURE 14.2.4.1 Sprinkler System Design Curves, 20 ft (6.1 m) High Storage – Ordinary Temperature-Rated Sprinklers Having a K-factor of 8.0 or LessFIGURE 14.2.4.2 Sprinkler System Design Curves, 20 ft (6.1 m) High Storage – High Temperature-Rated Sprinklers or Ordinary Temperature-Rated Sprinklers Having a K-factor of 11.2 or Greater.Substantiation: When these protection tables and design criteria were originally established it was based on the test results involving K5.6 sprinklers. Testing at FM Global has demonstrated that the use of ordinary temperature-rated K11.2 and higher sprinklers actually outperform sprinklers having the same K-factor but of the high temperature-rating listing. The proposal will allow for the better performing sprinklers to have the lower design indicated in Figure 14.2.4.2. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Information is contained in 12.6.9.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: The information is technically correct, adds very little text to the section and helps avoid the potential for someone overlooking this guidance that is located in a different chapter. ________________________________________________________________ 13-415 Log #CP308 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(14.2.4.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 14.2.4.4 In the case of metal bin boxes with face areas not exceeding 16 ft2 and metal closed shelves with face areas not exceeding 16 ft2, the area of application shall be permitted to be reduced by 50 33 percent, provided the minimum requirement of 14.2.4.5 and 14.2.4.6 are met. Substantiation: This change correlates with the reduction of the maximum area to 3000 ft2.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-416 Log #CP309 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(14.2.4.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:14.2.4.6 For storage greater than 12 ft (3.7 m),the sprinkler design density for any given area of operation for a Class III or Class IV commodity,calculated in accordance with 14.2.4 shall not be less than 0.2 gpm/ft2 (8 mm/min) density. Substantiation: Section 14.2.4.6 actually applies to storage less than 12 ft. This criteria (without any reference to storage height) existed in the 1998 edition of NFPA 231 as section 5-1.3.1 which correlated with Table 6-2.2.1. That Table used the occupancy hazard curves from NFPA 13. The 99 and 02 editions of NFPA 13 effectively had the identical text as NFPA 231. Then in the 07 edition, we added the text FOR STORAGE GREATER THAN 12 FT to 12.2.4.6. I searched the ROP and ROC and could not find this change (in order to refresh the reason for it). I suspect it was because this paragraph was located under a new section 12.2.4 titled storage over 12 ft. Nonetheless, section 12.2.4.5 addresses minimum densities and design areas and retaining 12.2.4.6 simply confuses the issue by referencing the occupancy hazards curves that otherwise are not used anywhere in chap 14. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: DENHARDT, J.: This paragraph needs to be deleted in its entirety. As the submitter’s substantiation states, this is old criteria that previously applied to storage less than 12 feet. As such, that height of storage is covered by Chapter 13. By keeping it applicable to heights greater than 12 feet, we now have a conflict with paragraph 12.2.4.5 (minimum density of.15 gpm/sf). Also this paragraph effectively eliminates 75% of the Class III curve for Figure 14.2.4.2. We need to reject this proposal and make a committee action to delete this paragraph. HUGGINS, R.: This section needs to be deleted in its entirety. As the Substantiation states, it is old criteria that previously applied to storage less

than 12 ft. As such, that height of storage is covered by Ch 13. By keeping it as applicable to heights greater than 12 ft, we now have a conflict with 12.2.4.5 (minimum density of 0.15 gpm/sf). A final note is that this section effectively eliminates applying 75% of the Class III curve for Figure 14.2.4.2 which seems to be an unintentional consequence. ________________________________________________________________ 13-417 Log #350 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(14.2.4.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 14.2.4.7 For back-to-back shelf storage greater than 12 ft and up to 15 ft in height, the density/area criteria shall be taken from Figure 14.2.4.1 or 14.2.4.2 as appropriate for the type of sprinklers being used with no reduction to the density referenced in Figure 14.2.4.3.Substantiation: The sentence was reorganized for clarity with the “density” concept replaced with “density/area” and Figure 14.2.4.2 added for high temperature or ordinary temperature k-11.2 or larger sprinklers. We do not believe that Figure 14.2.4.2 was intentionally left out of the protection criteria when this new class of storage was added last cycle. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The intent is to limit 14.2.4.1.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Abstention: KEEPING, L.: I feel I must abstain on this issue, because I do not understand why the intent is to only allow densities from Figure 14.2.4.1 for ordinary temperature rated sprinklers. The Committee Statement did not clarify why the curves for high temperature rated sprinklers could not be used. ________________________________________________________________ 13-418 Log #277 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 14.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the Title of the Table 14.3.1 as follows:Table 14.3.1 CMSA Sprinkler Design Criteria for Palletized and Solid-Piled Storage of Class I Through Class IV Commodities (Encapsulated and Nonencapsulated)Substantiation: The Table should clearly discern that the use of the criteria contained therein is applicable to encapsulated and nonencapsulated storage arrangements similar to that provided for other ESFR Tables. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-419 Log #5 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Table 14.3.1(a), 15.3.1(a), 16.2.2.1(a), 16.3.2.1(a), 17.2.2.1(a), and 17.3.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 13-212 (Log #50) which was held from the Annual 2009 ROC on Proposal 13-4a.Submitter: Thomas L. Multer, Reliable Automatic Sprinkler CompanyRecommendation: Add CMSA tables: 14.3.1(a), 15.3.1(a), 16.2.2.1(a), 16.3.2.1(a), 17.2.2.1(a) and 17.3.2.1. See 6 Tables on the following pages Substantiation: Extended coverage CMSA sprinklers have now been tested and received approval for numerous storage applications. While NFPA 13 is being modified to use the terminology CMSA and the tables referencing the existing products are being updated and consolidated, there is not a consideration in these tables for extended coverage CMSA sprinklers. The attached tables should be added to the proper storage sections. Fire test data confirming these tables will be available at the ROC meeting. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee did not have all the report data to take any action on this proposal. The submitter is encouraged to submit more data at the ROC for the committee to consider for applications in the new proposed storage chapter. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-420 Log #278 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(14.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Delete the following text: 14.3.3 The minimum number of design sprinklers for ordinary hazard and miscellaneous storage in accordance with this standard shall be 15 for wet pipe systems and 25 for preaction systems and dry pipe systems.Substantiation: This section appears to have been errantly placed within the CMSA criteria section as it deals with miscellaneous storage and ordinary hazard application.

13-104


13_L

5_R

ec T

able

14.

3.1(

a)

Tab

le 1

4.3.

1 (a

) Ext

ende

d C

over

age,

CM

SA {2

5.2

K-fa

ctor

(363

) Pen

dent

} Spr

inkl

er D

esig

n C

rite

ria

for

Palle

tized

and

Sol

id-P

iled

Stor

age

of C

lass

I T

hrou

gh C

lass

IV

Com

mod

ities

Con

figur

atio

n C

omm

odity

C

lass

Max

imum

St

orag

e H

eigh

t M

axim

um

Cei

ling/

Roo

fH

eigh

t

K F

acto

r T

ype

of

Syst

em

Max

imum

Sp

acin

gO

pera

ting

Pres

sure

M

inim

um D

esig

n A

rea

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(Hou

rs)

Ft.

m

Ft.

m

Sq. f

t. Sq

. m

gpm

L

/min

Pa

lletiz

ed a

nd

Solid

Pile

d

Cla

ss I

- IV

25

7.

6 30

9.

1 25

.2

(363

)W

et

14 ft

. x 1

4 ft

. (4

,2 m

x 4

,2 m

) 30

psi

(2

.1 b

ar)

1200

11

0 25

0 94

6 1

30

9.1

35

10.7

25

.2

(363

)W

et

12 ft

. x 1

2 ft

. (3

,6 m

x 3

,6 m

) 40

psi

(2

.8 b

ar)

1200

11

0 25

0 94

6 1

13_L

og #

5 R

ec T

able

16.

2.2.

1(a)

Tab

le 1

6.2.

2.1

(a) E

xten

ded

Cov

erag

e, C

MSA

{25.

2 K

-fac

tor

(363

) Pen

dent

} Spr

inkl

er D

esig

n C

rite

ria

for

Rac

k St

orag

e of

Cla

ss I

Thr

ough

Cla

ss IV

Com

mod

ities

Sto

red

Up

to a

nd In

clud

ing

25 ft

. (7,

6m) i

n he

ight

St

orag

e A

rran

gem

ent

Com

mod

ity

Cla

ssM

axim

um

Stor

age

Hei

ght

Max

imum

C

eilin

g/R

oof

Hei

ght

K F

acto

r T

ype

of

Syst

em

Max

imum

Sp

acin

gO

pera

ting

Pres

sure

M

inim

um D

esig

n A

rea

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(Hou

rs)

Ft.

m

Ft.

m

Sq. f

t. Sq

. m

gpm

L

/min

Si

ngle

-row

, do

uble

-row

, and

m

ultip

le-r

ow

rack

(no

open

to

p co

ntai

ners

)

Cla

ss I

- IV

25

7.

6 30

9.

1 25

.2

(363

) W

et

14 ft

. x 1

4 ft

. (4

,2 m

x 4

,2 m

) 30

psi

(2

.1 b

ar)

1200

11

0 25

0 94

6 1

13_L

5_R

ec T

able

15.

3.1(

a)

Tab

le 1

5.3.

1 (a

) Ext

ende

d C

over

age,

CM

SA {2

5.2

K-f

acto

r (3

63) P

ende

nt} S

prin

kler

Des

ign

Cri

teri

a fo

r Pa

lletiz

ed a

nd S

olid

Pile

d St

orag

e of

Pla

stic

and

Rub

ber

Com

mod

ities

C

onfig

urat

ion

Com

mod

ity

Cla

ssM

axim

um

Stor

age

Hei

ght

Max

imum

C

eilin

g/R

oof

Hei

ght

K F

acto

r T

ype

of

Syst

em

Max

imum

Sp

acin

gO

pera

ting

Pres

sure

M

inim

um D

esig

n A

rea

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(Hou

rs)

Ft.

m

Ft.

m

Sq. f

t. Sq

. m

gpm

L

/min

Pa

lletiz

ed a

nd

Solid

Pile

d C

arto

ned

expa

nded

and

ca

rton

edun

expa

nded

plas

tics

25

7.6

30

9.1

25.2

(3

63)

Wet

14

ft. x

14

ft.

(4,2

m x

4,2

m)

30 p

si

(2.1

bar

) 12

00

110

250

946

1

30

9.1

35

10.7

25

.2

(363

) W

et

12 ft

. x 1

2 ft

. (3

,6 m

x 3

,6 m

) 40

psi

(2

.8 b

ar)

1200

11

0 25

0 94

6 1

13-105


13_L

og #

5 R

ec T

able

16.

3.2.

1(a)

Tab

le 1

6.3.

2.1

(a) E

xten

ded

Cov

erag

e, C

MSA

{25.

2 K

-fac

tor

(363

) Pen

dent

} Spr

inkl

er D

esig

n C

rite

ria

for

Stor

age

of C

lass

I T

hrou

gh C

lass

IV C

omm

oditi

es S

tore

d O

ver

25 ft

. (7.

6m) i

n he

ight

Stor

age

Arr

ange

men

t C

omm

odity

C

lass

Max

imum

St

orag

e H

eigh

t M

axim

um

Cei

ling/

Roo

fH

eigh

t

K F

acto

r T

ype

of

Syst

em

Max

imum

Sp

acin

gO

pera

ting

Pres

sure

M

inim

um D

esig

n A

rea

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(Hou

rs)

Sing

le-r

ow,

doub

le-r

ow, a

nd

mul

tiple

-row

ra

ck (n

o op

en

top

cont

aine

rs)

Cla

ss I

- IV

Ft

. m

Ft

. m

Sq

. ft.

Sq. m

gp

m

L/m

in

30

9.1

35

10.7

25

.2

(363

) W

et

12 ft

. x 1

2 ft

. (3

,6 m

x 3

,6 m

) 40

psi

(2

.8 b

ar)

1200

11

0 25

0 94

6 1

13_L

og #

5 R

ec T

able

17.

2.2.

1(a)

Tab

le 1

7.2.

2.1

(a) E

xten

ded

Cov

erag

e, C

MSA

{25.

2 K

-fac

tor

(363

) Pen

dent

} Spr

inkl

er D

esig

n C

rite

ria

for

Sing

le-,

Dou

ble-

, and

Mul

tiple

- Row

Rac

ks W

ithou

t Sol

id S

helv

es o

f Pla

stic

C

omm

oditi

es S

tore

d U

p to

and

Incl

udin

g 25

ft. (

7.6m

) in

Hei

ght.

Stor

age

Arr

ange

men

t C

omm

odity

C

lass

Max

imum

St

orag

e H

eigh

t M

axim

um

Cei

ling/

Roo

fH

eigh

t

K F

acto

r T

ype

of

Syst

em

Max

imum

Sp

acin

gO

pera

ting

Pres

sure

M

inim

um D

esig

n A

rea

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(Hou

rs)

Ft.

m

Ft.

m

Sq. f

t. Sq

. m

gpm

L

/min

Si

ngle

-row

, do

uble

-row

, and

m

ultip

le-r

ow

rack

(no

open

to

p co

ntai

ners

)

Car

tone

dex

pand

ed a

ndca

rton

edun

expa

nded

plas

tics

25

7.6

30

9.1

25.2

(3

63)

Wet

14

ft. x

14

ft.

(4,2

m x

4,2

m)

30 p

si

(2.1

bar

) 12

00

110

250

946

1

13_L

og #

5_R

ec T

able

17.

3.2.

1

Tab

le 1

7.3.

2.1

Ext

ende

d C

over

age,

CM

SA {2

5.2

K-f

acto

r (3

63) P

ende

nt} S

prin

kler

Des

ign

Cri

teri

a fo

r Si

ngle

-, D

oubl

e-, a

nd M

ultip

le-R

ow R

acks

With

out S

olid

She

lves

of P

last

ic C

omm

oditi

es

Stor

ed O

ver

25 ft

. (7.

6m) i

n H

eigh

t St

orag

e A

rran

gem

ent

Com

mod

ity

Cla

ssM

axim

um

Stor

age

Hei

ght

Max

imum

C

eilin

g/R

oof

Hei

ght

K F

acto

r T

ype

of

Syst

em

Max

imum

Sp

acin

gO

pera

ting

Pres

sure

M

inim

um D

esig

n A

rea

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(Hou

rs)

Sing

le-r

ow,

doub

le-r

ow, a

nd

mul

tiple

-row

ra

ck (n

o op

en

top

cont

aine

rs)

Car

tone

dex

pand

ed a

nd

cart

oned

unex

pand

edpl

astic

s

Ft.

m

Ft.

m

Sq. f

t. Sq

. m

gpm

L

/min

30

9.

1 35

10

.7

25.2

(3

63)

Wet

12

ft. x

12

ft.

(3,6

m x

3,6

m)

40 p

si

(2.8

bar

) 12

00

110

250

946

1

13-106

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-421 Log #279 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 14.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the Commodity Classification description within the Table as follows: Class I, II, III, or IV encapsulated and nonencapsulated (no open-top containers or solid shelves).Substantiation: The Table should clearly discern that the use of the criteria contained therein is applicable to both encapsulated and nonencapsulated storage arrangements similar to the provided for other ESFR Tables. Additionally, the reference to open top containers and solid shelves is associated with rack storage and not palletized and solid piled storage arrays. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Agree with wording except keep “(no open-top containers). Committee Statement: Open-top containers can affect palletized and solid piled storage. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-422 Log #280 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(14.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the Title of the Section as follows:14.5 Special Design Criteria for Palletized, Solid Piled, Bin Box, or Shelf Storage of Class I Through IV Commodities.Substantiation: The special design criteria provided by the Section is only applicable to Bin Box and Shelf Storage and the Title and the Section should reflect such. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Keep existing title of 14.5 as 14.5 relocate text of 14.5 to new “14.5.1 Bin Box and Shelf Storage” Committee Statement: Section 14.5 is a placeholder for special designs for palletized, solid-piled, bin box or shelf storage - the committee agrees that the existing text of 14.5 is specific to bin box and shelf storage Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-423 Log #351 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(15.2.2(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: At the end of Section 15.2.2(4) insert another sentence as follows: The transverse barrier shall be permitted to terminate at the longitudinal barrier.Substantiation: The longitudinal barrier is continuous down the length of the rack. The transverse barrier can’t be continuous from face to face in the back-to-back rack unless it penetrates the longitudinal barrier. We don’t think it was the Committee’s intent to cut the longitudinal barrier so that the transverse barrier could be continuous from one aisle face back to the next aisle face. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add proposed sentence to the end of 15.2.2(3). Committee Statement: Section 15.2.2(4) does not exist.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-424 Log #7 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 15.2.5(a) and (b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Lars Kjolby, Hjerno A/SRecommendation: Revise text as follows: Maximum Storage Height Storage HeightSubstantiation: According to 15.2.8 the tables should be “up to” tables intended to aid interpolation, but there is only an “up to” reference for 1, 5 and 3, 7 m. Putting “Maximum” in the header would be a solution. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

________________________________________________________________ 13-425 Log #6 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 15.2.5(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Lars Kjolby, Hjerno A/SRecommendation: Many of the conversions are wrong, please change to: 18.4 mm/min to 18.3, 28.6 to 28.5, 24.5 to 24.4, 34.7 to 34.6, 44.9 to 44.8 and 49.0 to 48.9. Substantiation: As the use of NFPA 13 is becoming more frequent in “metric countries”, the conversions are not just for information but will become the referred standard itself, hence correct and consistent conversion become more important. publishing a metric version could be appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-426 Log #281 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 15.2.6(a) and (b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise Note (4) of Table 15.2.6(a) as follows: (4) Hose streams and durations shall be as follows: =5 ft 250 gpm (946 L/min) and 90 minutes, >5 ft to =20 ft 500 gpm (1900 L/min) and 120 minutes; >20 ft 500 gpm (1900 L/min) and 150 minutes Revise Note (4) of Table 15.2.6(b) as follows: (4) Hose streams and durations shall be as follows: =5 ft 250 gpm (946 L/min) and 90 minutes, >5 ft 1.5 m to =20 ft 6.1 m 500 gpm (1900 L/min) and 120 minutes; >20 ft 6.1 m 500 gpm (1900 L/min) and 150 minutes.Substantiation: Storage of less than 5 ft is not within the scope of the Tables and hose stream allowance should not be included as part of the Tables as such. The US Customary Table should only include US Customary Units and the SI Units Table should only include SI Units. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-410 (Log #542). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-427 Log #282 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(15.2.8(2)(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (a) For K-5.6 (80) and K-8.0 (115) sprinklers used with Curve EH1, the design area shall be permitted to be reduced by 25 percent, but not below 2000 ft2 (186m2), where high temperature sprinklers are used. Substantiation: The allowable design densities for EH1 and EH2 in Figure 13.2.1 will not permit the use of a K-5.6 and only permits the use of a K-8.0 where EH1 design criteria is allowed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The use of K 5.6 sprinklers is not prohibited for extra hazard occupancies as referred to in section 13.2.2. However the reduction in design area for these K factor sprinklers is inappropriate for this section. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-428 Log #12 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(15.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Lars Kjolby, Hjerno A/SRecommendation: Revise text as follows: “...and cartoned expanded or uncartoned expanded plastic shall...”.Substantiation: Table 15.4.1 includes exposed (uncartoned) exposed plastic but the refering Section 15.4.1 doesn’t include this combination. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change “uncortoned” to “exposed” Committee Statement: Editorial.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-429 Log #283 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 15.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the storage arrangement description (four places) as follows: Palletized and solid-piled storage (no open-top containers or solid shelves).Substantiation: The reference to open top containers and solid shelves is associated with rack storage and not palletized and solid piled storage arrays. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Agree with wording except keep “(no open-top containers.)

13-107

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Statement: Open-top containers can affect palletized and solid piled storage. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-430 Log #352 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 16)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Reorganize Chapter 16 to put the in-rack sprinkler requirements in the same section as the ceiling sprinkler requirements. Substantiation: Having the in-rack sprinkler requirements in their own section is not working. The in-rack sprinkler requirements as directly tied to the decision as to which sprinklers are being used at the ceiling. The arrangement of in-rack sprinklers currently in NFPA 13 leaves a number of unanswered questions. For example, where ESFR sprinklers are used at the ceiling and one level of in-rack sprinklers is required by Table 16.2.3.1, there are no in-rack sprinkler criteria that apply to this situation. We believe that the criteria in 16.3.3.5 should apply, but the standard is not clear on the situation. It would be much more clear to have the in-rack rules right with the ceiling sprinkler rules. We wish we would have had the time to develop the proposal completely like we did for Chapter 17, but we just did not have the opportunity given the shortened proposal closing date instituted by the NFPA. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Copy 16.3.3.5 to new 16.2.3.6 and change Table reference to 16.2.3.1 Committee Statement: Provides guidance for ESFR in-rack sprinklers.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: BELLAMY, T.: Should this technically be an Accept in Part since the change was only made for ESFR protection? ________________________________________________________________ 13-431 Log #544 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Chapter 16)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Rewrite Chapter 16 so that it applies only to Class 1, 2 and 3 commodities and arrange the protection provided within the section so that it applies to all three commodities (i.e. group Class 1, 2 and 3 commodities into a single protection table). Substantiation: The separation of commodity hazards into Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 categories made sense when ceiling-level protection options were limited to either K5.6 or K8.0 sprinklers. However over the years new ceiling-level sprinklers have been developed that allow for very little pressure difference between the protection needed between these three commodity listings. For example, Class 3 in open racks separated by 8 ft wide aisles with storage maintained to 20 ft high and protected by an ordinary temperature rated sprinkler would require a density of about 0.42 gpm/ft2. With a K5.6 sprinkler on 10 ft x 10 ft spacing, this would require a minimum sprinkler pressure of 56 psi. However with sprinklers available on the market today, this pressure is greatly reduced; in fact a K14.0 sprinkler would only require 9 psi to meet this requirement. Therefore we no longer need to divide up the commodity hazards as we have in the past and should simply consider anything that is cellulosic in matter to apply to this chapter. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No data submitted to support this change of multiple design options of existing Class I to III commodities Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: I agree that sufficient test data was not included with this submittal and will hopefully provide the data needed to convince the committee that the current guidelines are based on insufficient data and not representative of what the current sprinklers on the market can protect. ________________________________________________________________ 13-432 Log #CP313 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Chapter 16)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Committee Proposal to make the following changes to Chapter 16: a. Revise section 16.1.6.4 to read, “The maximum horizontal spacing between in-rack sprinklers shall be 10 ft.” b. Replace section 16.1.6.5 with a section and subsections as follows: 16.1.6.5 Where the criteria in 16.1.6.6 is not met, the water demand for the in-rack sprinklers shall be based on a minimum flow of 30 gpm discharging from the following number of sprinklers balanced to the ceiling sprinkler demand: (1) Six sprinklers where only one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed to protect Class I, Class II or Class III commodity.

(2) Eight sprinklers where only one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed to protect Class IV commodity. (3) Ten sprinklers (five on each of the top two levels) where more than one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed to protect Class I, Class II or Class III commodity. (4) Fourteen sprinklers (seven on each of the top two levels) when more than one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed to protect Class IV commodity. c. Insert a new section 16.1.6.6 as follows: 16.1.6.6 The water demand for in-rack sprinklers shall not be required to be balanced to the ceiling sprinkler demand where additional face sprinklers are installed under each solid shelf at rack uprights and the in-rack sprinklers are calculated to discharge at least 60 gpm from 8 sprinklers. Substantiation: The horizontal spacing and the discharge criteria needs to be clarified for the situation where in-rack sprinklers are installed under solid shelves. The proposed 17.1.5.6 is an alternative to help with existing systems where the water supply meets the demand for the ceiling sprinklers, but the extra in-rack sprinkler demand cannot be added to the ceiling demand. In such a case, the greater number of in-rack sprinklers at the high discharge flows will provide sufficient fire protection without activating significant numbers of ceiling sprinklers. In these cases, the water supply only needs to meet the ceiling demand or the in-rack demand, but not both simultaneously. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-433 Log #543 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Chapter 16 and 17)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Weston C. Baker, Jr., FM GlobalRecommendation: Move the protection requirements in Chapter 16 for Class 4 into Chapter 17 and make them equal to that required for cartoned Group A plastics. Substantiation: The separation of commodity hazards into Class 4 and cartoned unexpanded Group A plastics made sense when ceiling-level protection options were limited to either K5.6 or K8.0 sprinklers. However over the years new ceiling-level sprinklers have been developed that allow for very little pressure difference between the protection needed between these two commodity listings. For example, Class 4 maintained in an open frame rack to 20 ft high and protected by an ordinary temperature rated sprinkler would require a density of about 0.57 gpm/ft2. With a K5.6 sprinkler on 10 ft x 10 ft spacing, this would require a minimum sprinkler pressure of 104 psi. However with sprinklers available on the market today, this pressure is greatly reduced; in fact a K16.8 sprinkler would only require 12 psi to meet this requirement. With cartoned unexpanded Group A plastics, the density increases to 0.60 gpm/ft2. With a K5.6 sprinkler on 10 ft x 10 ft spacing, this would require a minimum sprinkler pressure of 115 psi. However with sprinklers available on the market today, this pressure is greatly reduced; in fact a K16.8 sprinkler would only require 13 psi to meet this requirement. Therefore we no longer need to divide up the commodity hazards as we have in the past and should simply consider anything that that is in a cardboard box that contains unexpanded plastic matter to apply to Chapter 17. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No data submitted to support this change of multiple design options of existing from Class IV to Group A commodities. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: I agree that sufficient test data was not included with this submittal and will hopefully provide the data needed to convince the committee that the current guidelines are based on insufficient data and not representative of what the current sprinklers on the market can protect. ________________________________________________________________ 13-434 Log #509 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(16.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gary T. Smith, DACS, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 16.1.6.6 Where solid shelving in single-, double-, and multiple row racks does not exceed 85 ft² (7.9 m²) in area, storage shall be permitted to be supported on shelving that is a minimum of 50 percent open. Ceiling installed ESFR, K 25.2 pendant-oriented, 165ºF sprinklers designed to operate at 40 psi on 10 x 10-ft spacing shall be required. Transverse flue spaces of a nominal 6 in (152.4mm) width shall be located a maximum of 10 ft 6 in on center and longitudinal flue spacing of a nominal 6 in (152.4 mm) shall be provided between double-row racks.Substantiation: The new text would recognize the performance of open rack shelving that is at least 50% open in conjunction with ESFR sprinkler systems including transverse and longitudinal flue spacing as tested (test 4, Report on Large-Scale Fire Test of Paper Based Records in Rack Storage, The Fire Protection International Consortium, Inc., on file at NFPA ) Committee Meeting Action: Reject

13-108

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Statement: The test report submitted does not justify the change in shelving requirements for all commodities and shelf types, the proposal also gives specific hydraulic criteria with no reference to ceiling or storage height criteria. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Abstention: KEEPING, L.: I feel I must abstain on this issue, because I have not yet seen the referenced supporting material. It was not distributed to all of the members of the TC and this omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. ________________________________________________________________ 13-435 Log #284 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(16.1.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 16.1.6.3 Where multiple-row racks of any height have no longitudinal flue or where double-row racks with storage up 25 ft in height have no longitudinal flue, the situation shall not be considered solid shelves where transverse flues exist at maximum 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and additional in-rack sprinklers shall not be required in accordance with 16.1.6.1 and 16.1.6.2. Substantiation: Similar to the multi-row rack arrangements that do not require longitudinal flue spaces under 16.1.10.1 and 16.1.11.1.1, double-row racks up to a height of 25 ft do not mandate a longitudinal flue. Such allowable arrangements for double-row racks should also be included as acceptable without being considered as solid shelving requiring additional in-rack sprinklers under the provisions of 16.1.6.1 and 16.1.6.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-436 Log #37 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(16.1.6.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edwin D. Cope, Cope EngineeringRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 16.1.6.5 Design criteria for combined ceiling and in-rack sprinklers shall be used in accordance with 22.8 for the storage configurations in 16.1.6.1 and 16.1.6.2. Substantiation: Existing wording is unclear. Reader can only guess from the current language that the intent is to require that the water demand of sprinklers installed in racks be added to ceiling sprinkler water demand and balanced to the higher pressure. By specifically referencing Section 22.8, it becomes clear what this section intends. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-437 Log #368 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(16.1.6.6 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Where solid shelving in single, double, or multiple row racks exceeds 20 ft2, ESFR or CMSA sprinklers shall not be permitted to be used, even with the extra in-rack sprinklers discussed in this section.Substantiation: NFPA 13 is somewhat unusual in how it treats solid shelf rack situations. When standard spray sprinklers are used at the ceiling, we tell people to protect solid shelf racks with figures and tables that explicitly say they are only for use without solid shelves and we expect people to know that it is okay to use these figures and tables if they add the extra in-rack sprinklers discussed in Section 16.1.6. Then we put CMSA and ESFR sprinkler rules in tables in the standard and tell people that they are for use without solid shelves and we expect them to automatically know that they cannot use the rules of Section 16.1.6 to protect solid shelves with CMSA or ESFR sprinklers. This kind of thinking can get us in trouble. We need to explicitly state that Section 16.1.6 can’t be used to justify CMSA or ESFR sprinklers to protect solid shelf storage. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Do not accept text proposed, revise 16.2.3.2 by deleting item 1 and renumber note 2 to note 1. Committee Statement: The solid shelf design criteria in section 16.1.6 is acceptable protection for solid shelf storage with CMSA and ESFR sprinklers at the ceiling. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: The Action reported here is not in accordance with the final discussion on the subject. Initially, the reported Action was agreed to, but later in the meeting the issue was reopened and it was decided that instead of the

deletion of Note 1, text would be added to Note 1 to clarify that ESFR sprinklers cannot be used to protect racks with solid shelves unless in-rack sprinklers are installed as well. Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: I am unclear why this was an Accept in Principle where the submitter is trying to indicate that CMSA and ESFR are not compatible with the presence of solid shelves yet the committee appears to be saying just the opposite. I agree that CMSA and ESFR sprinklers can be compatible with solid shelves if an acceptable level of in-rack sprinklers are provided. ________________________________________________________________ 13-438 Log #285 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(16.1.7, 17.1.6, and C.12)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 16.1.7 Open-Top Combustible Containers. See Section C.12.16.1.7.1 When open-top containers are utilized within storage racks that are either open-frame or have solid shelves up to 64 ft² (6.0 m²) in area, protection shall be provided for the racks as though 20 to 64 ft² (2.0 to 6.0 m²) solid shelves are present with the number of levels of in-rack sprinklers in accordance with 16.1.6.1 and in-racks sprinklers located at every transverse flue space intersection. 16.1.7.2 When open-top containers are utilized within storage racks that have solid shelves greater than 64 ft² (6.0 m²) in area, protection shall be provided for the rack storage based on presence of solid shelves greater than 64 ft² (6.0 m²) in area with the number of levels of in-rack sprinklers in accordance with 16.1.6.2 and in-rack sprinklers located at every transverse flue space intersection. 16.1.7.3 The provisions of 16.1.7.1 and 16.1.7.2 shall not apply to open-top combustible containers as provided under any of the conditions allowed by 16.1.7.3.1 through 16.1.7.3.4. 16.1.7.3.1 Open-top combustible containers that are all located on the bottom tier of the rack storage shall not require protection as an open-top container. 16.1.7.3.2 Open-top combustible containers that are not located on the top tier of the storage rack and that do not extend into the transverse flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container. 16.1.7.3.3 Open-top combustible containers that are provided with either wire mesh siding or large uniform openings along the bottom perimeter of each container such that all water that enters the container will leave the container at the same flow rate and discharge evenly into the flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container provided the storage within the container is not water absorbent nor capable on blocking any of the container opening. 16.1.7.3.4 Open-top combustible containers that are stored in a fixed location on racks equipped with flat or domed-shaped fixed-in-place lids that are provided directly above the open-top combustible containers and prevent water from entering the open-top container, as well as distribute water equally into all flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container. 16.1.7.4 The provisions of 16.1.7.1 and 16.1.7.2 shall not apply to open-top noncombustible containers as provided under any of the conditions allowed by 16.1.7.4.1 through 16.1.7.4.4. 16.1.7.4.1 Open-top noncombustible containers that are all located on the bottom tier of the rack storage shall not require protection as an open-top container. 16.1.7.4.2 Open-top noncombustible containers that are located on the top tier of the storage rack with all storage located below also in noncombustible containers shall not require protection as an open-top container. 16.1.7.4.3 Open-top noncombustible containers that are provided with either wire mesh siding or large uniform openings along the bottom perimeter of each container such that all water that enters the container will leave the container at the same flow rate and discharge evenly into the flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container provided the storage within the container is not water absorbent nor capable on blocking any of the container opening. 16.1.7.4.4 Open-top noncombustible containers that are not located on the top tier of the storage rack, that are intermixed with storage in combustible containers and that do not extend into the transverse flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container. 17.1.6 Open-Top Combustible Containers. See Section C.12.17.1.6.1 When open-top containers are utilized within storage racks that are either open-frame or have solid shelves up to 64 ft² (6.0 m²) in area, protection shall be provided for the racks as though 20 to 64 ft² (2.0 to 6.0 m²) solid shelves are present with the number of levels of in-rack sprinklers in accordance with 17.1.5.1 and in-racks sprinklers located at every transverse flue space intersection. 17.1.6.2 When open-top containers are utilized within storage racks that have solid shelves greater than 64 ft² (6.0 m²) in area, protection shall be provided for the rack storage based on presence of solid shelves greater than 64 ft² (6.0 m²) in area with the number of levels of in-rack sprinklers in accordance with 17.1.5.2 and in-rack sprinklers located at every transverse flue space intersection. 17.1.6.3 The provisions of 17.1.6.1 and 17.1.6.2 shall not apply to open-top combustible containers as provided under any of the conditions allowed by 17.1.6.3.1 through 17.1.6.3.4. 17.1.6.3.1 Open-top combustible containers that are all located on the bottom tier of the rack storage shall not require protection as an open-top container.

13-109

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 17.1.6.3.2 Open-top combustible containers that are not located on the top tier of the storage rack and that do not extend into the transverse flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container. 17.1.6.3.3 Open-top combustible containers that are provided with either wire mesh siding or large uniform openings along the bottom perimeter of each container such that all water that enters the container will leave the container at the same flow rate and discharge evenly into the flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container provided the storage within the container is not water absorbent nor capable on blocking any of the container opening. 17.1.6.3.4 Open-top combustible containers that are stored in a fixed location on racks equipped with flat or domed-shaped fixed-in-place lids that are provided directly above the open-top combustible containers and prevent water from entering the open-top container, as well as distribute water equally into all flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container. 17.1.6.4 The provisions of 17.1.6.1 and 17.1.6.2 shall not apply to open-top noncombustible containers as provided under any of the conditions allowed by 17.1.6.4.1 through 17.1.6.4.4. 17.1.6.4.1 Open-top noncombustible containers that are all located on the bottom tier of the rack storage shall not require protection as an open-top container. 17.1.6.4.2 Open-top noncombustible containers that are located on the top tier of the storage rack with all storage located below also in noncombustible containers shall not require protection as an open-top container. 17.1.6.4.3 Open-top noncombustible containers that are provided with either wire mesh siding or large uniform openings along the bottom perimeter of each container such that all water that enters the container will leave the container at the same flow rate and discharge evenly into the flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container provided the storage within the container is not water absorbent nor capable on blocking any of the container opening. 17.1.6.4.4 Open-top noncombustible containers that are not located on the top tier of the storage rack, that are intermixed with storage in combustible containers and that do not extend into the transverse flue spaces shall not require protection as an open-top container. C.12 [16.1.7 and 17.1.6] Fire tests with open-top containers in the upper tier of storage and a portion of the third tier of storage produced an increase in sprinkler operation from 36 to 41 sprinklers and a more pronounced aisle jump and increase in firespread in the main array. The smooth underside of the containers closely approximates fire behavior of slave pallets. Installation of in-rack sprinklers or an increase in ceiling sprinkler density should be considered. Substantiation: The provisions of 16.1.7 and 17.1.6 provide no mandatory guidance as to the appropriate protection for open-top containers while the provisions of C.12 provide a suggested application of added in-rack sprinklers or increased ceiling density. Without mandatory guidance and more specific suggested guidance within the Annex, the user is left without sufficient guidance to determine adequate protection for such arrangement. The proposed protection criteria was developed based on the outlined protection guidance currently provided by FM 8-9, Section 2.2.5.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartRevise text to read as follows: 16.1.7 Open-Top Combustible Containers. The protection of open-top containers is outside the scope of Chapter 16. See Section C.12. C12 - Delete last sentence of C12 17.1.6 Open-Top Combustible Containers. The protection of open-top containers is outside the scope of Chapter 17. See Section C.12.Committee Statement: No test data submitted to substantiate this change - new text clarifies that protection for open top containers is outside the scope of these chapters. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-439 Log #287 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(16.1.9, A.16.1.9, A.16.3.1.1, and Table 16.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Delete Annex asterisk reference from 16.1.9 Delete A.16.1.9A.16.1.9 Where the ceiling is more than 10 ft (3.1 m) above the maximum height of storage, a horizontal barrier should be installed above storage with one line of sprinklers under the barrier for Classes I, II, and III commodities and two lines of sprinklers under the barrier for Class IV commodities and Group A plastics. In-rack sprinkler arrays should be installed as indicated in Table 16.3.1.1 and Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(a) through Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(j). Delete footnote i and associated reference within the Tablei See A.16.1.9 for protection recommendations where clearance is greater than 10 ft (3.1 m). Delete A.16.1.9 reference from A.16.3.1.1(See A.16.1.9 and A.16.3.4.1.3).Substantiation: As written A.16.1.9 is in conflict with the excessive clearance criteria of 12.1.3.4 and should be deleted. Additionally, the reference to A.16.1.9 in Table 16.3.1.1 and A.16.3.1.1 should be eliminated as they are no longer necessary. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-440 Log #177 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 16.2.1.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Footnote: * See 16.2.1.2.1 16.2.1.3.2.1(A) for interpolation of aisle widths.Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-442 (Log #33).Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-441 Log #369 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 16.2.1.3.2 and 16.2.1.3.6 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete “Without Solid Shelves” from the title of Table 16.2.1.3.2. Add new text to read as follows:16.2.1.3.6 For solid shelf rack storage, Table 16.2.1.3.2 shall be used to establish the density/area criteria and in-rack sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with 16.1.6.Substantiation: The title of the table specifically says that the table is not to be used with solid shelves, but the table is supposed to be used with solid shelves and additional in-rack sprinklers. The contradiction is confusing and needs to be corrected. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-442 Log #33 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 16.2.1.3.2, Note)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Prachod Kumar, Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire InsuranceRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: * See 16.2.1.2.1 for interpolation of aisle widths * See 16.2.1.3.2.1 for interpolation of aisle widths.Substantiation: Present ‘note’ below Table 16.2.1.3.2 is referring wrong clause. By revising the text as above, those who are referring the ‘standard’ will not have confusion. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-443 Log #288 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 16.2.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the Title of the Table 16.2.2.1 as follows:Table 16.2.2.1 CMSA Sprinkler Design Criteria for Rack Storage of Class I Through Class IV Commodities (Encapsulated and Nonencapsulated) Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) Substantiation: The Table should clearly discern that the use of the criteria contained therein is applicable to encapsulated and nonencapsulated storage arrangements similar to that provided for other ESFR Tables. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-444 Log #286 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(16.2.4.2.1, Table 16.2.4.2.1, and 16.2.4.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise 16.2.4.2.1 as follows: 16.2.4.2.1* Maximum horizontal spacing of in-rack sprinklers in single- or double-row racks with nonencapsulated storage up to and including 25 ft (7.6 m) in height shall be in accordance with Table 16.2.4.2.1. For encapsulated storage, maximum horizontal spacing shall be 8 ft (2.4 m). Revise Title of Table 16.2.4.2.1 as follows: Table 16.2.4.2.1 In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing for Class I, II, II and IV Commodities Stored in Single- or Double Row Racks Up to 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height

13-110


Revise 16.2.4.2.2 as follows: 16.2.4.2.2* Maximum horizontal spacing and maximum area of coverage of in-rack sprinklers on branch lines, in multiple-row racks with encapsulated or nonencapsulated storage up to and including 25 ft (7.6 m) in height, shall be in accordance with Table 16.2.4.2.2 not exceed 12 ft (3.7 m) for Class I, II, or III commodities and 8 ft (2.4 m) for Class IV commodities, with area limitations of 100 ft² (9.3 m²) per sprinkler for Class I, II, or III commodities and 80 ft² (7.4 m²) per sprinkler for Class IV commodities.

Substantiation: The current Title of Table 16.2.4.2.1 lends itself to misapplication of the criteria to encapsulated arrangements as well as multi-row rack arrangements as the used will be likely to only review the Table in trying to determine the applicable requirements. The inclusion of all criteria within the Tables eliminates the confusion and potential misapplication of requirements by providing for better usability of the Code through use of a consistent presentation of the requirements. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-445 Log #289 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 16.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the Title of the Table 16.3.1.1 as follows:Table 16.3.1.1 Single- Double-Row Racks Without Solid Shelves of Class I Through Class IV Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) n Height, Aisles 4 ft (1.2 m) or Wider Substantiation: The provisions of Section 16.3.1.1 clearly indicate that single and double row racks shall follow Table 16.3.1.1. The Title of the Table should reflect this. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptRevise the Title of the Table 16.3.1.1 as follows:Table 16.3.1.1 Single-or Double-Row Racks Without Solid Shelves of Class I Through Class IV Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) n Height, Aisles 4 ft (1.2 m) or WiderCommittee Statement: Editorially added “or” after “Single”.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-446 Log #290 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Table 16.3.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Insert a new footnote d and reference in the Column labeled “Ceiling Sprinkler Density Clearance Up to 10 ft”d For encapsulated commodity increase density 25 percent.Substantiation: A footnote should be added to the Table to reflect the 25 percent increase required by 16.3.1.2.1 the same as was done in Table 16.3.1.1

with footnote g as provided by 16.3.1.1.1. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: For encapsulated commodity, there is a density increase built into table. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-447 Log #178 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 16.3.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Footnote: * High temperature rated sprinklers shall be used. Dry system water delivery shall be determined in accordance with 7.2.3.4 7.2.3.6 with a maximum time of water delivery of 30 seconds with four sprinklers initially open. Substantiation: Incorrect reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Correct spelling of “sprinklers”. Committee Statement: Editorial.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-448 Log #291 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 16.3.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise the Title of the Table 16.3.2.1 as follows:Table 16.3.2.1 CMSA Sprinkler Design Criteria for Rack Storage of Class I Through Class IV Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height (Encapsulated and Nonencapsulated)Substantiation: The Table should clearly discern that the use of the criteria contained therein is applicable to encapsulated and nonencapsulated storage arrangements similar to that provided for other ESFR Tables. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-449 Log #138 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 17)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Completely revise Chapter 17 as shown in the attached document. Chapter 17 Protection of Plastic and Rubber Commodities That Are Stored on Racks17.1 General.17.1.1 This chapter shall apply to storage of plastic and rubber commodities stored in racks. The requirements of Chapter 12 shall apply unless modified by this chapter. (See Section C.9.)17.1.1.1 17.1.2.1.1 This decision tree chapter also shall be used to determine protection for commodities that are not entirely Group A plastics, but contain such quantities and arrangements of Group A plastics that they are deemed more hazardous than Class IV commodities.17.1.2 Sprinkler Protection Criteria.17.1.2.1* Plastic commodities shall be protected in accordance with Figure 17.1.2.1. (See Section C.21) 13/L286/Tb 16.2.4.2.1/A2012/ROP

Table 16.2.4.2.1

Commodity Class

Encapsulated?Aisle Widths I and II III IV

ft m ft m ft m ft m

No 8 2.4 12 3.7 12 3.7 10 3.0

No 4 1.2 12 3.7 10 3.0 10 3.0

Yes - - 8 2.4 8 2.4 8 2.4

13/L286/Tb 16.2.4.2.2/A2012/ROP

Table 16.2.4.2.2 In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing for Class I, II, II

and IV Commodities Stored in Multi-Row Racks up to 25 ft

(7.6 m) in Height

Commodity Class

I, II, III IV

Spacing Area Spacing Area

ft m ft² m² ft M ft² m²

12 3.7 100 9.3 8 2.4 80 7.4

13-111


Figure 17.1.2.1 Decision Tree

17.1.2.2 17.1.2.1.2 The design criteria of 17.2.1 Chapter 17 for single- and double-row rack storage of plastic commodities shall be applicable where aisles are 3.5 ft (1.07 m) or greater in width.17.1.2.3 17.1.2.1.3 Storage with aisles less than 3.5 ft (1.07 m) shall be protected as multiple-row rack storage.17.1.2.4 17.1.2.2 Group B plastics and free-flowing Group A plastics shall be protected the same as Class IV commodities.17.1.2.5 17.1.2.3 Group C plastics shall be protected the same as Class III commodities.17.1.2.6 17.1.2.4 Sprinkler protection criteria for the storage of materials on racks shall be in accordance with Section 17.2 for storage up to 25 ft (7.6 m) and Section 17.3 for storage over 25 ft (7.6 m).17.1.2.7* 17.1.2.5* Protection criteria for Group A plastics shall be permitted for the protection of the same storage height and configuration of Class I, II, III, and IV commodities.17.1.3 Movable Racks. Rack storage in movable racks shall be protected in the same manner as multiple-row racks.17.1.4 Fire Protection of Steel Columns — Columns Within Storage Racks. See Section C.10.17.1.4.1 Where fireproofing of building columns is not provided and storage heights are in excess of 15 ft (4.6 m), protection of building columns within the rack structure or vertical rack members supporting the building shall be protected in accordance with one of the following:(1) In-rack sprinklers(2) Sidewall sprinklers at the 15 ft (4.6 m) elevation, pointed toward one side of the steel column(3) Provision of ceiling sprinkler density for a minimum of 2000 ft2 (186 m2) with ordinary 165°F (74°C) temperature or high temperature 286°F (141°C) rated sprinklers as shown inTable 17.1.4.1 for storage heights above 15 ft (4.6 m), up to and including 20 ft (6.1 m)(4) Provision of CMSA or ESFR ceiling sprinkler protection

Table 17.1.4.1 [no change from existing table]

17.1.4.1.1 This protection shall not be required where storage in fixed racks is protected by in-rack sprinklers. (Moved to item 1 in the list above)17.1.4.2 The flow from a column sprinkler(s) shall be permitted to be omitted from the sprinkler system hydraulic calculations.17.1.5 Solid Shelf Rack.17.1.5.1 Where solid shelving in single-, double-, and multiple-row racks exceeds 20 ft2 (1.86 m2) but does not exceed 64 ft2 (5.95 m2) in area, sprinklers shall not be required below every shelf, but shall be installed at the ceiling and below shelves at intermediate levels not more than 6 ft (2 m) apart vertically. (See Section C.11.)17.1.5.2 Where solid shelving in single-, double-, and multiple-row racks exceeds 64 ft2 (5.95 m2) in area or where the levels of storage exceed 6 ft (2 m), sprinklers shall be installed at the ceiling and below each level of shelving.17.1.5.3 In-rack sprinklers shall be horizontally spaced in accordance with 17.2 and 17.3. 17.2.4 and 17.3.4.17.1.5.4 Design criteria for combined ceiling and in-rack sprinklers shall be used for the storage configurations in 17.1.5.1 and 17.1.5.2.17.1.6 Open-Top Combustible Containers. See Section C.12.17.1.7 In-Rack Sprinklers.17.1.7.1 The number of sprinklers and the pipe sizing on a line of sprinklers in racks shall be restricted only by hydraulic calculations and not by any piping schedule.17.1.7.2 When in-rack sprinklers are necessary to protect a higher hazard commodity that occupies only a portion of the length of a rack, in-rack sprinklers shall be extended a minimum of 8 ft (2.44 m) or one bay, whichever

is greater, in each direction along the rack on either side of the higher hazard.17.1.7.2.1 The in-rack sprinklers protecting the higher hazard shall not be required to be extended across the aisle.17.1.7.3 Where a storage rack, due to its length, requires less than the number of in-rack sprinklers specified, only those in-rack sprinklers in a single rack need to be included in the calculation.17.1.7.4* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.17.1.7.4.1 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.1.7.4.2 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.17.1.8* Horizontal Barriers and In-Rack Sprinklers.17.1.8.1 Horizontal barriers used in conjunction with in-rack sprinklers to impede vertical fire development shall be constructed of sheet metal, wood, or similar material and shall extend the full length and depth of the rack.17.1.8.2 Barriers shall be fitted within 2 in. (51 mm) horizontally around rack uprights.17.1.9 Flue Space Requirements for Storage Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m). See Section C.13.17.1.9.1 In double-row and multiple-row racks without solid shelves, a longitudinal (back-to-back clearance between loads) flue space shall not be required.17.1.9.2 Nominal 6 in. (152.4 mm) transverse flue spaces between loads and at rack uprights shall be maintained in single row, double-row, and multiple-row racks.17.1.9.3 Random variations in the width of flue spaces or in their vertical alignment shall be permitted.17.1.10 Flue Space Requirements for Storage Over 25 ft (7.6 m).17.1.10.1 Nominal 6 in. (152.4 mm) longitudinal flue spaces shall be provided in double-row racks.17.1.10.1.1 Nominal 6 in. (152.4 mm) transverse flue spaces between loads and at rack uprights shall be maintained in single-row, double-row, and multiple-row racks.17.1.10.1.2 Random variations in the width of the flue spaces or in their vertical alignment shall be permitted.17.1.10.2 In single-row, double-row, or multiple-row racks, a minimum 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the in-rack sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.1.10.2.1 Face sprinklers in such racks shall be located within the rack a minimum of 3 in. (76 mm) from rack uprights and no more than 18 in. (460 mm) from the aisle face of storage.17.1.10.2.2 Longitudinal flue in-rack sprinklers shall be located at the intersection with the transverse flue space and with the deflector located at or below the bottom of horizontal load beams or above or below other adjacent horizontal rack members.17.1.10.2.3 Such in-rack sprinklers shall be a minimum of 3 in. (76 mm) radially from the side of the rack uprights.17.2 Protection Criteria for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.2.1 Control Mode Density/Area Sprinkler Protection Criteria for Single-, Double-, and Multiple-Row Racks for Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height, with Clearances Up to and Including 10 ft (3.1 m).17.2.1.1* Storage 5 ft (1.5 m) or Less in Height.17.2.1.1.1 For the storage of Group A plastics stored 5 ft (1.5 m) or less in height, the sprinkler design criteria for miscellaneous storage specified in Chapter 13 shall be used.17.2.1.1.2 The protection criteria in Chapter 13 shall be acceptable for storage of Group A plastic commodities up to and including 5 ft (1.5 m) in height. (See Table 13.2.1 for specificGroup A plastic storage height protection criteria.) (Redundant with 17.2.1.1.1?)17.2.1.2 Ceiling Sprinkler Water Demand. See Section C.22.17.2.1.2.1* For Group A plastic commodities in cartons, encapsulated or nonencapsulated in single-, double-, and multiple-row racks, ceiling sprinkler water demand in terms of density [gpm/ft2 (mm/min)] and area of operation [ft2 (m2)] shall be selected from Figure 17.2.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2.1(f).17.2.1.2.2 Linear interpolation of design densities and areas of application shall be permitted between storage heights with the same clearances.17.2.1.2.3 No interpolation between clearances shall be permitted.17.2.1.2.4* An option shall be selected from the appropriate Figure 17.2.1.2(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2(f) given the storage height and clearance being protected. The density/area criteria at the top of each option shall be applied to the ceiling sprinklers and the in-rack sprinklers shown in the option (if any) shall be provided. Options that do not show multiple row racks in the figures shall not be permitted to protect multiple row rack storage. Notes in each figure shall be permitted to clarify options or to present additional options not shown in the figures.

FIGURE 17.2.1.2.1(a) 5 ft to 10 ft (1.5 m to 3 m) Storage; Up to 10 ft (3 m) (not submitted)

Group A

Exposed

Group Bprotect asClass IV

Free flowingprotect asClass IV

Cartonedprotect usingChapter 17

Expandedoutside the

scope ofChapter 17

Nonexpandedprotect using only theportions of Chapter 17applicable to exposednonexpanded plastics

Plastics

Group Cprotect asClass III

13-112

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 FIGURE 17.2.1.2.1(b) 15 ft (4.6 m) Storage; Up to 10 ft (3.1 m) Clearance to Ceiling. (not submitted)

FIGURE 17.2.1.2.1(c) 20 ft (6.1 m) Storage; <5 ft (1.5 m) Clearance to Ceiling. (not submitted)

FIGURE 17.2.1.2.1(d) 20 ft (6.1 m) Storage; 5 ft to 10 ft (1.5 m to 3.1m) Clearance to Ceiling. (not submitted)

FIGURE 17.2.1.2.1(e) 25 ft (7.6 m) Storage; <5 ft (1.5 m) Clearance to Ceiling. (not submitted)

FIGURE 17.2.1.2.1(f) 25 ft (7.6 m) Storage; 5 ft to 10 ft (1.5 m to 3.1m) Clearance to Ceiling. (not submitted)

17.2.1.3* Water Supply. See Section C.8.17.2.1.3.1 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 17.2.1.3.1 to the water supply for sprinklers determined in 17.2.1.

Table 17.2.1.3.1 Hose Stream Allowance and Water Supply Requirements for Rack Storage of Plastic Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6m) in Height (not submitted)

17.2.1.3.2 This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 17.2.1.3.1.17.2.1.4 For storage of Group A plastics between 5 ft and 12 ft (1.5 m and 3.7 m) in height, the installation requirements for extra hazard systems shall apply.17.2.1.5 In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements Where Control Mode Density/Area Sprinklers Are Being Used at the Ceiling.

17.2.1.5.1 17.2.4.2.1 In-Rack Sprinkler Clearance. The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.

17.2.1.5.2 17.2.4.2.2 The spacing of in-rack sprinklers shall be in accordance with Figure 17.2.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2.1(f).

17.2.1.5.3* 17.2.4.2.3* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.

17.2.1.5.4 17.2.4.2.3.1 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.

17.2.1.5.5 17.2.4.2.3.2 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.

17.2.1.5.6 17.2.4.3 In-Rack Sprinkler Water Demand for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. The water demand for sprinklers installed in racks shall be based on simultaneous operation of the most hydraulically remote sprinklers as follows:

(1) Eight sprinklers where only one level is installed in racks(2) Fourteen sprinklers (seven on each top two levels) where more than one level is installed in racks

17.2.1.5.7 17.2.4.4 In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge Pressure for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. Sprinklers in racks shall discharge at not less than 15 psi (1 bar) for all classes of commodities. (See Section C.19.)17.2.2 CMSA Sprinklers for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.2.2.1 Protection of single-, double-, and multiple-row rack storage without solid shelves for nonexpanded plastic commodities shall be in accordance with Table 17.2.2.1.17.2.2.2 Protection of commodities on solid shelves with CMSA sprinklers shall not be permitted.17.2.2.2 Where in-rack sprinklers are required by Table 17.2.2.1, in-rack sprinkler spacing, design pressure, and hydraulic calculation criteria shall be in accordance with the requirements of 17.2.4 as applicable for the commodity.17.2.2.3 Protection shall be provided as specified in Table 17.2.2.1 or appropriate NFPA standards in terms of minimum operating pressure and the number of sprinklers to be included in the design area.17.2.2.4 Open Wood Joist Construction.17.2.2.4.1 Where CMSA sprinklers are installed under open wood joist construction, fire-stopping in accordance with 17.2.2.4.2 shall be provided or the their minimum operating pressure of the sprinklers shall be 50 psi (3.4 bar) for a K-11.2 (160) sprinkler or 22 psi (1.5 bar) for a K-16.8 (240) sprinkler.17.2.2.4.2 Where each joist channel of open wood joist construction is fully fire-stopped to its full depth at intervals not exceeding 20 ft (6.1 m), the lower pressures specified inTable 17.2.2.1 shall be permitted to be used.

17.2.2.5 Hose stream allowance and water supply duration requirements shall be in accordance with those for extra hazard occupancies in Table 17.2.2.1. (inappropriate to reference extra hazard)17.2.2.6 Preaction Systems. For the purpose of using Table 17.2.2.1, preaction systems shall be classified as dry pipe systems.17.2.2.7 Building steel shall not require special protection where Table 17.2.2.1 is applied as appropriate for the storage configuration.17.2.2.8 In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements Where CMSA Sprinklers are Being Used at the Ceiling.17.2.2.8.1 In-rack sprinklers shall be installed at the first tier level at or above one-half of the storage height.17.2.2.8.2 The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.2.2.8.3* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues.17.2.2.8.4 The maximum horizontal distance between in-rack sprinklers shall be 5 ft (1.5m). ???17.2.2.8.5 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.2.2.8.6 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.17.2.2.8.7 In-Rack Sprinkler Water Demand. The water demand for sprinklers installed in racks shall be based on simultaneous operation of the most hydraulically remote eight sprinklers.17.2.2.8.8 In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge Pressure. Sprinklers in racks shall discharge at not less than 15 psi (1 bar) for all classes of commodities. (See Section C.19.) ???17.2.3* Early Suppression Fast-Response (ESFR) Sprinklers for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.2.3.1 Protection of single-, double-, and multiple-row rack storage of cartoned or exposed nonexpanded uncartoned unexpanded plastic and cartoned expanded plastic shall be in accordance with Table 17.2.3.1.17.2.3.1.1 ESFR protection as defined shall not apply to the following:(1) Rack storage involving solid shelves(2) Rack storage involving combustible, open-top cartons or containers17.2.3.2 ESFR sprinkler systems shall be designed such that the minimum operating pressure is not less than that indicated in Table 17.2.3.1 for type of storage, commodity, storage height, and building height involved.17.2.3.3 The design area shall consist of the most hydraulically demanding area of 12 sprinklers, consisting of four sprinklers on each of three branch lines.17.2.3.4 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations.17.2.3.5 In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements Where ESFR Sprinklers are Being Used at the Ceiling.17.2.3.5.1 Where required by Table 17.2.3.1, in-rack sprinklers shall be installed at the first tier level at or above one-half of the storage height.17.2.3.5.2 In-rack sprinklers shall be k-8.0 (115) or K-11.2(160) quick response, ordinary temperature sprinklers.17.2.3.5.3 The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.2.3.5.4 The maximum horizontal distance between in-rack sprinklers shall be 5 ft (1.5m). ???17.2.3.5.5* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.17.2.3.5.6 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.2.3.5.7 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.17.2.3.5.8 The water demand for sprinklers installed in racks shall be based on simultaneous operation of the most hydraulically remote eight sprinklers17.2.3.5.9 Each of the in-rack sprinklers described in 17.2.3.5.8 shall discharge at a minimum of 60 gpm (227 L/min).17.2.4 In-Rack Sprinklers for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.2.4.1 In-Rack Sprinkler Location for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. In-rack sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with Figure 17.2.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2.1(f).17.2.4.2 In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.2.4.2.1 In-Rack Sprinkler Clearance. The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.2.4.2.2 The spacing of in-rack sprinklers shall be in accordance with Figure 17.2.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2.1(f).17.2.4.2.3* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.17.2.4.2.3.1 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the

13-113

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.2.4.2.3.2 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.

17.2.4.3 In-Rack Sprinkler Water Demand for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. The water demand for sprinklers installed in racks shall be based on simultaneous operation of the most hydraulically remote sprinklers as follows:

(1) Eight sprinklers where only one level is installed in racks(2) Fourteen sprinklers (seven on each top two levels) where more than one level is installed in racks

17.2.4.4 In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge Pressure for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. Sprinklers in racks shall discharge at not less than 15 psi (1 bar) for all classes of commodities. (See Section C.19.)17.2.4 17.2.5 Special Design for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Up to and Including 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.

17.2.4.1 17.2.5.1 Slatted Shelves.

17.2.4.1.1 17.2.5.1.1* Slatted rack shelves shall be considered equivalent to solid rack shelves where the shelving is not considered open rack shelving or where the requirements of 17.2.5.1 are not met. (See Section C.20.)17.2.4.1.2 17.2.5.1.2 A wet pipe system that is designed to provide a minimum of 0.6 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) density over a minimum area of 2000 ft2 (186m2) or K-14.0 (200) ESFR sprinklers operating at a minimum of 50 psi (3.5 bar), K-16.8 (240) sprinklers operating at a minimum of 32 psi (1.7 bar), or K-25.2 (360) ESFR sprinklers operating at a minimum of 15 psi (1.0 bar) shall be permitted to protect single-row and double-row racks with slatted rack shelving racks where all of the following conditions are met:(1) Sprinklers shall be K-11.2 (160), K-14.0 (200), or K-16.8 (240) orifice spray sprinklers with a temperature rating of ordinary, intermediate, or high and shall be listed for storage occupancies or shall be K-14.0 (200), K-16.8 (240), or K-25.2 (360) ESFR.(2) The protected commodities shall be limited to Class I through Class IV, Group B plastics, Group C plastics, cartoned (expanded and nonexpanded unexpanded) Group A plastics, and exposed (nonexpanded unexpanded) Group A plastics.(3) Slats in slatted rack shelving shall be a minimum nominal 2 in. (51 mm) thick by maximum nominal 6 in. (152 mm) wide with the slats held in place by spacers that maintain a minimum 2 in. (51 mm) opening between each slat.(4) Where K-11.2 (160), K-14.0 (200), or K-16.8 (240) orifice sprinklers are used, there shall be no slatted shelf levels in the rack above 12 ft (3.7 m). Open rack shelving using wire mesh shall be permitted for shelf levels above 12 ft (3.7 m).(5) Transverse flue spaces at least 3 in. (76 mm) wide shall be provided at least every 10 ft (3.1 m) horizontally.(6) Longitudinal flue spaces at least 6 in. (152 mm) wide shall be provided for double-row racks. Longitudinal flue spaces shall not be required when ESFR sprinklers are used.(7) The aisle widths shall be at least 71⁄2 ft (2.3 m).(8) The maximum roof height shall be 27 ft (8.2 m) or 30 ft (9.1 m) where ESFR sprinklers are used.(9) The maximum storage height shall be 20 ft (6.1 m).(10) Solid plywood or similar materials shall not be placed on the slatted shelves so that they block the 2 in. (51 mm) spaces between slats, nor shall they be placed on the wire mesh shelves.17.3 Protection Criteria for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.3.1 Control Mode Density/Area Sprinkler Protection Criteria for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height for Single-, Double-, and Multiple-Row Racks.17.3.1.1 Protection of Group A plastics in cartons, expanded or nonexpanded, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, shall be permitted using control mode density/area sprinklers in accordance with 17.3.1.17.3.1.2 Protection of Group A plastics that are exposed and nonexpanded, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, shall be permitted only using in-rack sprinkler arrangements that are specifically permitted to be used with exposed unexpanded plastics.17.3.1.3 17.3.1.1* Ceiling Sprinkler Water Demand. For Group A plastic commodities in cartons, encapsulated or nonencapsulated, ceiling sprinkler water demand in terms of density [gpm/ft2 (mm/min)] and area of operation [ft2 (m2)] shall be selected from Table 17.3.1.3.Table 17.3.1.3 [existing Table 17.3.1.1]7.3.1.4 For protection of cartoned storage of Group A plastics, expanded or nonexpanded, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, on single row racks, in-rack sprinklers shall be arranged in accordance with one of the options in Figure 17.3.1.4(a) through Figure 17.3.1.4(c) or Figure 17.3.1.7. The highest level of in-rack sprinklers shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 m) below the top of storage.Figure 17.3.1.4(a) [existing Figure 17.3.1.2.1(a)]Figure 17.3.1.4(b) [existing Figure 17.3.1.2.1(b)]Figure 17.3.1.4(c) [existing Figure 17.3.1.2.1(c)]

17.3.1.5 For protection of cartoned storage of Group A plastics, expanded or nonexpanded, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, on double row racks, in-rack sprinklers shall be arranged in accordance with one of the double row rack options in Figure 17.3.1.5(a), Figure 17.3.1.5(b) or Figure 17.3.1.7. The highest level of in-rack sprinklers shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 m) below the top of storage.

Figure 17.3.1.5(a) [existing Figure 17.3.1.2(a)] Figure 17.3.1.5(b) [existing Figure 17.3.1.2(b)] 17.3.1.6 17.3.1.2 Where a single-row rack of cartoned plastic storage is mixed with double-row racks of cartoned plastic storage, either Figure 17.3.1.5(a) 17.3.1.2(a) or Figure 17.3.1.5(b) 17.3.1.2(b) shall be permitted to be used in accordance with the corresponding storage height. The highest level of in-rack sprinklers shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 m) below the top of storage.

17.3.1.2.1 Figure 17.3.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.3.1.2.1(c) shall be permitted to be used for the protection of the single row racks.

17.3.1.7 For protection of storage of exposed nonexpanded Group A plastics, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, on single row racks or double row racks, in-rack sprinklers shall be arranged in accordance with Figure 17.3.1.7. The highest level of in-rack sprinklers shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 m) below the top of storage. Where this figure is used, aisles shall be at least 4 ft (1.2m) wide and the ceiling sprinklers shall be designed for a minimum discharge density of 0.45 gpm per sq ft over 2000 sq ft (18.3mm/min over 186 sq m)

Figure 17.3.1.7 [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.4]

17.3.1.8 For protection of storage of exposed nonexpanded Group A plastics, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, or cartoned Group A plastics, expanded or nonexpanded, whether encapsulated or nonencapsulated, on multiple row racks, in-rack sprinklers shall be arranged in accordance with one of the options in Figure 17.3.1.8(a) through Figure 17.3.1.8(f). The highest level of in-rack sprinklers shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 m) below the top of storage.

Figure 17.3.1.8(a) [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.3(a)]

Figure 17.3.1.8(b) [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.3(b)]

Figure 17.3.1.8(c) [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.3(c)]

Figure 17.3.1.8(d) [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.3(d)]

Figure 17.3.1.8(e) [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.3(e)]

Figure 17.3.1.8(f) [existing Figure 17.3.4.1.3(f)]

17.3.1.9 17.3.4.2.2 The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the in-rack sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.3.1.10 17.3.4.2.3* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.17.3.1.11 17.3.4.2.3.1 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.3.1.12 17.3.4.2.3.2 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.17.3.1.13 17.3.4.3 In-Rack Sprinkler Water Demand for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. The water demand for sprinklers installed in racks shall be based on simultaneous operation of the most hydraulically remote sprinklers as follows:(1) Eight sprinklers where only one level is installed in racks(2) Fourteen sprinklers (seven on each top two levels) where more than one level is installed in racks17.3.1.14 17.3.4.4 In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge Pressure for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. Sprinklers in racks shall discharge at not less than 30 gpm (113.6 L/min).17.3.1.15 17.3.1.3 The minimum water supply requirements for a hydraulically designed occupancy hazard fire control sprinkler system shall be determined by adding the hose stream allowance from Table 17.3.1.15 17.3.1.3 to the water supply for sprinklers determined in Section 17.3. This supply shall be available for the minimum duration specified in Table 17.3.1.15 17.3.1.3.

Table 17.3.1.15 [existing Table 17.3.1.3]17.3.1.4 For Group A plastic commodities that are exposed and unexpanded, encapsulated or unencapsulated, that are permitted to be protected in accordance with one of the in rack options of 17.3.4.1.3, the ceiling sprinkler water demand in terms of density and area of operation shall be selected from Table 17.3.1.1.

13-114

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 17.3.2 CMSA Sprinklers for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.3.2.1 Protection of single-, double-, and multiple-row rack storage without solid shelves for cartoned nonexpanded unexpanded plastic commodities shall be in accordance with Table 17.3.2.1.17.3.2.2 Protection shall be provided as specified in Table 17.3.2.1 or appropriate NFPA standards in terms of minimum operating pressure and the number of sprinklers to be included in the design area.17.3.2.3 The design area shall be a rectangular area having a dimension parallel to the branch lines at least 1.2 times the square root of the area protected by the number of sprinklers to be included in the design area. Any fractional sprinkler shall be included in the design area.17.3.2.4 Building steel shall not require special protection where Table 17.3.2.1 is applied as appropriate for the storage configuration.17.3.2.5* In-Rack Sprinklers (reserved)17.3.3* Early Suppression Fast-Response (ESFR) Sprinklers for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.3.3.1 Protection of single-, double-, and multiple-row rack storage of cartoned or exposed nonexpanded uncartoned unexpanded plastic shall be in accordance with Table 17.3.3.1.17.3.3.1.1 ESFR protection as defined shall not apply to the following:

(1) Rack storage involving solid shelves(2) Rack storage involving combustible, open-top cartons or containers

17.3.3.2 ESFR sprinkler systems shall be designed such that the minimum operating pressure is not less than that indicated in Table 17.3.3.1 for type of storage, commodity, storage height, and building height involved.17.3.3.3 The design area shall consist of the most hydraulically demanding area of 12 sprinklers, consisting of four sprinklers on each of three branch lines.17.3.3.4 Where required by Table 17.3.3.1, one level of K-8.0 (115) or K-11.2 (160) quick-response, ordinary-temperature in-rack sprinklers shall be installed at the tier level closest to but not exceeding one-half of the maximum storage height.17.3.3.4.1 In-rack sprinkler hydraulic design criteria shall be the most hydraulically remote eight sprinklers at 60 gpm (227 L/min).17.3.3.4.2 In-rack sprinklers shall be located at the intersection of the longitudinal and transverse flue space.17.3.3.4.3 Horizontal spacing shall not be permitted to exceed 5 ft (1.5 m)intervals.17.3.3.4.4 The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.3.3.4.5* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.17.3.3.4.6 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.3.3.4.7 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.17.3.3.5 Where ESFR sprinklers are installed above and below obstructions, the discharge for up to two sprinklers for one of the levels shall be included with those of the other level in the hydraulic calculations.17.3.4 In-Rack Sprinklers for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.3.4.1 In-Rack Sprinkler Location for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.3.4.1.1 In double-row racks without solid shelves and with a maximum of 10 ft (3.1 m) between the top of storage and the ceiling, in-rack sprinklers shall be installed in accordance withFigure 17.3.1.2(a) or Figure 17.3.1.2(b). The highest level of in-rack sprinklers shall be not more than 10 ft (3.1 m) below the top of storage.17.3.4.1.2 In single-row racks without solid shelves with storage height over 25 ft (7.6 m) and a maximum of 10 ft (3.1 m) between the top of storage and the ceiling, sprinklers shall be installed as indicated in Figure 17.3.1.2.1(a), Figure 17.3.1.2.1(b), or Figure 17.3.1.2.1(c).17.3.4.1.3* In multiple-row racks without solid shelves with storage height over 25 ft (7.6 m) and a maximum of 10 ft (3.1 m) between the top of storage and the roof/ceiling, in-rack sprinklers shall be installed as indicated in Figure 17.3.4.1.3(a) through Figure 17.3.4.1.3(f).17.3.4.1.4 In single-row and double-row racks without solid shelves with storage height over 25 ft (7.6 m) with aisles greater than 4 ft (1.2 m), in-rack sprinklers shall be located in accordance with Figure 17.3.4.1.4, and the ceiling sprinklers shall be designed for 0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min) over a minimum design area of 2000 ft2 (186 m2).17.3.4.2 In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height.17.3.4.2.1 In-rack sprinklers for storage higher than 25 ft (7.6 m) in double-row racks shall be spaced horizontally and shall be located in the horizontal space nearest the vertical intervals specified in Figure 17.3.1.2(a) or Figure 17.3.1.2(b).17.3.4.2.2 The minimum of 6 in. (152.4 mm) vertical clear space shall be maintained between the sprinkler deflectors and the top of a tier of storage.17.3.4.2.3* In-rack sprinklers shall be located at an intersection of transverse and longitudinal flues while not exceeding the maximum spacing rules.17.3.4.2.3.1 Where distances between transverse flues exceed the maximum

allowable distances, sprinklers shall be installed at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal flues, and additional sprinklers shall be installed between transverse flues to meet the maximum distance rules.17.3.4.2.3.2 Where no transverse flues exist, in-rack sprinklers shall not exceed the maximum spacing rules.17.3.4.3 In-Rack SprinklerWater Demand for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. The water demand for sprinklers installed in racks shall be based on simultaneous operation of the most hydraulically remote sprinklers as follows:(1) Eight sprinklers where only one level is installed in racks(2) Fourteen sprinklers (seven on each top two levels) where more than one level is installed in racks

17.3.4.4 In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge Pressure for Rack Storage of Plastics Commodities Stored Over 25 ft (7.6 m) in Height. Sprinklers in racks shall discharge at not less than 30 gpm (113.6 L/min).A.17.1.2.1 All arrangements of exposed plastics cannot be protected with all types of sprinklers. Only certain combinations of ceiling sprinklers and in-rack sprinklers have been found to provide acceptable protection. No full-scale fire testing has been performed that has determined acceptable criteria for exposed expanded plastics. Factory Mutual has published criteria in its data sheets to protect exposed expanded plastics based on a risk analysis and small/intermediate scale test data. Some AHJ’s accept that criteria as an alternative to the intent of NFPA 13.A.17.1.2.7 A.17.1.2.5 Information for the protection of Classes I, II, III, and IV commodities was extrapolated from full-scale fire tests that were performed at different times than the tests that were used to develop the protection for plastic commodities. It is possible that, by selecting certain points from the tables (and after applying the appropriate modifications), the protection specified by 16.2.4.1 exceeds the requirements of Section 17.2. In such situations, the protection specified for plastics although less than that required by the tables, can adequately protect Classes I, II, III, and IV commodities. This section also allows storage areas that are designed to protect plastics to store Classes I, II, III, and IV commodities without a re-evaluation of fire protection systems.A.17.1.7.4 In-rack sprinklers have proven to be the most effective way to fight fires in rack storage. To accomplish this, however, in-rack sprinklers must be located where they will operate early in a fire as well as direct water where it will do the most good. Simply maintaining a minimum horizontal spacing between sprinklers does not achieve this goal, because fires in rack storage develop and grow in transverse and longitudinal flues, and in-rack sprinklers do not operate until flames actually impinge on them. To ensure early operation and effective discharge, in-rack sprinklers in the longitudinal flue of open-frame racks must be located at transverse flue intersections.A.17.1.8 Where the ceiling is more than 10 ft (3.1 m) above the maximum height of storage, a horizontal barrier should be installed above storage with one line of sprinklers under the barrier for Classes I, II, and III commodities and two lines of sprinklers under the barrier for Class IV commodities and Group A plastics. In-rack sprinkler arrays should be installed as indicated in Table 16.3.1.1 and Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(a) through Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(j). Barriers should be of sufficient strength to avoid sagging that interferes with loading and unloading operations. Horizontal barriers are not required to be provided above a Class I or Class II commodity with in-rack sprinkler arrays in accordance with Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(a) and Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(b), provided one line of in-rack sprinklers is installed above the top tier of storage.A.17.2.1.1 All rack fire tests of plastics were run with an approximate 10 ft (3.1 m) maximum clearance between the top of the storage and the ceiling sprinklers. Within 30 ft (9.1 m) high buildings, greater clearances above storage configurations should be compensated for by the addition of more in-rack sprinklers or the provision of greater areas of application, or both.A.17.2.1.2.1 No successful fire tests have been performed to determine protection criteria for the use of control mode density/area sprinklers to protect exposed nonexpanded plastics stored under 25 ft in height at this time. To protect exposed nonexpanded plastics, other types of sprinklers can be used such as ESFR or CMSA sprinklers, or control mode density/area sprinklers can be used in accordance with the protection criteria for exposed nonexpanded plastics in accordance with 17.3.A.17.2.1.2.4 Most of the Figures 17.2.1.2.1(a) through (f) present multiple options for the designer to choose from. The single column of boxes in the elevation view represents single row rack storage. The double column of boxes in the elevation view represents double row rack storage and the options with three or four columns of boxes represent different arrangements of multiple row rack storage. The “o” and “x” characters in the elevation and plan views represent different rows of in-rack sprinklers. The “o” and “x” characters in the elevation view show the vertical spacing of in-rack sprinklers while the characters in the plan view show the horizontal spacing of in-rack sprinklers. Different symbols are used so that the upper and lower levels of in-rack sprinklers can be determined when looking at the plan view. If no “o” or “x” appears in the elevation and plan view for an option, it means that the storage can be protected without in-rack sprinklers.A.17.2.1.3 Appropriate area/density, other design criteria, and water supply requirements should be based on scientifically based engineering analyses that can include submitted fire testing, calculations, or results from appropriate computational models. Recommended water supplies anticipate successful sprinkler operation. Because of the small but still significant number of

13-115

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 uncontrolled fires in sprinklered properties, which have various causes, there should be an adequate water supply available for fire department use.A.17.2.1.5.3 A.17.2.4.2.3 See A.17.1.7.4A.17.2.2.8.3 See A.17.1.7.4A.17.2.3 ESFR sprinklers are designed to respond quickly to growing fires and deliver heavy discharge to suppress fires rather than to control them. ESFR sprinklers should not be relied on to provide suppression if they are used outside the design parameters. While these sprinklers are intended primarily for use in high-pile storage situations, this section permits their use and extension into adjacent portions of an occupancy that might have a lesser classification. Storage in single-story or multistory buildings can be permitted, provided the maximum ceiling/roof height as specified in Chapter 12 is satisfied for each storage area.Design parameters were determined from a series of full-scale fire tests that were conducted as a joint effort between Factory Mutual Research Corporation and the National Fire Protection Research Foundation. (Copies of the test reports are available from the NFPRF.)A.17.2.3.5.5 See A.17.1.7.4A.17.2.4.1.1 A.17.2.5.1.1 Slatting of decks or walkways or the use of open grating as a substitute for automatic sprinkler thereunder is not acceptable. In addition, where shelving of any type is employed, it is for the basic purpose of providing an intermediate support between the structural members of the rack. As a result, it becomes almost impossible to define and maintain transverse flue spaces across the rack as required.A.17.3.1.3 A.17.3.1.1 In this application ordinary-, intermediate-, or high-temperature sprinklers can be used. There are no data to support temperature rating restrictions for this section.A.17.3.1.8 A.17.3.4.1.3 Figure 17.3.1.8(a) —The protection area per sprinkler under barriers should be no greater than 80 ft2 (7.44 m2).Figure 17.3.1.8(b) — The protection area per sprinkler under barriers should be no greater than 80 ft2 (7.44 m2).Figure 17.3.1.8(c)—The protection area per sprinkler under barriers should be no greater than 50 ft2 (4.65 m2).Figure 17.3.1.8(d) — The protection area per sprinkler under barriers should be no greater than 50 ft2 (4.65 m2).Figure 17.3.1.8(e)—The protection area per sprinkler under barriers should be no greater than 50 ft2 (4.65 m2).Figure 17.3.1.8(f)—The protection area per sprinkler under barriers should be no greater than 50 ft2 (4.65 m2).

A.17.3.2.5 There are currently no situations where in-rack sprinklers are required to be used to protect Group A plastics where CMSA sprinklers are used at the ceiling. At such time as additional protection schemes are developed that rely on in-rack sprinklers working in conjunction with CMSA sprinklers at the ceiling, requirements for the in-rack sprinkler location and discharge will be included here.

A.17.3.3 ESFR sprinklers are designed to respond quickly to growing fires and deliver heavy discharge to suppress fires rather than to control them. ESFR sprinklers should not be relied on to provide suppression if they are used outside the design parameters. While these sprinklers are intended primarily for use in high-pile storage situations, this section permits their use and extension into adjacent portions of an occupancy that might have a lesser classification. Storage in single-story or multistory buildings can be permitted, provided the maximum ceiling/roof height as specified in Chapter 12 is satisfied for each storage area. Design parameters were determined from a series of full-scale fire tests that were conducted as a joint effort between Factory Mutual Research Corporation and the National Fire Protection Research Foundation. (Copies of the test reports are available from the NFPRF.)A.17.3.3.4.5 See A.17.1.7.4A.17.3.4.2.3 See A.17.2.4.2.3.Throughout all figures and tables that are being retained:Change “uncartoned” to “exposed”Change “unexpanded” to “nonexpanded”Change “unencapsulated” to “nonencapsulated” Substantiation: The complete rewrite is necessary for a number of reasons. First, it is not clear which configurations of ceiling and in-rack sprinklers can be applied to exposed plastics storage. This is complicated by the fact that the in-rack sprinkler protection rules are separated from the ceiling sprinkler rules by many pages of material that does not pertain to the same subject. These problems are solved in the rewrite by bringing the in-rack rules up to the same portions of the chapter as the ceiling sprinkler rules. While this creates a small amount of repetition, it clarifies a great many questions. The second reason for the rewrite is that there are missing rules in the standard that are necessary for the correct design and installation of a fire sprinkler system. These missing rules become apparent once the document has been reorganized. The intent of this reorganization is completely editorial in order to make the rules more clear. Every effort has been made to maintain the intent of the requirements as they were in the 2010 edition (as well as previous editions). In order to determine the intent, painstaking research of each rule was conducted, all the way back to the first introduction of plastics commodity protection in NFPA 231C in the 1986 edition. However, once it was determined that there were rules missing, those holes have been filled with suggested requirements

that seem to be in the spirit of what was intended. Those new rules will be substantiated in more detail below. All of the proposed changes are substantiated as follows: ● New section 17.1.1.1 is old section 17.1.2.1.1 – It makes more sense to have this section apply to all of Chapter 17, rather than just the decision tree to which it used to apply. ● New Figure 17.1.2.1 and annex note – The decision tree has been modified with more explicit information about how to protect exposed plastics. An annex note has been added to explain the situation more clearly. ● New item 17.1.4.1(1) is old section 17.1.4.1.1 – It did not make sense to have a list of ways to protect the steel and then have a separate section saying the protection was not necessary if you use in-rack sprinklers. The in-rack sprinklers are just another form of protection, like the use of ESFR sprinklers, and should be added to the list. ● 17.1.4.1(3) – The actual temperatures of 286 and 165 were eliminated. Any sprinkler in the ordinary temperature range and any sprinkler in the high temperature range should be permitted where ordinary or high temperature sprinklers are discussed. ● 17.2.1.1.2 was proposed to be eliminated because it appears to be redundant with 17.2.1.1.1. We cannot see the reason for both sections to remain in the standard. ● 17.2.1.2.4 was created with an annex note to explain how to use Figures 17.2.1.2.1(a) though (f). Prior to this section and annex note being created, there was no explanation in NFPA 13 as to how to use these figures, or even that the user only needed to select one of the options from the figures. ● 17.2.1.5 was created from the old 17.2.4 to specifically address the requirements for in-rack sprinklers where standard spray sprinklers (CMDA) are used at the ceiling. ● 17.2.2.2 was created to clarify the issue regarding solid shelves. Many people try and use the solid shelf criteria of 17.1.5 to combine CMSA sprinklers and in-rack sprinklers in order to protect solid shelves, but that has never been the intent of NFPA 13. ● 17.2.2.8 was created from the applicable sections of the old 17.2.4 to specifically address the requirements for in-rack sprinklers when CMSA sprinklers are used at the ceiling. ● 17.2.2.8.4 is new material. Nowhere in the current rules are there any guidelines for the maximum horizontal spacing for in-rack sprinklers. The 5 ft rule was taken from a similar rule for in-rack sprinkler spacing when ESFR sprinklers are used at the ceiling with the thought being that an in-rack sprinkler needs to be at each longitudinal/transverse flue intersection. ● 17.2.2.8.8 is also new material. There is no information on the discharge pressure for the in-rack sprinklers when CMSA sprinklers are used at the ceiling. The 15 psi requirement was taken from the situation where spray sprinklers are used at the ceiling. ● 17.2.3.5 was created from applicable sections of old 17.2.4 and old 17.3.3.4. NFPA 13 was silent on in-rack sprinkler requirements where ESFR sprinklers are used at the ceiling for storage under 25 ft in height, but contained specific rules where storage exceeded 25 ft in height. The rules for storage over 25 ft in height were repeated for storage under 25 ft in height, including the minimum discharge of 60 gpm from each in-rack sprinkler in the design area. ● All of 17.3.1 was rewritten to clarify which sets of rules could be used with exposed plastics and which could not. The following is a summary of the history of each of the requirements so that the intent can be maintained: ● Figures 17.3.1.4(a), (b) and (c) were Figures 17.3.1.2.1(a), (b) and (c) in the 2010 edition. These figures first entered NFPA 231C in the 1986 edition and were clearly only for single-row racks and were clearly only for cartoned storage protection. See Proposal 231C-13 in the Fall 1985 TCR that is responsible for the 1986 edition of NFPA 231C. ● Figures 17.3.1.5(a) and (b) were Figures 17.3.1.2(a) and (b) in the 2010 edition. These figures first entered NFPA 231C in the 1986 edition as a part of the same proposal 231C-13 discussed above. These figures were clearly only for cartoned storage protection and were limited to only double-row racks when they were first introduced. While working on the 1998 edition of NFPA 231C, the committee added the single row rack portions of the figures for, “automatic stack and retrieval rack systems that incorporate a combination of single and double row racks.” See Proposal 231C-63 in the Annual 1998 ROP. The intent of this addition was not to remove the requirements for allowing these figures to be used with double row racks, but to increase the situations where these figures could be used. Unfortunately, over time, the fact that these figures can be used with only double row racks has been difficult to find in the standard. This has been restored in this rewrite. ● Figure 17.3.1.7 was Figure 17.3.4.1.4 in the 2010 edition. The figure was introduced in the 2002 edition of NFPA 13 for single and double row racks. This figure was clearly intended to protect both cartoned storage and exposed nonexpanded plastic storage. See Proposal 13-238 in the May 2002 ROP. ● Figures 17.3.1.8(a) through (f) were Figures 17.3.4.1.3(a) through (f) in the 2010 edition. These figures were first introduced in the 1998 edition of NFPA 231C. Proposal 231C-62 in the Annual 1998 ROP suggested the multiple row rack criteria (prior to 1998, the plastic storage rules were limited to single and double row racks). The original proposal did not make any specific changes to the rest of the chapter, which limited protection to cartoned storage. However, the titles of the figures implied that these figures could be used to protect exposed nonexpanded plastics as well as cartoned storage. One member of the committee (Todd Schumann of IRI) pointed out the discrepancy in his ballot on the proposal. During the comment phase, one comment was submitted to

13-116

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 eliminate the exposed nonexpanded portion of the title so that the figures would be limited to protection of cartoned storage only. The committee rejected this comment with the statement, “Because of the severity of fire test commodity (polystyrene jars in compartmented cartons) and past 15 years of positive loss experience, it was decided to include exposed, unexpanded Group A plastics.” The committee changed the Decision Tree so that exposed nonexpanded plastics were permitted by the chapter, but did not change any of the other figures. There were two negative ballots on the comment, Todd Schumann and William Gotto (with the Howell Township, NJ Fire Department). ● 17.3.2.5 is reserved for in-rack sprinkler requirements where CMSA sprinklers are used at the ceiling. At the moment, there are no requirements for in-rack sprinklers with CMSA sprinklers at the ceiling to protect storage over 25 ft in height, so it does not seem to make sense to add requirements to NFPA 13 at this time. ● 17.3.3.4.4 through 17.3.3.4.7 were added to complete the in-rack sprinkler requirements that were started in sections 17.3.3.4 through 17.3.3.4.3. The requirements were taken from the portions of 17.3.4 that made sense. The portions of 17.3.4 that did not apply to the situation where ESFR sprinklers were used at the ceiling were deleted such as the requirement for only 10 ft of storage to be allowed over the top level of in-rack sprinklers. ● Finally, this proposed rewrite attempts to use consistent terminology. During the 1998 revision cycle, the committee considered whether to use the term “exposed” or “uncartoned”. The committee decided that they should use “exposed” throughout the document, which has been done in this rewrite. Likewise, the terms “nonencapsulated” and “nonexpanded” have been used in the rewrite rather than “unencapsualted” or “unexpanded”. The prefix “un” implies that something was once in one form, and then it changed. Calling an object, “unexpanded” implies that it was once expanded and then lost its expanded qualities. Since that is not the case, it would seem wrong to use the term “unexpanded”. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle1. Accept in Principle by making the changes in the proposal with the following modifications: a. Delete the proposed 17.2.2.2. b. Remove the question marks at the end of the proposed 17.2.2.8.4. c. Remove the question marks at the end of the proposed 17.2.2.8.8. d. Remove the question marks at the end of the proposed 17.2.3.5.4. e. Delete the proposed A.17.2.1.2.1. f. Make sure that the other proposals that were adopted at this meeting get incorporated into the rewritten chapter. Committee Statement: Section 17.2.2.2 was deleted to be consistent with the Committee Action on Proposal 13-453 (Log #370). Section A.17.2.1.2.1 was deleted to be consistent with the Committee Action on Proposal 13-457 (Log #432). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: JAVERI, S.: While I like most of this rewrite I cannot accept protection schemes based on the risk analyses of an insurance company as being equivalent to scientific test data. We have NO data to indicate exposed expanded plastic can be protected in this way. The protection criteria for exposed expanded plastic should be removed from this rewrite until we have data from the Fire Protection Research Foundation if they are able to establish a research project. ________________________________________________________________ 13-450 Log #433 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Chapter 17)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert rules for protecting exposed expanded plastics.Substantiation: Criteria are necessary to protect this commodity. NFPA 13 can not afford to ignore the reality that this commodity exists in many locations. If the source material is considered less than perfect, disclaimers can be placed with the criteria as a warning, or the criteria can be placed in the annex as guidelines that are informational, but left out of the body of the standard. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No specific language submitted and no test data to support request. The committee will be submitting a request to the NFPA Research Foundation to research this subject. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-451 Log #CP312 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Chapter 17)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Committee Proposal to make the following changes to Chapter 17: a. Revise section 17.1.5.3 to read, “The maximum horizontal spacing between in-rack sprinklers shall be 5 ft.

b. Insert a new section 17.1.5.5 with subsections as follows: 17.1.5.5 Where the criteria in 17.1.5.6 is not met, the water demand for the in-rack sprinklers shall be based on a minimum flow of 30 gpm discharging from the following number of sprinklers balanced to the ceiling sprinkler demand: (1) Eight sprinklers where only one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed. (2) Fourteen sprinklers (seven on each of the top two levels) when more than one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed. c. Insert a new section 17.1.5.6 as follows: 17.1.5.6 The water demand for in-rack sprinklers shall not be required to be balanced to the ceiling sprinkler demand where additional face sprinklers are installed under each solid shelf at rack uprights and the in-rack sprinklers are calculated to discharge at least 60 gpm from 8 sprinklers. Substantiation: The horizontal spacing and the discharge criteria needs to be clarified for the situation where in-rack sprinklers are installed under solid shelves. One of the reasons for the 5 ft maximum horizontal distance is an abundance of caution regarding potential fire scenarios. Without specific fire test data to refer to, there is a concern that with in-rack sprinklers farther apart, a fire might not activate in-rack sprinklers in sufficient time to control the fire. Another reason for the 5 ft spacing is a concern that the mandatory 6 inch clearance for the sprinkler to be over the top of the storage on the shelf will be difficult to maintain on a solid shelf. The proposed 17.1.5.6 is an alternative to help with existing systems where the water supply meets the demand for the ceiling sprinklers, but the extra in-rack sprinkler demand cannot be added to the ceiling demand. In such a case, the greater number of in-rack sprinklers at the high discharge flows will provide sufficient fire protection without activating significant numbers of ceiling sprinklers. In these cases, the water supply only needs to meet the ceiling demand or the in-rack demand, but not both simultaneously. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-452 Log #292 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(17.1.5.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add a new 17.1.5.3 and renumber remaining sections.17.1.5.3 Where multiple-row racks of any height have no longitudinal flue or where double-row racks with storage up 25 ft in height have no longitudinal flue, the situation shall not be considered solid shelves where transverse flues exist at maximum 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and additional in-rack sprinklers shall not be required in accordance with 17.1.5.1 and 17.1.5.2. Substantiation: Sections 17.1.9.1 and 17.1.10.1 do not require a longitudinal flue in multiple row racking of any height or double-row racking with storage up to 25 ft in height; therefore, based on the definition of solid shelving, the area of the solid shelf would be measured from aisle to aisle, transverse flue to transverse flue, and end up requiring sprinklers below every shelf in almost all multiple-row and under every other shelf in almost all double-row racking arrangements that do not include longitudinal flue spaces. This change should have been included as a companion to ROP 13-371 Log#392 for Class I-IV Commodities during the last revision cycle. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-453 Log #370 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(17.1.5.5 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Where solid shelving in single, double, or multiple row racks exceeds 20 ft2, ESFR or CMSA sprinklers shall not be permitted to be used, even with the extra in-rack sprinklers discussed in this section.Substantiation: NFPA 13 is somewhat unusual in how it treats solid shelf rack situations. When standard spray sprinklers are used at the ceiling, we tell people to protect solid shelf racks with figures and tables that explicitly say they are only for use without solid shelves and we expect people to know that it is okay to use these figures and tables if they add the extra in-rack sprinklers discussed in Section 17.1.5. Then we put CMSA and ESFR sprinkler rules in tables in the standard and tell people that they are for use without solid shelves and we expect them to automatically know that they cannot use the rules of 17.1.5 to protect solid shelves with CMSA or ESFR sprinklers. This kind of thinking can get us in trouble. We need to explicitly state that Section 17.1.5 can’t be used to justify CMSA or ESFR sprinklers to protect solid shelf storage. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Do not accept text proposed - . Change section 17.3.3.1.1 by deleting note 1 and renumber note 2 to note 1. Committee Statement: The solid shelf design criteria in section 17.1.5 is acceptable protection for solid shelf storage with CMSA and ESFR sprinklers at the ceiling. Number Eligible to Vote: 25

13-117

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: The Action reported here is not in accordance with the final discussion on the subject. Initially, the reported Action was agreed to, but later in the meeting the issue was reopened and it was decided that instead of the deletion of Note 1, text would be added to Note 1 to clarify that ESFR sprinklers cannot be used to protect racks with solid shelves unless in-rack sprinklers are installed as well. Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: I am unclear why this was an Accept in Principle where the submitter is trying to indicate that CMSA and ESFR are not compatible with the presence of solid shelves yet the committee appears to be saying just the opposite. I agree that CMSA and ESFR sprinklers can be compatible with solid shelves if an acceptable level of in-rack sprinklers are provided. ________________________________________________________________ 13-454 Log #94 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(17.2.1.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Sultan M. Javeri, SC EngineeringRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:17.2.1.2.1 For Group A unexpanded plastic commodities exposed or in cartons, encapsulated or nonencapsulated in single-, double-, and multiple-row racks, ceiling sprinkler water demand in terms of density [gpm/ft2 (mm/min)] and area of operation [ft2 (m2)] shall be selected from Figure 17.2.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2.1(f). Substantiation: The decision tree in Figure 17.2.1 indicates that chapter 17 can be used for Exposed unexpanded plastic. It does not limit the protection to CMAD or ESFR sprinklers. If it is the committee’s intent to protect exposed unexpanded plastic with CMAD sprinklers, then the text of paragraph 17.2.1.2.1 should be consistent with the decision tree in Figure 17.2.1 and include exposed unexpanded plastic. If it is not the committee’s intent to allow CMAD sprinklers for protection of exposed unexpanded plastic because no relevant test data is available, then the decision tree in Figure 17.2.1 needs to indicate this and paragraph 17.2.1.2.1 should remain as published. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This section does not apply to Unexpanded Exposed Group A plastic - no data was submitted to expand this application. Recent testing has shown that Unexpanded Exposed plastic is more difficult to control than was discussed in the 1998 code revision cycle Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-455 Log #157 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(17.2.1.2.1 and 17.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. AFSARecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 17.2.1.2.1 For Group A plastics commodities in cartons and exposed and unexpanded, encapsulated or nonencapsulated in single-, double·, and multiple-row racks, ceiling sprinkler water demand. 17.3.1.1 For Group A plastics commodities in cartons and exposed and unexpanded, encapsulated or nonencapsulated ceiling sprinkler water demand...Substantiation: The current text in both paragraphs allow only cartoned Group A plastics. Because Figures 17.3.4.1.3(a) through (f) have always included uncartoned unexpanded, it was recognized in 2007 that this creates a conflict and 17.3.1.4 was added. So we have ceiling spray sprinklers combined with in-racks sprinklers allowed to protect ONLY multiple row racks over 25 ft. Why are the largest and highest racks apparently less demanding than a double row rack less than 25 ft.? Did we truly mean to require only CMSA and ESFR to protect exposed expanded plastic when less than 25 ft and double row racks over 25 ft.? It’s worth noting that FM Data sheets have guidance with spray sprinklers for exposed unexpanded plastics. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This section does not apply to Unexpanded Exposed Group A plastic - no data was submitted to expand this application. Recent testing has shown that Unexpanded Exposed plastic is more difficult to control than was discussed in the 1998 code revision cycle Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-456 Log #293 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(17.2.1.2.1 and 17.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise 17.2.1.2.1 as follows:17.2.1.2.1 For Group A plastic commodities in cartons, encapsulated or nonencapsulated (cartoned, expanded or uunexpanded, and exposed unexpanded) in single-, double-, and multiple-row racks, ceiling sprinkler water demand in terms of density [gpm/ft² (mm/min)] and area of operation [ft² (m²)] shall be selected from Figure 17.2.1.2.1(a) through Figure 17.2.1.2.1(f).

Revise 17.3.1.1 as follows: 17.3.1.1* Ceiling Sprinkler Water Demand. For Group A plastic commodities in cartons, encapsulated or nonencapsulated, (cartoned, expanded or uunexpanded, and exposed unexpanded) ceiling sprinkler water demand in terms of density [gpm/ft² (mm/min)] and area of operation [ft² (m²)] shall be selected from Table 17.3.1.1. Substantiation: The density/area protection was expanded as part of the 1998 Edition of 231C cycle to include exposed unexpanded plastic as part of the revision to then Figure 8-1.1. The remains of portions of the previous Sections 8-1.1, 8-2.1 and 8-3.1 from the 1995 Edition of NFPA 231C were errantly left with language that referred to corrugated cartons or cartons in conflict with the revised Figure 8-1.1. If the intention was to include this as a restriction then the revision to Figure 8-1.1 would have represent a direct contradiction to such and would have not been required. I recall the discussion surrounding the issue of how to address uncartoned unexpanded Group A Plastics as part of the ROP/ROC cycle for the 1998 Edition of NFPA 231C. In part the discussion was prompted by a proposal that I made to incorporate protection criteria for the retail industry based on testing completed with the Standard Group A Plastic Test Commodity. This discussion resulted in the inclusion of the Exception to Section 5-10.1 which clearly under Item (b) indicates that exposed (unexpanded) Group A plastics is allowed. Additionally, an Annex Note Section was added to Figure 8-2.1 for Notes 6, 7 and 8 that indicate the source of the addition to the Figures includes the same retail test display of Group A Plastics that formed the basis for the Exception to Section 5-10.1, which again clearly allows for exposed (unexpanded) Group A Plastic. These discussions further led to Chapter 8 in general and questioned if the criteria should be expanded to cover all of Chapter 8 wherein Figure 8-1.1 was then modified. Additionally, new protection Figures that were added for multi-row racks over 25 ft, including Figure 8-3.2.4(a) through (f) included a direct reference to exposed unexpanded plastic. However, it is interesting to note that Section 8-3.1.1 only indicates criteria is provided for cartoned product and thus forms an apparent disconnect. I know that the tests completed for the Exception to Section 5-10.1 and Notes 6, 7 and 8 to Figure 8-2.1 were all completed with the Standard Group A Plastic test commodity and I would believe that any testing completed in support of the then new Figure 8-3.2.4(a) through (f) would have utilized the same. As a result I do not believe that Sections 8-3.1.1, 8-2.1 and 8-1.1 fit within the intent Committee. If the intention was to only allow exposed unexpanded with the multi-row rack configurations over 25 ft then Section 8-3.1.1 would have required modification anyway. If the intention of Section 8-1.1 was to only allow corrugated cartoned commodity then why would it reference Figure 8-1.1 which clearly allows exposed unexpanded Group A Plastic? Alternatively, if the intention of the Committee was to provide an allowance for the use of the protection criteria for exposed unexpanded Group A Plastic under Chapter 8 then Sections 8-2.1 and 8-3.1.1 should have been modified as well as Section 8-1.1. I believe that the latter is what was intended and that the references to “cartoned” in the aforementioned Sections were stray references not picked up by either the Committee or NFPA Staff at the time of the change to Figure 8-1.1. About this same time this was done, I recall that IRI ran a test with the plastic pallets in a rack to assess the performance of at least one of the protection schemes allowed by Chapter 8 and found that while the test resulted in a larger number of operating sprinklers than that with the Standard Group A Plastic test commodity it was still within the bounds acceptable to the Committee to allow the inclusion in Chapter 8 of the exposed unexpanded Group A Plastic commodity and no further challenge was presented. I also recall that there was considerable discussion regarding the use of the idle plastic pallets as the test commodity for an exposed unexpanded Group A Plastic where the concern arose as to why we would test idle plastic pallets as the basis for this exposed unexpanded plastic commodity when we would never use idle wood pallets as a basis for Class III Commodity. This discussion further formed justification for the change. It is also interesting to note NFPA 13, Section 3.9.1.14 (2010 Edition) calls out that encapsulated Group A Plastic must be considered as exposed. This brings up another question in that the Sections 17.2.1.2.1 and 17.3.1.1 both say that encapsulated it acceptable but then by definition this would be exposed which is then not allowed. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This section does not apply to Unexpanded Exposed Group A plastic - no data was submitted to expand this application. Recent testing has shown that Unexpanded Exposed plastic is more difficult to control than was discussed in the 1998 code revision cycle Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BELLAMY, T.: The committee statement indicates that “Recent testing has shown that Unexpanded Exposed Group A plastic is more difficult to control than was discussed in the 1998 code revision cycle.” I am not aware of any testing that was presented to the Committee nor for public review that substantiates a removal of all allowable protection criteria for CMDA applications that was originally accepted during the 1998 code revision cycle. Without submission of such testing I find it difficult to support such a wide reaching change. Additionally, the use of such a high challenge test commodity as idle plastic pallets to represent an Unexpanded Exposed plastic is not

13-118

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 appropriate. This would the the same as having idle wood pallets represent a Class III commodity. ________________________________________________________________ 13-457 Log #432 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(17.2.1.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert new sections into 17.2.1 that allow exposed non-expanded plastics stored up to 25 ft in height to be protected with standard spray sprinklers as follows: 17.2.1.5 Exposed unexpanded plastics shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with Figures 17.2.1.5(a) through 17.2.1.5(p).

Figure 17.2.1.5(a)

Figure 17.2.1.5(b)

Figure 17.2.1.5(c)

Figure 17.2.1.5(d)

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Plan View

Elevation View

10 ft

5 ft

Floor

Exposed unexpanded group A plasticsstored on SRR, DRR, and MRR without solid shelves

Maximum storage height = 10 ftMaximum building height = 25 ft

Required roof sprinklers = .80/2500In-rack sprinkler = not required

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Plan View

Elevation View

10 ft

5 ft

Floor


Maximum storage height = 10 ftMaximum building height = 45 ft (includes 25 ft and 40 ft)

Required roof sprinklers = .45/2000In-rack sprinkler = 1 level at every other flue

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Plan View

Elevation View

10 ft

5 ft

Floor


Maximum storage height = 10 ftMaximum building height = 45 ft (includes 25 ft and 40 ft)

Required roof sprinklers = .30/2000In-rack sprinkler = 1 level at every flue

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Plan View

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

5 ft

Floor




x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

13-119


Figure 17.2.1.5(e)

Figure 17.2.1.5(f)

Figure 17.2.1.5(g)

Figure 17.2.1.5(h)

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRRElevation View

10 ft

15 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

5 ft

Floor



Required roof sprinklers = .30/2000In-rack sprinkler = 2 levels at every flue

Plan View

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

13-120


Figure 17.2.1.5(i)

Figure 17.2.1.5(j)

Figure 17.2.1.5(k)

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

Figure 17.2.1.5(l)

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

13-121


Figure 17.2.1.5(m)

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




25 ft

Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

Figure 17.2.1.5(n)

Figure 17.2.1.5(o)

Figure 17.2.1.5(p)

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor


Maximum storage height = 20 ftMaximum building height = 45 ft (including 25 ft and 30 ft)


Plan View

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor




25 ft

Plan View

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

SRR SRR DRR MRR MRR

Elevation View

10 ft

15 ft

20 ft

5 ft

Floor


Maximum storage height = 25 ftMaximum building height = 45 ft (includes 35 ft)


25 ft

Plan View

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

x x x x x x xx

13-122

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: The standard needs to address the concept of protecting exposed non-expanded plastics. This proposal was developed specifically separate from the NFSA proposed rewrite of the chapter because the rewrite was not intended to introduce new material. This material would need to be incorporated into the rewrite. The proposed criteria comes from an internationally respected fire protection organization. We do not have the fire test or risk analysis information that was compiled to develop this criteria, but it is the best known information on protecting the storage of this commodity. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BELLAMY, T.: The inclusion of a whole new set of protection criteria for Unexpanded Exposed Group A plastic without the submission and review of a single full scale fire test is contrary previous and ongoing actions taken by the Committee. ________________________________________________________________ 13-458 Log #294 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 17.2.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add an entry No to the column for In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements for up to 25 ft of Exposed Unexpanded Group A Plastic under a 40 ft maximum ceiling height using K25.2 pendent ESFR. Substantiation: The entry under the column for In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements for up to 25 ft of Exposed Unexpanded Group A Plastic under a 40 ft maximum ceiling height using K25.2 pendent ESFR sprinklers is blank. Based on the operating pressure of 50 psi being the same for K22.4 and K25.2 sprinklers I would expect this entry should be No. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-459 Log #427 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 17.2.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert the word “No” in the “In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements” column for Exposed unexpanded plastics stored up to 25 ft in a 40 ft building protected with K25.2 ESFR sprinklers (11 rows up from the bottom of the table). Substantiation: The blank spot in the table needs to be filled in. In-rack sprinklers have only ever been required for high ceiling areas (over 40 ft) where K-14 or K-16.8 ESFR sprinklers are used. In-rack sprinklers have not yet been found to be necessary to protect commodities where K-25.2 ESFR sprinklers are used at the ceiling. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-460 Log #224 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(17.2.5.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Add multiple row to this section:17.2.5.1.2 A wet pipe system that is designed to provide a minimum of 0.6 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) density over a minimum area of 2000 ft2 (186 m2 ) or K-14.0 (200) ESFR sprinklers operating at a minimum of 50 psi (3.5 bar), K-16.8 (240) sprinklers operating at a minimum of 32 psi (1.7 bar), or K-25.2 (360) ESFR sprinklers operating at a minimum of 15 psi (1.0 bar) shall be permitted to protect single-row, and double-row, and multiple row racks with slatted rack shelving racks where all of the following conditions are met: Substantiation: When testing is done at the laboratories for Double Row Racks, Multiple Row Racks is typically included or “given” as the Multiple Row Racks produce a less challenging fire. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BELLAMY, T.: The inclusion of multi-row racks within the allowance for the use of the provisions of 17.2.5.1.2 presents an issue with the requirement that a minimum aisle width of 7-1/2 ft be maintained as provided by 17.2.5.1.2(7) which is contrary to the definition of a multi-row rack. Comment on Affirmative: MULTER, T.: Add K-22.4 (320) ESFR

________________________________________________________________ 13-461 Log #295 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 17.3.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add entries of No to the column for In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements for up to 30 ft and up to 35 ft of Exposed Unexpanded Group A Plastic both under a 40 ft maximum ceiling height using K25.2 pendent ESFR. Substantiation: The entries under the column for In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements for up to 30 ft and upt to 35 ft of Exposed Unexpanded Group A Plastic both under a 40 ft maximum ceiling height using K25.2 pendent ESFR sprinklers is blank. Based on the operating pressure of 50 psi being the same for K22.4 and K25.2 sprinklers I would expect these entries should be No. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-462 Log #428 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 17.3.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert the word “No” in the “In-Rack Sprinkler Requirements” column for Exposed unexpanded plastics stored up to 30 ft in a 40 ft building protected with K25.2 ESFR sprinklers (11 rows up from the bottom of the table) and for 35 ft storage in a 40 ft building (5 rows up from the bottom of the Table). Substantiation: The blank spot in the table needs to be filled in. In-rack sprinklers have only ever been required for high ceiling areas (over 40 ft) where K-14 or K-16.8 ESFR sprinklers are used. In-rack sprinklers have not yet been found to be necessary to protect commodities where K-25.2 ESFR sprinklers are used at the ceiling. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-463 Log #513 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table 18.4(d))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter W. Thomas, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Modify Table 18.4(d). Include on-side and on-tread storage configurations where laced tires are referenced in the Piling Method. Substantiation: The protection criteria for laced arrangements is also satisfactory for on-tread and on-side configurations. It appears that on-side storage is not allowed in a 40 ft. building based on the present wording. The proposal is meant to provide clarification that all three typical storage methods are acceptable when the laced storage method is referenced. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept proposal and add “palletized portable rack” where laced tires are referenced in the piling method Committee Statement: The committee recognizes that testing for laced tire storage provides a more severe challenge than the methods added in the table for laced applications. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-464 Log #555 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 18.4(d))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: Revise Table 18.4(d) to insert the missing data in the blank cells for K-16.8 sprinklers in the row for Laced tires in open portable steel racks and in the row for Rubber tire storage, on-side, in palletized portable racks. See Table 18.4(d) on the next page Substantiation: During the cycle leading to the creation of the 2007 edition of NFPA 13, Proposal 13-596 was accepted, to add information for K-16.8 ESFR sprinklers to the Table (then numbered as 12.4.2(d) in the 2002 edition). However, during the formatting and publishing stages of the project, some of the information was left out of a number of cells, which has made the Table difficult to understand. The error was carried over to the 2010 edition, and should be corrected for the next edition. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-123


1NFPA 13 Log #555 Rec A2012 ROP

Table 18.4(d) Early Suppression Fast-Response (ESFR) Sprinklers for Protection of Rubber Tires (see Note 1) Maximum

BuildingHeight

Minimum OperatingPressure

(see Note 2)

Hose Allowance

Piling Method Pile Height ft m Nominal K-factor

Orientation Number of Sprinklers psi bar Duration (hours)

gpm L/min

Rubber tire storage, on-side or on-tread, in palletized portable racks, open portable racks, or fixed racks without solid shelves

Up to 25 ft (7.6 m)

30 9.1 14.0 (200)

Upright/Pendent

12(see Note 2)

50 3.5 1 250 946

16.8 (240)

Upright/Pendent

12(see Note 2)

35 2.4 1 250 946

22.4 (320)

Pendent 12 (see Note 2)

25 1.7 1 250 946

25.2 (360)


15 1.0 1 250 946

Rubber tire storage, on-side, in palletized portable racks, open portable racks, or fixed racks without solid shelves

Up to 25 ft (7.6 m)

35 10.7 14.0 (200)

Upright/Pendent

12(see Note 2)

75 5.2 1 250 946

16.8 (240)


52 3.6 1 250 946

22.4 (320)


35 2.4 1 250 946

25.2 (360)


25 1.7 1 250 946

Laced tires in open portable steel racks

Up to 25 ft (7.6 m)

30 9.1 14.0 (200)

Pendent 20 (see Notes 3 and 4)

75 5.2 3 500 1900

16.8 (240)

Pendent 20 (see Notes 3 and 4)

52 3.6 3 500 1900

Rubber tire storage, on-side, in palletized portable racks

Up to 25 ft (7.6 m)

40 12.2 14.0 (200)

Pendent 12 75 5.2 1 250 946

16.8 (240)

Pendent 12 52 3.6 1 250 946

Rubber tire storage, on-tread, or laced in open portable steel racks

Up to 25 ft (7.6 m)

40 12.2 25.2 (360)

Pendent 12 40 2.8 1 250 946

Laced tires in open portable steel racks

Up to 30 ft (9.1 m)

40 12.2 25.2 (360)

Pendent 12 75 5.2 1 250 946

Notes:(1) Wet systems only. (2) The shape of the design area shall be in accordance with 14.4.3 and 14.4.4. (3) Where used in this application, ESFR protection is expected to control rather than to suppress the fire. (4) The design area shall consist of the most hydraulically demanding area of 20 sprinklers, consisting of five sprinklers on each of four branch lines. The design shall include a minimum operating area of 1600 ft2 (149 m2).

13-124

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-465 Log #296 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(20.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: 20.3.1 A wet pipe system designed to meet two separate design points — 0.6 gpm/ft² (24.4 mm/min) density over 2000 ft² (186 m²) and 0.7 gpm/ft² (28.5 mm/min) density for the four hydraulically most demanding sprinklers with 500 gpm (1900 L/min) hose stream allowance for a 2-hour duration — shall be permitted to protect single- and double-row slatted shelf racks when the following conditions are met: (1) An extended coverage sprinkler with a nominal K-factor of K-25.2 (360) listed for storage occupancies shall be provided. (2) Shelves shall be either open shelving or slatted using a 2 in. (50 mm) thick by maximum 6 in. (152 mm) wide slat held in place by spacers that maintain a minimum 2 in. (50 mm) opening between each slat. (3) There shall be no slatted shelf levels in the rack above nominal 12 ft (3.66 m) level. Wire mesh (greater than 50 percent opening) shall be permitted for shelf levels above 12 ft (3.66 m). (4) A single level of sSolid plywood shelving (3½ ft × 8 ft 3 in.) (1.07 m by 2.51 m) shall be permissible over the wood slats at an elevation of not more than the 5 ft (1.52 m) level. (5) Perforated metal (open area of 40 percent or more) shall be permitted over either the open shelving or the slatted shelves up to the 60 in. (1.52 m) level. (6) Other than what is allowed in this section, solid plywood or similar materials shall not be placed on the slatted shelves. (7) Solid veneered particleboard displays shall be permissible, provided that all flues are maintained and only one display is installed per bay. (8) Maximum roof height shall be 30 ft (9.14 m) in the protected area. (9) Maximum storage height shall be 22 ft (6.71 m). (10) Aisle widths shall be a minimum of 8 ft (2.44 m). (11) Minimum transverse flue spaces of 3 in. every 10 ft (76 mm every 3.05 m) horizontally shall be provided. (12) Minimum longitudinal flue spaces of 6 in. (152 mm) shall be provided for double-row racks. (13) Storage in the aisle shall be permissible, provided the aisle storage is no more than 4 ft (1.22 m) high and a minimum clear aisle of 4 ft (1.22 m) is maintained. Substantiation: The provisions of 20.3.1 (2) can be interpreted to disallow the use of open shelving arrangements (50% open) that would otherwise be allowed. The inclusion of the allowance would correct this potential restriction. The provisions of 20.3.1(4) would restrict the use of a shelf material other than plywood and would restrict the exact elevation of such to 5 ft within the storage array. The use of other shelf materials, including metal or particle board would not materially impact the degree of shielding created by the shelf. The position of the shelf at a level of up to 5 ft would be more appropriate than an exact height of 5 ft since a lower elevation would result in a lesser quantity of shield material. The inclusion of a single level with the use of the shelving as described herein would preclude the use of multiple shelf levels being utilized. The provisions of 20.3.1 (5) would restrict the use of the perforated metal panel to those supported by wood slats. As indicated above the use of open shelving arrangements (50 percent open) beneath the perforated panels should also be allowed. The provisions of 20.3.1 (7) would restrict solid display features to those constructed of veneered particleboard. The use of other materials such as plywood or metal would not materially impact the degree of shielding created by the display and should also be allowed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-466 Log #400 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(20.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Frank L. Van Overmeiren, FP&C Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: NFPA 13 contains protection criteria for limited configurations of compact mobile storage units and material stored. Storage arrangements not specifically addressed in NFPA 13 are outside the scope of the standard. (i.e., protection of plastic commodities in compact mobile storage units do not simply follow high piled storage protection criteria for shelves or racks). Where compact mobile storage configurations outside the scope of NFPA 13 are utilized, they should be addressed on a case by case basis with consideration given to the fact that no known sprinkler criteria is currently available. Substantiation: Joint effort of the NFPA 13/NFPA 99 Sprinkler Task Group.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No specific proposal made. The committee requests public comments be submitted with specific recommendations. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

________________________________________________________________ 13-467 Log #208 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(20.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gerald R. Schultz, The FPI Consortium, Inc.Recommendation: Add new section 20.8 as follows: 20.8 Sprinkler Protection of Carton Records Storage in a Double Row Racking Arrangement. 20.8.1 Carton record storage shall be permitted to be protected in accordance with the succeeding subsections of this Section 20.8. 20.8.2 Carton record storage shall be permitted to be supported on shelving that is a minimum of 50 percent open from approved flue space to approved flue space. 20.8.2.1 Transverse flue spaces of a nominal 6 in. (152.4 mm) width shall be located at each rack upright. 20.8.2.2 Rack uprights shall be installed on a maximum of 10 ft 6 in. (3.2 m) centers. 20.8.2.3 Longitudinal flue spaces of a nominal 6 in. (152.4 mm) shall be provided. 20.8.3 The storage rack structure for carton records storage shall consist of a double row rack having a total depth not greater than 106 in. (2.7 m) to a maximum height of 35 ft (10.7 m). 20.8.3.1 Each double row rack shall be separated from other racks by aisles that are not less than 3.5 ft (1.1 m) wide. 20.8.4 Sprinkler Criteria. 20.8.4.1 Cartoned record storage in single or double row racks shall be protected in accordance with this subsection. 20.8.4.2 The ceiling sprinkler system shall be designed using a nominal k 25.2 ESRF sprinkler discharging at 25 psi for the hydraulically most remote 12 sprinklers. 20.8.4.3 Sprinklers shall be ordinary temperature or as necessary dependent upon the ambient temperature. 20.8.4.4 Sprinklers shall be spaced to cover a maximum area of 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) in accordance with the listing of the sprinkler. 20.8.4.5 In rack sprinklers are not required. Substantiation: The records management industry typically stores paper records in cardboard cartons on racking that utilizes catwalks for access to the cartons as described and protected in section 20.5. In addition records are stored in conventional single and double row racks order picker systems with aisles that vary in width from 3.5 ft to 4.5 ft. The storage arrangement has longitudinal flues in the back to back units and transverse flue spaces at rack uprights. Spacing of the transverse flues are 9 to 10 ft. Test data attached supports using an ESFR sprinkler system In August of 2007, a series of four fire tests were conducted at Southwest Research Institute. Three of these tests were previously submitted to the committee and resulted in the design requirements that appear in Section 20.5. An additional test (test 4) was conducted using an ESFR system protecting the storage configuration. The test was conducted on a catwalk system utilizing shelving material that is greater than 50 percent open but fully covered with cartons. Rack bays were 120 in. (3048 mm) wide, 38 in. (965 mm) high and equipped with perforated metal decking having a minimum of 50 percent opening. Each storage bay was provided with 9 containers between uprights that was 3 containers deep and 3 containers high for a total of 81 containers per each bay. Rack uprights were a nominal 3 in. (127 mm) wide. Nominal 6 in. (152 mm) transverse flue spaces were provided at each rack upright. The fire was ignited in the aisle two catwalks down, between sprinklers. One ceiling ESFR sprinkler operated controlling the fire and the test was considered a success. These test results are included as part of this submittal. The section is required because the solid shelving requirements will classify the storage arrangement as solid shelving regardless of the 50 percent open shelving because of the lack of an intermediate flue space. Without an intermediate flue, in rack sprinklers are required below each shelf. Based on the test data it is proposed that this section be adopted to fill the gap on records storage protection. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The data submitted does not support the recommendation. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Abstain: 1Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Abstention: KEEPING, L.: I feel I must abstain on this issue, because I have not yet seen the referenced supporting material. It was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date.

13-125

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-468 Log #556 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(21.x (New))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: Add a new section to Chapter 21, containing material extracted from NFPA 400 to provide the sprinkler requirements for the Storage of Organic Peroxide Formulations and for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers, to replace the data that was inadvertently dropped from NFPA 13 when NFPA 430 and NFPA 432 were discontinued in favour of NFPA 400. Substantiation: During the previous cycle, ROC Comments 13-254 and 13-255 were both accepted, to update the extracted material for the sprinkler requirements from NFPA 430 and NFPA 432 respectively, however the chosen extract material did not appear in NFPA 13 when the standard was published. Because NFPA 430 and NFPA 432 were discontinued in favor of the new NFPA 400 during the same cycle, the information that should have been incorporated into NFPA 13 seems to have been deleted or overlooked. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptExtracts for Chapter 21 from NFPA 400 for Log #556 21.x Hazardous Materials Code 21.x.1 Design Requirements .21.x.1.1 Requirements for Occupancies Storing Quantities of Hazardous Materials Exceeding the Maximum Allowable Quantities per Control Area for High Hazard Contents. The design of the sprinkler system shall be not less than ordinary hazard Group 2 in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, except as follows: (1) Where different requirements are specified in Chapters 11 through 21 of NFPA 400 (2) Where the materials or storage arrangement requires a higher level of sprinkler system protection in accordance with nationally recognized standards (3) Where approved alternative automatic fire extinguishing systems are permitted [400: 6.2.1.1.1] 21.x.1.2 General Requirements for Storage of Ammonium Nitrate Solids and Liquids. Sprinkler systems shall be of the approved type and designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and the following: (1) Ammonium nitrate in noncombustible or combustible containers (paper bags or noncombustible containers with removable combustible liners) shall be designated as a Class I commodity. (2) Where contained in plastic containers, ammonium nitrate shall be designated as a Class II commodity. (3) Where contained in fiber packs or noncombustible containers in combustible packaging, ammonium nitrate shall be designated as a Class III commodity. [400: 11.2.6.1.3 ] 21.x.1.3 General Requirements for Storage of Organic Peroxide Formulations 21.x.1.3.1 Where required by other provisions of this code, automatic sprinklers and water spray systems shall be designed and installed according to the requirements of NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, and shall provide the following discharge densities: (1) Class I — 0.50 gpm/ft2 (20.4 L/min/m2) (2) Class II — 0.40 gpm/ft2 (16.3 L/min/m2) (3) Class III — 0.30 gpm/ft2 (12.2 L/min/m2) (4) Class IV— 0.25 gpm/ft2 (10.2 L/min/m2) [400: 14.2.6.1* ] 21.x.1.3.2 The system shall be designed as follows: (1) It shall provide the required density over a 3000 ft2 (280m2) area for areas protected by a wet pipe sprinkler system or 3900 ft2 (360m2) for areas protected by a dry pipe sprinkler system. (2) The entire area of any building of less than 3000 ft2 (280m2) shall be used as the area of application. [400: 14.2.6.2 *] 21.x.1.3.3 Where required for detached storage buildings containing Class I organic peroxide formulations in quantities exceeding 2000 lb (907 kg), automatic sprinkler protection shall be open-head deluge-type, designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. [400: 14.2.6.3] 21.x.1.4 Indoor Storage of Oxidizer Solids and Liquids 21.x.1.4.1 Sprinkler protection for Class 2 oxidizers shall be designed in accordance with Table 21.x.1.4.1. [400: 15.3.2.3.4.1 ] 21.x.1.4.2 Ceiling sprinklers shall be high-temperature sprinklers. [400: 15.3.2.3.4.2] Insert Table 21.x.1.4.1 Ceiling Sprinkler Protection for Class 2 Oxidizers in Palletized or Bulk and Rack Storage Areas [400: Table 15.3.2.3.2.10(B)] 21.x.1.4.3 Storage Protection for Class 2 Oxidizers with In-Rack Sprinklers. (A) In-rack sprinklers shall be quick-response sprinklers with an ordinary-temperature rating and have a K-factor of not less than K = 8.0. (B) In-rack sprinklers shall be designed to provide 25 psi (172 kPa) for the six most hydraulically remote sprinklers on each level.

(C) The in-rack sprinklers shall be 8 ft to 10 ft (2.4 m to 3.0 m) spacings in the longitudinal flue space at the intersection of the transverse flue spaces. [400: 15.3.2.3.4.3] 21.x.1.4.4 Sprinkler Criteria for Class 3 Oxidizers 21.x.1.4.4.1 Class 3 Oxidizers Less than 2300 lb (1043 kg). (A) Sprinkler design criteria for buildings that require sprinkler protection and contain total quantities of Class 3 oxidizers less than 2300 lb (1043 kg) shall be in accordance with the requirements of 21.x.1.4.4.1(B). (B) Facilities that require sprinkler protection and contain total quantities of Class 3 oxidizers greater than 200 lb (91 kg), but less than 2300 lb (1043 kg), shall follow the sprinkler design criteria in Table 21.x.1.4.4.1(B). [400: 15.3.2.4.12.1] Insert Table 21.x.1.4.4.1(B) Sprinkler Protection of Class 3 Oxidizers Stored in Total Quantities Greater than 200 lb (91 kg) but Less than 2300 lb (1043 kg) Storage Parameters Shelf Bulk or Pile Bulk or Pile Rack [400: Table 15.3.2.4.12.1(B) ] 21.x.1.4.4.2 Storage Protection for Class 3 Oxidizers In-Rack Sprinkler Criteria. (A) Where required by Table 21.x.1.4.4.1(B), in-rack sprinkler protection shall be as follows: (1) In-rack sprinklers shall be installed above every level of oxidizer storage. (2) In-rack sprinklers shall be spaced at maximum 4 ft (1.2 m) intervals to provide one sprinkler in each flue space. (3) In-rack sprinklers shall be quick-response sprinklers with an ordinary-temperature rating and have a K-factor of not less than K = 8.0. (4) In-rack sprinklers shall be designed to provide 25 psi (172 kPa) for the six most hydraulically remote sprinklers on each level. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.2] 21.x.1.4.4.3 Class 3 Oxidizers Greater than or Equal to 2300 lb (1043 kg). (B) The sprinkler protection shall be in accordance with Table 21.x.1.4.4.3. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.3] Insert Table 21.x.1.4.4.3 Sprinkler Protection of Class 3 Oxidizers Stored in Total Quantities of Greater than or Equal to 2300 lb (1043 kg) Storage Parameters Bulk or Pile Rack [400: Table 15.3.2.4.12.3(B)] 21.x.1.4.4.4 Special In-Rack Sprinkler Protection for Class 3 Oxidizers. (A) Where required by Table 21.x.1.4.4.3, special in-rack sprinkler protection shall be as shown in Figure 21.x.1.4.4.4 (A). [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (A)] (B) In-rack automatic sprinklers shall be provided under each horizontal barrier and arranged in accordance with 21.x.1.4.4.4 (C) through 21.x.1.4.4.4 (I). [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (K)] (C) For double-row racks, two lines of in-rack sprinklers shall be provided between the face of the rack and the longitudinal vertical barrier located in the center of the rack. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (L)] (D) For single-row racks, two lines of in-rack sprinklers shall be provided between each rack face. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (M)] (E) Three in-rack sprinklers shall be provided on each inrack sprinkler line as follows: (1) Two sprinklers on each line shall be spaced approximately 11⁄2 in. (38.1 mm) from each transverse vertical barrier. (2) One in-rack sprinkler on each in-rack sprinkler line shall be located approximately equidistant between the transverse vertical barriers. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (N)] (F) In-rack sprinklers shall be of the upright or pendent type, with the fusible element located no more than 6 in. (152.4 mm) from the horizontal barrier. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (O)] (G) In-rack sprinklers shall be K = 8.0, quick-response, ordinary-temperature-rated sprinklers. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (Q)] (H) The in-rack sprinkler system shall be designed to supply 6 sprinklers on each line, with a total of 12 sprinklers operating at gauge pressure of 25 psi (172 kPa). [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (R)] (I) The design of the in-rack sprinkler system shall be independent of, and shall not be required to be balanced with, ceiling sprinkler systems. [400: 15.3.2.4.12.4 (S)] Insert Figure 21.x.1.4.4.4 (A) Arrangement of Barriers and In- Rack Sprinklers for Special Fire Protection Provisions. [400: FIGURE 15.3.2.4.12.4(A)] 21.x.1.4.5 Sprinkler Criteria for Class 4 Oxidizers. (A) Sprinkler protection for Class 4 oxidizers shall be installed on a deluge sprinkler system to provide water density of 0.35 gpm/ft2 (14.4 L/min/m2) over the entire storage area. (B) Sprinkler protection shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. [400: 15.3.2.5.3.6] 21.x.2 Installation Requirements (reserved) Chapter 21 of NFPA 400 is an extract chapter – from other standards. Will not extract twice. Number Eligible to Vote: 25

13-126

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-469 Log #426 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(21.4.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise 21.4.1.2 as follows: 21.4.1.2 The automatic sprinkler system shall be designed for such that the density that discharges from the sprinklers protecting the spray application are in accordance with Extra Hazard Group 2 occupancies as defined in NFPA 13. The area of operation shall be the area of the spray application booth and additional sprinklers in the adjacent ceiling are not required to be added to achieve the Extra Hazard design area.Substantiation: NFPA 13 only provides two options for hydraulic calculations: the room design method and the density/area method. Most paint spray booths do not have the fire resistance separation for the room design method, so a minimum design area of 2500 sq ft is required to comply with Extra Hazard rules. Since most paint spray booths are not 2500 sq ft in area, this would require adding additional sprinklers at the adjacent ceiling area to the hydraulic calculation of the booth. We believe this to be an onerous requirements. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee is not allowed to change extracted text. The change must be submitted to the Technical Committee responsible for the requirement. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-470 Log #CP318 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(22.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Delete the following:(see A.23.1.8)Substantiation: The committee does not see the need for references to send the user to other sections. This makes the document more cumbersome. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-471 Log #297 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.1.3.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise Items (10) and (41):(10) Size of city main in street and whether dead end or circulating; if dead end, direction and distance to nearest circulating main; and city main test results and system elevation relative to test hydrant (see A.23.1.8 A.23.2.1). (41) Information about backflow preventers (manufacturer, size, type) (see A.23.1.8). Substantiation: Provides the appropriate reference to the Annex material related to flow tests and backflow prevention. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee does not see the need for references to send the user to other sections. This makes the document more cumbersome. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-472 Log #CP314 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(22.2.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “...prior to working plan submittal unless otherwise approved by the AHJ.Substantiation: The committee feels the AHJ is in the best position to know the history of their water supply and applicable derating factors. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-473 Log #119 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(22.2.1.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new section 22.2.1.1 to read: Where acceptable to the AHJ, water supply tests conducted within the past three years are permitted where weather or environmental conditions do not allow for a water flow test to be conducted within the past year. Such systems

shall be designed with a 5 psi safety factor added into the hydraulic calculations at the point of connection to the water supply. Substantiation: In many cold climate areas, conducting a water flow test within the past 12 months is not reasonable due to freezing conditions. In addition, environmental laws in some states forbid the discharge of water into the sewer and require that all water be reclaimed. Adding requirements for a water flow test within the past year is unreasonable in these situations. The proposed language allows a water flow test up to three years old to be used if the sprinkler system design incorporates a 5 psi safety margin into the hydraulic calculations to compensate for possible degradation of the water supply. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartCommittee Statement: The committee feels the AHJ is in the best position to know the history of their water supply and applicable derating factors. See Committee Action on 13-472 (Log #CP314). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-474 Log #117 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.3.5.1.2.1 through 22.3.5.1.2.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Trevor Spain, Fire Pro CorporationRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:22.3.5.1.2.1 Columns for velocity pressure and normal pressure may be included in the node analysis section when normal pressures are used in the hydraulic calculations. 22.3.5.1.2.2 A column(s) for water velocity, normal pressure, and velocity pressure may be included in the pipe information section when normal pressures are used in the hydraulic calculations. 22.3.5.1.2.3 A column for friction factor and Reynold’s number may be included in the pipe information section when the Darcy-Weisbach equation is used in the hydraulic calculations.Substantiation: Incorporating needed information into the regular tabular format of the node analysis and pipe information sections will make the report easier to review. Currently, too many notes are needed for each pipe entry when the Darcy-Weisbach equation, normal pressures, or both are used in a hydraulic calculation. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The existing language in A.22.3.5.1 allows the additional information to be added as necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-475 Log #115 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.3.5.5(8) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Trevor Spain, Fire Pro CorporationRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:(8) Velocity pressure and normal pressure if included in calculationsSubstantiation: The node analysis section should contain enough information to verify calculated discharge. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The existing language in A.22.3.5.1 allows the additional information to be added as necessary and also it is required by 22.3.5.6(19)(a). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-476 Log #116 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(22.3.5.6(19)(q) (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Trevor Spain, Fire Pro CorporationRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:(g) Friction factor and Reynold’s number when the Darcy-Weisbach equation is used.Substantiation: Friction factor and Reynold’s number values are needed for competent review of hydraulic calculations using the Darcy-Weisbach equation. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-127

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-477 Log #260 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(22.4.2.4.3, 22.4.2.5.1, and 22.4.2.6.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 22.4.2.4.3 Pressure balancing shall be permitted through the use of a K-factor developed for branch lines or portions of systems using Kp=Q/(p)0.5.K = K-factorQ = flow (gpm)p = pressure (psi)22.4.2.5 Flow Formula 22.4.2.5.1 Flow shall be determined from an orifice on the basis of the following formula: Q = K(p)0.5. Q = flow (gpm)K = K-factorp = pressure (psi)22.4.2.6 Pressure Formula 22.4.2.6.1 Pressure shall be determined from an orifice on the basis of the following formula: p = (Q/K)2. p = pressure (psi)Q = flow (gpm)K = K-factorSubstantiation: These proposed flow and pressure formulas have to be determined from the formula from 22.4.2.4.3. This provides the formulas without having to solve for the desired output (i.e. pressure or flow) for hydraulically calculating sprinkler systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 22.4.2.4.3 Pressure balancing shall be permitted through the use of a K-factor developed for branch lines or portions of systems using the formula in 22.4.2.5. 22.4.2.5 K-factor Formula. K-factors, flow from an orifice or pressure from an orifice shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: Kp = Q/(p)

.05

Where: K = K-factor Q = flow (gpm) = pressure (psi) Committee Statement: The committee agrees with submitter’s intent but wanted to reorganize the formulas in one section. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: The equation is wrong - p should be raised to the “0.5” exponential and “p” is missing from the definition. ________________________________________________________________ 13-478 Log #102 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.4.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Trevor Spain, Fire Pro CorporationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:22.4.3.1.1.1 For antifreeze solutions greater than 40 gal in size, Table 22.4.3.1.1.1 shall be used with the following formula to determine friction loss in fittings and devices unless manufacturer’s test data indicate that other factors are appropriate:

where: ΔP= friction loss [psi (bar)] Pv= velocity pressure [psi (bar)] Kf= fitting loss coefficient d= actual internal diameter of pipe ds40= schedule 40 steel pipe inside diameter

∆P = K pd

df vS

× ×

40

4

Tabl

e 22

.4.3

.1.1

.1 F

ittin

g L

oss

Coe

ffic

ient

Cha

rt

Fitt

ings

and

Val

ves

Exp

ress

ed a

s a

Fitt

ing

Los

s C

oeff

icie

nt (K

t)

Fitt

ings

&

Valv

es¾

in(2

0 m

m)

1 in

(25

mm

)1¼

in(3

2 m

m)

1½ in

(40

mm

)2

in (5

0 m

m)

2½ in

(65

mm

)3

in (8

0 m

m)

3½ in

(90

mm

)4

in (1

00

mm

)5

in (1

25

mm

)6

in (1

50

mm

)8

in (2

00

mm

)10

in (2

50

mm

)12

in (3

00

mm

)

45°

elbo

w0.

40.

368

0.35

20.

336

0.30

40.

288

0.28

80.

272

0.27

20.

256

0.24

0.22

40.

224

0.20

8

90°

stan

dard

el

bow

0.75

0.69

0.66

0.63

0.57

0.54

0.54

0.51

0.51

0.48

0.45

0.42

0.42

0.39

Tee

or c

ross

(f

low

turn

90

°)1.

51.

381.

321.

261.

141.

081.

081.

021.

020.

960.

90.

840.

840.

78

But

terf

ly

valv

e-

--

-0.

855

0.81

0.81

0.76

50.

765

0.72

0.67

50.

630.

490.

455

Gat

e va

lve

0.2

0.18

40.

176

0.16

80.

152

0.14

40.

144

0.13

60.

136

0.12

80.

120.

112

0.11

20.

104

Swin

g ch

eck

-2.

32.

22.

11.

91.

81.

81.

71.

71.

61.

51.

41.

41.

3

13-128

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: Equivalent lengths simplify hydraulic calculation but are valid only for the liquid for which they are derived. In other words, the same fitting will have a different equivalent length for different antifreeze solutions and different temperatures. Providing an equivalent length table for every combination of antifreeze solution and temperature is neither feasible nor desirable. A liquid independent method of fitting and valve pressure loss calculation is needed. By adopting the fitting loss coefficient, one set of values may be used with all antifreeze solutions and temperatures to obtain accurate results. This would ensure accurate fitting loss calculation with current antifreeze solutions and with new antifreeze solutions that may come to market in the future. Fitting loss coefficient values are also unitless so different values are not needed for metric calculations. Adjustment for pipe material absolute roughness or C factor is also not needed. Furthermore, this change in methodology should not cause undo hardship on manufacturers or software providers. Manufacturers of fittings and devices should already have the pressure loss information needed to publish fitting loss coefficients on their data sheets and at least one fire sprinkler hydraulic calculation software program already supports fitting loss coefficients (Simple Hydraulic Calculator from Igneus Inc.). Values in the proposed Table 22.4.3.1.1.1 were calculated using Crane’s Technical Paper No. 410, “Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe”. More information on fitting and device losses may be found in Crane’s TP 410, or the “Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance” by I.E. Idelchik, and other resources. The following table is a comparison of some pressure loss values for water and antifreeze using equivalent lengths and fitting loss coefficients. Pressure loss shown is in psi and was calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach formula with schedule 40 steel pipe.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee does not agree that this level of accuracy is necessary. We are using the equivalent length method and are capturing some of the increase in friction loss. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-479 Log #298 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.4.4.1.1.4 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 22.4.4.1.1.4 Where the available floor area of coverage for a specific area density design criteria, including any extension of area as required by 11.1.2 and 12.3, is less than the required minimum design area, only sprinklers within the available design area shall be calculated except that where the total operating sprinkler discharge is less than the minimum required discharge determined by multiplying the required design density times required minimum design area, an additional flow shall be added at the base of the riser to increase the overall sprinkler demand to the minimum required discharge. Substantiation: In situations where the available floor area of a specific hazard application using an area density design application is less than the minimum prescribed design area required no clear direction is provided as how calculations are to be completed. Without the indicated guidance it is quite possible that the design for such a small area could be interoperated to have to include additional sprinklers within an adjacent hazard area containing sprinklers of differing K-factors or design applications which would not be appropriate for inclusion within design calculations for the area under consideration. The proposed methodology will provide an allowance for a design methodology for such conditions without having to extend the design area outside the area of the specific hazard application being considered. The inclusion of the minimum design discharge provides an assurance that the initial operating sprinklers will have benefit of an available water supply for a larger design area similar to that which would exist should a full design area have been actually available. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: For situations where separations are insufficient to use the room design method, the designed area should be proven. Number Eligible to Vote: 25

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BELLAMY, T.: The issue presented is not one simply involving the application of the room design method. It is one that involves situations where in order to obtain the full design area one must complete a “straddle” design calculation. A “straddle” design calculation involves having the design area situated partially within the design area in question and partially within adjacent design areas surrounding such areas. When the design area in question is of sufficient size to accommodate the full design area this is not an issue; however, when the area in question is too small then an issue arises with having to include more adjacent sprinklers within the design calculation that would create a design demand far greater than either of the design areas considered individually given that a full design area was available. It is simply not appropriate to have design requirements that result in excessive design demands simply because the hazard area is too small.

________________________________________________________________ 13-480 Log #299 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.4.4.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 22.4.4.1.2 Room Design Method. Where the design is based on the room design method, the calculation shall be based on the room and communicating space, if any, that is hydraulically the most demanding. (See 11.2.3.3 and 12.10.)Substantiation: The additional of12.10 for Room Design in storage occupancies is needed to provide a complete reference. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee does not see the need for references to send the user to other sections. This makes the document more cumbersome. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-481 Log #CP315 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(22.4.4.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Delete text as follows: (see 11.2.3.3)Substantiation: The committee does not see the need for references to send the user to other sections. This makes the document more cumbersome. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

NFPA 13 Log #102 A2012 ROP Sub

Fitting Velocity

ft/s (gpm)

Water at 60°F 62.34 lb/ft3,µ=1.1 centipoise

50% Propylene Glycol at 0°F64.96 lb/ft3, µ=65.0 centipoise

50% Glycerine at 10°C 71.45 lb/ft3, µ=24.4 centipoise

L*pr/ft Kf*pv L*pf/ft Kf*pv L*pf/ft Kf*pv

8” std tee L=35’, Kf=0.84 10 (1559.3) 0.622 0.565 1.170 0.589 1.012 0.647 2” std tee L=10’, Kf=1.14 10 (104.6) 0.954 0.767 1.925 0.799 1.605 0.879 1” std tee L=5’, Kf=1.38 10 (26.94) 1.135 0.928 1.975 0.967 1.946 1.064 6” std elbow L=14’, Kf =0.45 15 (1350.7) 0.772 0.681 1.353 0.709 1.188 0.780 3” std elbow L=7’, Kf =0.54 15 (345.6) 0.900 0.817 1.620 0.851 1.401 0.936 1½” std elbow L=3’, Kf =0.66 15 (69.9) 1.060 0.999 1.978 1.041 1.675 1.145

13-129

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-482 Log #451 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.4.4.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 22.4.4.2.1 For CMSA sprinklers, the design area shall be a rectangular area having a dimension parallel to the branch lines at least 1.2 times the square root of the area protected by the number of sprinklers to be included in the design area. For CMSA sprinklers, the design area shall consist of one of the following per the applicable Table: 5 sprinklers on 3 branch lines for 15 sprinklers; 5 sprinklers on 4 branch lines for 20 sprinklers; 5 sprinklers on 5 branch lines for 25 sprinklers; 5 sprinklers on 6 branch lines for 30 sprinklers; 6 sprinklers on 6 branch lines for 36 sprinklers.Substantiation: Since no actual design area is given for calculating CMSA sprinklers, and coverage areas of the required design sprinklers can vary, designers need direction on what the actual design area to use when utilizing the 1.2 rule. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committees intent is to use the 1.2 rule. See Committee Action on Proposal 13-483 (Log #452). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-483 Log #452 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(22.4.4.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ken Dias, Tyco Fire Suppression and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:22.4.4.2.1 For CMSA sprinklers, the design area shall be a rectangular area having a dimension parallel to the branch lines at least 1.2 times the square root of the area protected by the number of sprinklers to be included in the design area. The design area protected by the number of sprinklers to be used by the 1.2 rule shall be based on the maximum allowable spacing per sprinkler.Substantiation: Since no actual design area is given for calculating CMSA sprinklers, and coverage areas of the required design sprinklers can vary, designers need direction on what the actual design area to use when utilizing the 1.2 rule. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 22.4.4.2.1 For CMSA sprinklers, the design area shall be a rectangular area having a dimension parallel to the branch lines at least 1.2 times the square root of the area protected by the number of sprinklers to be included in the design area. The design area protected by the number of sprinklers to be used by the 1.2 rule shall be based on the maximum allowable area spacing per sprinkler.Committee Statement: Clarifies we want the maximum area used rather than the actual spacing. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: KOFFEL, W.: Consideration should be given to providing additional clarity to the text being proposed. The intent of the proposed language was finally understood during the Committee meeting, only after considerable discussion. ________________________________________________________________ 13-484 Log #164 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(22.4.4.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “...factors that are representative of aged pipe. , and adjusted K-factors for fluid properties. The discharge from individual sprinklers shall be based on adjusted K-factors for fluid properties and shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: Delete formulaWhere: Ka = K-factor adjusted for fluid properties Kw = K-factor used when calculating water Ya = specific weight of the fluid (density in lb/ft3)Substantiation: This level of academic purity is far beyond the precision provided by the overall methodology. Starting with propylene glycol. The adjusted value for a 50% solution by volume at -30 F is 5.515. Keeping in mind that the nominal K-factor is based on a tested value of anywhere from 5.2 to 5.8, there is absolutely no need to apply a modifier for propylene glycol. The more dense glycerine does produce a greater reduction with an adjusted value of 5.259 at a 50% solution and -20F. Although still greater than the allowed 5.2 minimum, keep in mind the precission of the nominal value. As assigned per UL 199, the K-factor is calculated from multiple test points and the mean value must be between 5.2 and 5.8. During the calculation any single test point shall not deviate more than 5% from the mean value. So if the mean value is 5.3, a test point can be 5.035. As such the K-factors is a nominal value based on a calculated average that is not that precise. Imposing these mathematical gymnastics is unwarranted (especially when NFPA 13 doesn’t even provide the

required data to perform the conversion). Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-485 Log #300 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Part(22.4.4.5.1, A.22.4.4.5.1, Figure A.22.4.4.5.1, and Table A.22.4.4.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Delete the provisions of 22.4.4.5.1 and associated Annex material and relocate text as follows:22.4.4.5.1* For antifreeze systems greater than 40 gal (151 L) in size, the friction loss shall also be calculated using the Darcy–Weisbach equation shown in 22.4.2.1.3 using a Moody diagram, å-factors that are representative of aged pipe, and adjusted K-factors for fluid properties. The discharge from individual sprinklers shall be based on adjusted K-factors for fluid properties and shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: Ka = 7.94Kw (1/ãa ) where: Ka = K-factor adjusted for fluid properties Kw = K-factor used when calculating with water ãa = specific weight of the fluid (density in lb/ft3) 22.4.4.7 Friction Loss. 22.4.4.7.1 Pipe friction loss shall be calculated in accordance with the Hazen–Williams formula with C values from Table 22.4.4.7.1, as follows: (1) Include pipe, fittings, and devices such as valves, meters, flow switches in pipes 2 in. or less in size, and strainers, and calculate elevation changes that affect the sprinkler discharge. (2) Tie-in drain piping shall not be included in the hydraulic calculations. (3) Calculate the loss for a tee or a cross where flow direction change occurs based on the equivalent pipe length of the piping segment in which the fitting is included. (4) The tee at the top of a riser nipple shall be included in the branch line, the tee at the base of a riser nipple shall be included in the riser nipple, and the tee or cross at a cross main–feed main junction shall be included in the cross main. (5) Do not include fitting loss for straight-through flow in a tee or cross. (6) Calculate the loss of reducing elbows based on the equivalent feet value of the smallest outlet. (7) Use the equivalent feet value for the standard elbow on any abrupt 90 degree turn, such as the screw-type pattern. (8) Use the equivalent feet value for the long-turn elbow on any sweeping 90 degree turn, such as a flanged, welded, or mechanical joint-elbow type. (See Table 22.4.3.1.1.) (9) Friction loss shall be excluded for the fitting directly connected to a sprinkler. (10) Losses through a pressure-reducing valve shall be included based on the normal inlet pressure condition. Pressure loss data from the manufacturer’s literature shall be used. 22.4.4.7.2* For antifreeze systems greater than 40 gal (151 L) in size, the pipe friction loss shall be calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach equation shown in 22.4.2.1.3 using a Moody diagram and å-factors that are representative of aged pipe otherwise following the methodology presented in 22.4.4.7.1. Table 22.4.4.7.1A.22.4.4.5.17.2 See Figure A.22.4.4.5.17.2 for a Moody diagram and Table A.22.4.4.5.17.2 for å-factors that correspond to Hazen–Williams C factors. The corresponding Hazen-Williams C factor should be used for the calculation of equivalent pipe length in accordance with 22..4.3. FIGURE A.22.4.4.5.17.2 Moody Diagram. Table A.22.4.4.5.17.2 Suggested å-Factor for Aged Pipe22.4.4.9.3.1 For antifreeze systems greater than 40 gal (151 L) in size K-factors shall be adjusted for for fluid properties. The discharge from individual sprinklers shall be based on adjusted K-factors for fluid properties and shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: Ka = 7.94Kw (1/ãa ) where: Ka = K-factor adjusted for fluid properties Kw = K-factor used when calculating with water ãa = specific weight of the fluid (density in lb/ft3) Substantiation: The provisions of 22.4.4.5.1 are located within a parent section associated with Design Densities and not for calculation of pipe friction loss or K-Factor adjustments. The material should be more appropriately located as indicated. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartDelete the provisions of 22.4.4.5.1 and associated Annex material and relocate text as follows:

13-130

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 22.4.4.5.1* For antifreeze systems greater than 40 gal (151 L) in size, the friction loss shall also be calculated using the Darcy–Weisbach equation shown in 22.4.2.1.3 using a Moody diagram, å-factors that are representative of aged pipe, and adjusted K-factors for fluid properties. The discharge from individual sprinklers shall be based on adjusted K-factors for fluid properties and shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: Ka = 7.94Kw (1/ãa ) where: Ka = K-factor adjusted for fluid properties Kw = K-factor used when calculating with water ãa = specific weight of the fluid (density in lb/ft3) 22.4.4.7 Friction Loss. 22.4.4.7.1 Pipe friction loss shall be calculated in accordance with the Hazen–Williams formula with C values from Table 22.4.4.7.1, as follows: (1) Include pipe, fittings, and devices such as valves, meters, flow switches in pipes 2 in. or less in size, and strainers, and calculate elevation changes that affect the sprinkler discharge. (2) Tie-in drain piping shall not be included in the hydraulic calculations. (3) Calculate the loss for a tee or a cross where flow direction change occurs based on the equivalent pipe length of the piping segment in which the fitting is included. (4) The tee at the top of a riser nipple shall be included in the branch line, the tee at the base of a riser nipple shall be included in the riser nipple, and the tee or cross at a cross main–feed main junction shall be included in the cross main. (5) Do not include fitting loss for straight-through flow in a tee or cross. (6) Calculate the loss of reducing elbows based on the equivalent feet value of the smallest outlet. (7) Use the equivalent feet value for the standard elbow on any abrupt 90 degree turn, such as the screw-type pattern. (8) Use the equivalent feet value for the long-turn elbow on any sweeping 90 degree turn, such as a flanged, welded, or mechanical joint-elbow type. (See Table 22.4.3.1.1.) (9) Friction loss shall be excluded for the fitting directly connected to a sprinkler. (10) Losses through a pressure-reducing valve shall be included based on the normal inlet pressure condition. Pressure loss data from the manufacturer’s literature shall be used. 22.4.4.7.2* For antifreeze systems greater than 40 gal (151 L) in size, the pipe friction loss shall be calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach equation shown in 22.4.2.1.3 using a Moody diagram and å-factors that are representative of aged pipe otherwise following the methodology presented in 22.4.4.7.1. Table 22.4.4.7.1A.22.4.4.5.17.2 See Figure A.22.4.4.5.17.2 for a Moody diagram and Table A.22.4.4.5.17.2 for å-factors that correspond to Hazen–Williams C factors. The corresponding Hazen-Williams C factor should be used for the calculation of equivalent pipe length in accordance with 22..4.3. FIGURE A.22.4.4.5.17.2 Moody Diagram. Table A.22.4.4.5.17.2 Suggested å-Factor for Aged Pipe22.4.4.9.3.1 For antifreeze systems greater than 40 gal (151 L) in size K-factors shall be adjusted for for fluid properties. The discharge from individual sprinklers shall be based on adjusted K-factors for fluid properties and shall be determined on the basis of the following formula: Ka = 7.94Kw (1/ãa ) where: Ka = K-factor adjusted for fluid properties Kw = K-factor used when calculating with water ãa = specific weight of the fluid (density in lb/ft3)Committee Statement: Section 22.4.4.9.3.1 was deleted because this section was deleted 13- (Log #164). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: The “Ɛ” symbol needs to be added. KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that, in Table A.22.4.4.7.2 (formerly Table A.22.4.4.5.1), the symbol for the factor for the aged pipe is ε (epsilon). ________________________________________________________________ 13-486 Log #354 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(22.4.4.6.3.1 and 22.4.4.6.3.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:22.4.4.6.3.1 Sprinklers under the obstruction are not required to be included in the hydraulic calculation of the ceiling sprinklers.22.4.4.6.3.2 Where the piping to sprinklers under obstructions follows the same sizing pattern as the branch lines, no additional hydraulic calculations are required for sprinklers under obstructions.Substantiation: Currently, Section 22.4.4.6.3.1 is trying to handle two different situations. It is trying to say that you do not add sprinklers to the ceiling calculation, and it is trying to say that you do not need to calculate the sprinklers under the obstruction separately as long as they are not as demanding as the ceiling sprinklers (this is what is meant by the somewhat cryptic “one level of sprinklers” language.

It is better to come right out and say what we want people to do. As long as the pipe sizes for the sprinklers under the obstruction are the same as the branch lines, the sprinklers under the obstruction will not be more demanding because of the increased elevation head in dropping down under the obstruction. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept proposal but delete the current text of 22.4.4.6.3.1. Committee Statement: Accept as written however we believe the intent of the submitter was to delete current text of 22.4.4.6.3.1. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-487 Log #355 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(22.4.4.6.4.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Section 22.4.4.6.4.1.Substantiation: Factory Mutual originally proposed this rule because they were concerned with the 12 sprinkler design when extra sprinklers were installed under obstructions. However, they have recently removed this rule from their standards, so we should do the same with NFPA 13 since the justification for the rule was that it was in their standards. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept the proposal and also delete the following sections: 14.4.4, 15.4.4, 16.3.3.6, 16.2.3.5 17.3.3.5,and 17.2.3.4 Committee Statement: Other sections needed to be deleted for correlation. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-488 Log #353 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Part(22.4.4.6.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete Section 22.4.4.6.5.Substantiation: This section is redundant with Section 22.4.4.6.3 and contradicts Section 22.4.4.6.4.1. The whole concept of calculating sprinklers under obstructions is being revised under another or our proposals. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Revise text to read as follows: “… in concealed spaces or under obstructions such as ducts and cutting tables shall not be required to be added to the ceiling demand.”Committee Statement: This is a clean up item to remove redundant language.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-489 Log #425 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(22.4.4.6.9)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new section 22.4.4.6.9 as follows: 22.4.4.6.9 Where sprinklers are installed under a mezzanine and the area under the mezzanine does not reach the design area required to protect the commodity being stored under the mezzanine, the number of sprinklers for the calculations shall be permitted to be all of the sprinklers under the mezzanine without requiring additional sprinklers from the adjacent upper ceiling area to be added to the calculations. Substantiation: Guidance is needed on how to treat mezzanines. While the sprinklers under the mezzanine need to have the density to protect the commodity under the mezzanine, the area should not have to be increased to pick up sprinklers at a ceiling many feet above the mezzanine. Most mezzanines are construction in such a manner as to keep the heat from a fire from getting up to the adjacent higher ceiling level early in the fire scenario. The probability of sprinklers at the adjacent higher ceiling getting involved in fire control is remote. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Adequate substation has not been provided. The committee is concerned that a fire occurring under a mezzanine could activate the sprinklers above the mezzanine. The only way the committee wants to reduce the minimum design area is to utilize the room design method. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-131

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-490 Log #240 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Table 22.4.4.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise table as follows:

Substantiation: Internally galvanized pipe does not provide the expected corrosion resistance. It has been well documented that the zinc coating does not fare well in a persistently moist environment. In fact it can be argued that internally galvanized pipe does not perform as well as black steel under the conditions that exist in dry pipe including pre-action systems. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. See attached white papers: ● Using Galvanized Steel Piping in Dry and Preaction Fire Protection Systems ● Using Nitrogen Gas in Dry and Preaction Fire Sprinkler SystemsCommittee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Not all of the committee saw the supporting material and wishes to reject this until the entire committee can review the report. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, I must point out that the referenced supporting material has still not been distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. ________________________________________________________________ 13-491 Log #CP316 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 22.4.4.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Add the word “steel” in table 22.4.4.7 Galvanized Steel (2 locations)Substantiation: Editorial.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-492 Log #CP317 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(Table 22.4.4.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Change the word “consider” to “allow” in the note.Substantiation: Editorial.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-493 Log #301 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(22.4.4.11)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 22.4.4.11 Maximum Operating Pressure. For extra hazard occupancies, palletized, solid pile, in bin box, back-to-back shelf storage, or on shelf storage, or rack storage the maximum operating pressure of any sprinkler shall be 175 psi (12.1 bar). Substantiation: The list of high challenge storage configuration is not complete as it does not include back-to-back shelf storage or rack storage. Committee Meeting Action: Accept

Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-494 Log #356 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(23.1.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.2 Capacity. Water supplies shall be capable of providing the required flow and pressure for the remote design area determined using the procedures in Chapters 11 through 22 for the required duration as specified in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and through Chapter 21.Substantiation: The water supply only needs to provide the duration for the remote area, not the closer sprinklers in the system that will discharge more water. Also, all of the discharge chapters need to be specified, not just the basic storage Chapter 12. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-495 Log #236 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(23.1.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.5.1* Water Supply Treatment. 23.1.5.1 Water supplies and environmental conditions shall be evaluated for the existence of microbes and conditions that contribute to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). Where conditions are found that contribute to MIC, the owner(s) Engineer of Record shall notify the sprinkler system installer and develop a plan shall be developed to treat the system using one of the following methods: (1) Install a water pipe that will not be affected by the MIC microbes (2) Treat all water that enters the system using an approved biocide (3) Implement an approved plan for monitoing the interior conditions of the pipe at established time intervals and locations (4) Install corrosion monitoring station and monitor at established intervals 23.1.5.2 Water supplies and environmental conditions shall be evaluated for conditions that contribute to unusual corrosive properties. Where conditions are found that contribute to unusual corrosive properties, the owner(s) Engineer of Record shall notify the sprinkler system installer and develop a plan shall be developed to treat the system using one of the following methods: (1) Install a water pipe that is corrosion resistant (2) Treat all water that enters the system using an approved corrosion inhibitor (3) Implement an approved plan for monitoring the interior conditions of the pipe at established interval and locations (4) Install corrosion monitoring station and monitor at established intervals. Substantiation: The design and calculation of fire protection systems is the practice of engineering. Owner(s) are not qualified to make these determinations unless they are a duly qualified licensed professional engineer. See Joint Position Statement published by the SFPE, NSPE and NICET. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The burden is on the owner. The owner may delegate this responsibility to the Engineer of Record or other qualified party. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-496 Log #237 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(23.1.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protection systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.5.1* Water Supply Treatment. 23.1.5.1 Water supplies and environmental conditions shall be evaluated for the existence of microbes and conditions that contribute to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). Where conditions are found that contribute to MIC, the owner(s) shall notify the sprinkler system installer and a plan shall be developed to treat the system using one of the following methods: (1) Install a water pipe that will not be affected by the MIC microbes (2) Treat all water that enters the system using an approved biocide (3) Implement an approved plan for monitoring the interior conditions of the pipe at established time intervals and locations (4) Install corrosion monitoring station and monitor at established intervals 23.1.5.21 Water supplies and environmental conditions shall be evaluated for conditions that contribute to unusual corrosive properties including microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). Where conditions are found that contribute to unusual corrosive properties, the owner(s) Engineer of Record shall notify the sprinkler system installer and develop a plan shall be developed to treat the system using one of the following methods:

13/L240/A2012/ROP

Table 22.4.4.7 Hazen-Williams C Values

Pipe or Tube C Value*

Unlined cast or ductile iron 100 Black steel (dry systems including pre-action) 100 * using nitrogen gas 120Black steel (wet systems including deluge) 120 Galvanized (wet systems including deluge) 120Galvanized (dry systems including pre-action) 100 * using nitrogen gas 120Plastic (listed) all 150 Cement-lined cast or ductile iron 140 Copper tube or stainless steel 150 Asbestos cement 140 Concrete 140 * The authority having jurisdiction is permitted to consider other C values.

13-132

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 (1) Install a water pipe that is corrosion resistant (2) Treat all water that enters the system using an approved corrosion inhibitor or biocide (3) Implement an approved plan for monitoring the interior conditions of the pipe at established interval and locations (4) Install corrosion monitoring station and monitor at established intervals ** Renumber rest of section** Substantiation: The design and calculation of fire protection systems is the practice of engineering. Owner(s) are not qualified to make these determinations unless they are a duly qualified licensed professional engineer. See Joint Position Statement published by the SFPE, NSPE and NICET. Section 23.15.1 and 23.1.5.2 can easily be combined into one section without losing the intent. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Because MIC is not a corrosion condition, a separate section is warranted. These two sections are purposely separate. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-497 Log #39 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(23.1.5.1(5))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allen Johnson, Nu Flow Technologies Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: (5) Treat the interior of the pipe with an epoxy coating process that first dries the interior of the pipes, removes any corrosion and creates a profile for bonding using an abrading agent and then applies an epoxy barrier coating to the interior of the pipes. Substantiation: This process would remove interior corrosion, create a bonding profile and place an epoxy coating inside the metal pipes servicing fire sprinklers that would prevent corrosion (due to moisture and corrosive materials) that restrict flow and causes leaks. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee has major concerns with interior coatings including but not limited to: ensuring the openings are not blocked or partially restricted, completeness of the coating and field quality control. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, I must point out that the referenced supporting material was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. ________________________________________________________________ 13-498 Log #40 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(23.1.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Allen Johnson, Nu Flow Technologies Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: (5) Treat the interior of the pipe with an epoxy coating process that first dries the interior of the pipes, removes any corrosion and creates a profile for bonding using an abrading agent and then applies an epoxy barrier coating to the interior of the pipes. Substantiation: This process would remove interior corrosion, create a bonding profile and place an epoxy coating inside the metal pipes servicing fire sprinklers that would prevent corrosion (due to moisture and corrosive materials) that restrict flow and causes leaks. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee has major concerns with interior coatings including but not limited to: ensuring the openings are not blocked or partially restricted, completeness of the coating and field quality control. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, I must point out that the referenced supporting material was not distributed to all of the members of the TC. This omission needs to be rectified prior to the Comment Closing date. ________________________________________________________________ 13-499 Log #118 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(23.1.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ausmus S. Marburger, Fire Protection Industries, Inc.Recommendation: Remove and replace existing 23.1.5.3 with modified text as follows: 23.1.5.3 Where biocides and/or corrosion inhibitors are approved for use in a sprinkler system, they shall be compatible with system components and hardware and with each other if used in combination.

Substantiation: Additives to the water supply for use in a sprinkler system must be compatible with the components and hardware in that system whether used independently or in combination. Submitted to clarify existing intent. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-189 (Log #318). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with the Committee Action, there is a typographical error in the Committee Statement. I believe that the referenced Committee Action should be Proposal 13-500, (Log #302) rather than Proposal 13-189. ________________________________________________________________ 13-500 Log #302 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(23.1.5.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 23.1.5.3 Where approved biocides and/or corrosion inhibitors are used they shall be compatible with system components. Where used together, they shall also be compatible with each other and system components.Substantiation: As written the provisions of 23.1.5.3 would only require that the biocides and corrosion inhibitors be compatible with the system components when used in combination together and not when only one is used individually. The revision makes clear that even when used individually, the biocides and corrosion inhibitors shall be compatible with system components. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 23.1.5.3 Where listed approved biocides and/or corrosion inhibitors are used they shall be compatible with system components. Where used together, they shall also be compatible with each other and system components.Committee Statement: The intent is the biocides be listed. See Committee Action on Proposal 13-162 (Log #CP414). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: DEEGAN, T.: While I agree with the committee’s action, I believe that the issue is far more complicated. There are a variety of substances that may be introduced into a sprinkler system (biocides, biostats, cutting oils, lubricants, dopes, etc.) and there may be more than two at a time. Is it the committee’s intent to have all combinations and permutations listed? The intent is good but I’m not sure that it is practical. ________________________________________________________________ 13-501 Log #121 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(23.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new 23.2.1 with new annex text as follows and renumber the rest of 23.2 as shown: 23.2 Types 23.2.1 Water supplies for sprinkler systems shall be one of the following or shall be permitted to be a combination of the following: (a) A connection to an approved public or private waterworks system in accordance with 23.2.2. (b) A connection including a fire pump in accordance with 23.2.3. (c) A connection to a ground level atmospheric water storage tank filled from an approved source. (d) A connection to a pressure tank in accordance with 23.2.4 and filled from an approved source. (e) A connection to a gravity tank in accordance with 23.2.5 and filled from an approved source. (f) A penstock, flume, river, lake, pond or reservoir in accordance with 23.2.6. (g)* A source of recycled or reclaimed water where the building owner (or their agent) has analyzed the source of the water and the treatment process (if any) that the water undergoes before being made available to the sprinkler system and determined that any materials, chemicals or contaminants in the water will not be detrimental to the components of the sprinkler system it comes in contact with. A.23.2.1(g) In an effort to help comply with efforts for sustainable and renewable building construction, some engineers and architects have suggested the use of reclaimed or recycled water to use in fire sprinkler systems rather than the potable water typically used from the public water supply. While this effort has some merit, there is a concern about the quality of the water from these recycled and reclaimed systems. The capture of rainwater is generally not considered a problem since NFPA 13 has long allowed the use of open lakes, rivers and ponds, which are nothing more than open collections of rainwater and melted snow. But other systems that are recycling water that has been used in some industrial or other process might have contaminants that are combustible, or they might be detrimental to the sprinkler system by preventing it from working properly or accelerating corrosion. Recycled or reclaimed

13-133

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 water should never be used in a sprinkler system until an analysis of what contaminants might be in the water has determined that nothing will be detrimental to sprinkler system performance or the expected reasonable life of the sprinkler system. When such an analysis is completed successfully, the information should be transmitted to the sprinkler contractor through the use of the Owner’s Certificate required by section 4.3. 23.2.1.2* (renumber with no change to text)A.23.2.1.2 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.1.2.1 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.1.2.2* (renumber with no change to text)A.23.2.1.2.2 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.2.3* (renumber with no change to text)A.22.2.2.3 (renumber with no change to text)22.2.3.4 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.1 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.1.1 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.1.2 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.1.3 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.1.4 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.2 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.2.1 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.2.2 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.3* (renumber with no change to text)A.23.2.3.4.3 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.3.1 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.3.4.3.2 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.4.5 (renumber with no change to text)23.2.5.6 (renumber with no change to text)”Substantiation: There are two reasons for this proposal. The first is to set up an organizational structure for what is an acceptable water supply. NFPA 13 never actually says that you can use gravity tanks, nor does it say that you can combine water supplies such as pumps and tanks. Once the organizational structure is set up, NFPA 13 needs to deal with the concept of recycled or reclaimed water. In the interest of constructing “green” buildings, architects and engineers are looking at a number of different ways that water can be reused for a sprinkler system rather than putting potable water into the fire protection system. While we applaud those concepts of water conservation, we have concerns that contaminants in the water may be combustible, or may cause problems for the sprinkler system by rendering parts inoperative or accelerating corrosion. It should be incumbent on the architect or engineer proposing such use of water to prove that whatever source they are using will not be detrimental to the fire sprinkler system. This proposal has been approved by the NFSA Engineering and Standards committee and is one of a series of proposals on this subject that are being submitted to Chapter 23, the Annex to Chapter 22 (Owner’s Certificate) and section 4.3 (Owner’s Certificate). Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-502 Log #140 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(24.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Fox, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersRecommendation: Add the following section to the Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping form: Substantiation: The current Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping form includes all testing that might be done in accordance with Chapter 24 of NFPA 13, with the exception that it does not include any a test section for the backflow prevention assembly as identified in Section 25.2.5. Adding this section would provide a location for the sprinkler contractor to record the appropriate information, rather than attaching an additional page, or including the information under additional notes. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter should submit a comment to correlate with the action on NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances. It is not a requirement of the standard to record the pressure drop when conducting the forward flow test. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-503 Log #357 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Figure 24.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Figure 24.1 to include the information regarding the forward flow test of the backflow preventer.

Substantiation: Section 24.2.5 requires that an acceptance test be performed on the backflow preventer. This is for backflow preventers that are installed in between the underground and the sprinkler system, typically as a part of the riser or within the riser room (which is why this is different from the underground sections). Since we are required to do the test, we should put the results on the form. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter has not provided specific recommendations for the committee to consider. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: DORNBOS, D.: The proponent provided an attachment providing information to be added to figure 24.1. LAKE, J.: The committee statement is incorrect. There is an attachment provided showing the line as it would appear in the figure. ________________________________________________________________ 13-504 Log #466 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure 24.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Under Dry pipe operating test, add: Air or Nitrogen pressure. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-505 Log #497 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Figure 24.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Add to the figure a line to record the test results of the backflow prevention assemblies as required section 24.2.5. Substantiation: This test has been required for several editions but since it is not shown on the Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping, it is often overlooked. The pressure loss across the backflow prevention assemblies and the flow rate should be recorded. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter has not provided specific wording for the committee to review. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-506 Log #165 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(24.2.1.6 and A.24.2.1.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:24.2.1.6 Modifications that can not be isolated, such as relocated drops, shall not require testing in excess of system working pressure. A.24.2.1.6 Modficiations that can not be readily isolated are not limited to minor portions of the system, such as relocated drops, but can be larger portions of the system, such as replacement of cross mains, Substantiation: An example of the criteria should go in the Annex. Additionally, the provided example was being interpreted as indicating the only type of modification applicable to this section. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Substantive portions of systems such as cross mains need to be tested in excess of the service pressure. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test

Flow Rate (gpm)Inlet Pressure (psi) Outlet Pressure (psi) Pressure Drop (psi) Manufacturer’s

Design Pressure Drop at Test Flow

13-134

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: Action should be Accept in Part and move example to annex as per Manual of Style. TC should consider adding the rejection substantiation text to annex. CAPUTO, R.: Action should be Accept in Part and move example to annex as per Manual of Style. TC should consider adding the rejection substantiation text to annex. ________________________________________________________________ 13-507 Log #303 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(24.2.1.11)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 24.2.1.11 When systems are being hydrostatically tested, it shall be permitted to conduct tests with pendent sprinklers or plugs installed in fittings. Any plugs shall be replaced with pendent sprinklers after the test is completed.Substantiation: The practice of utilizing plugs to conduct hydrostatic testing followed by the replacement of the plugs with sprinklers after system completion should not be limited to only pendent sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: VICTOR, T.: I disagree that plugs should be allowed for any type of sprinkler in a system when performing a hydrostatic test. Using plugs for pendent sprinklers is necessary in many cases because of the use of antifreeze that needs to be drained when testing in the winter time, and to prevent damage to sprinklers being installed in areas with drywall ceilings, as well as in some other situations. Visually observing that the plugs have been removed and the pendent sprinklers have been installed is easy to do. However, I can’t think of a situation when it would be necessary to test against plugs instead of upright sprinklers. To verify that the plugs have been removed and replaced with upright sprinklers may be difficult without lifts and ladders, and the potential exists that some plugs would be missed. ________________________________________________________________ 13-508 Log #501 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(24.2.1.11)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: When systems are being hydrostatically tested, it shall be permitted to conduct test with pendent sprinklers or plugs installed in fittings. Any plugs shall be replaced with pendent sprinklers after the test is completed without performing an additional hydrostatic test.Substantiation: Does it matter if the sprinklers are pendent, concealed, flush or another type? The requirement should not restrict concealed, flush, recessed and other types of sprinklers. Some ahjs are requiring additional hydrostatic test after the sprinklers are installed. I am not sure that is the intent of NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: When systems are being hydrostatically tested, it shall be permitted to conduct tests with pendent sprinklers or plugs installed in fittings. Any plugs shall be replaced with pendent sprinklers after the test is completed without performing an additional hydrostatic test.Committee Statement: This change correlates with other changes. See 13-507 (Log #303). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that, in the last sentence instead of “without performing an addition hydrostatic test” the wording should say “and an additional hydrostatic test shall not be required”. ________________________________________________________________ 13-509 Log #241 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(24.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 24.2.2 Dry Pipe and Double Interlock Preaction System(s) Air or Nitrogen Gas Test. 24.2.2.1 In addition to the standard hydrostatic test, an air or nitrogen gas pressure leakage test at 40 psi (2.8 bar) shall be conducted for 24 hours. The leakage test shall be documented by a digital data recorder for the duration of the test. Any leakage that results in a loss of pressure in excess of 1 ½ psi (0.1 bar) for the 24 hours shall be corrected. 24.2.2.2 Where systems are installed in spaces that are capable of being operated at temperatures below 32*F (0*C), air or nitrogen gas pressure leakage tests required in 24.2.2 shall be conducted at the lowest nominal temperature of the space.

Substantiation: The Standard offers no specific method of documenting the leakage test an important part of acceptance testing of dry pipe and double interlock preaction systems. A 2-hour hydrostatic pressure test can reasonably be personally monitored by the property owner or his authorized agent. It is not practical for the owner or his authorized agent to monitor a 24-hour test. A relatively inexpensive digital data recorder can very accurately document test pressure over the 24-hour duration of this important leakage test. Dry pipe and double interlock preaction systems which do not successfully pass the leakage test will have a shortened service life due to the damaging effects of corrosion. The more water vapor laden air/oxygen that is pumped into the persistently moist environment within the system the greater the corrosion activity. Even in the case when nitrogen gas is used in lieu of air, excessive leakage adds unnecessary wear and tear on all components of the nitrogen supply. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartAccept in Principle 24.2.2 and 24.2.2.2 Revise text to read as follows: 24.2.2 Dry Pipe and Double Interlock Preaction System(s) Air or Nitrogen Gas Test. 24.2.2.2 Where systems are installed in spaces that are capable of being operated at temperatures below 32°F (0°C), air or nitrogen gas pressure leakage tests required in 24.2.2 shall be conducted at the lowest nominal temperature of the space. Reject part 24.2.2.1 Committee Statement: See action on 13-56 (Log #CP400). Requiring monitoring test pressure using a data recorder is excessively restrictive and implies an accuracy that may not be possible for this test. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-510 Log #467 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(24.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Dry Pipe and Double Interlocked Preaction(s) Air or Nitrogen Test.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-511 Log #468 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(24.2.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: In addition to the standard hydrostatic test, an air or nitrogen pressure leakage test...”. Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-512 Log #469 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(24.2.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Where systems are installed in spaces that are capable of being operated at temperatures below 32 degrees F, air or nitrogen pressure leakage rates...”.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-513 Log #470 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(24.2.2.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Where an engineered orifice is used as purge device in a system using a nitrogen generation system, the engineered orifice shall be isolated from the piping system for this test.Substantiation: An engineering orifice is not a piping leak. An allowance should be added to allow for an engineering orifice.

13-135

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal is unique to equipment that is currently not required to be installed. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-514 Log #89 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(24.2.3.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen J. DiGiovanni, Clark County Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: 24.2.3.2.2 The test shall measure the time to trip the valve and the time for water to be discharged from the inspector’s test connection. The flow from the inspector’s test connection shall be predominantly continuously flowing water, with small amounts of air permitted. All times shall be measured from the time the inspector’s test connection is completely opened. Substantiation: The purpose of this amendment is to provide guidance on when to cease timing during testing time for water delivery in a dry pipe system. During testing of dry systems, there are often spurious spurts of water that are delivered prior to achieving continuous water flow. These spurts are not viewed as water delivery, and should not be a signal to stop timing. After continuous water delivery is achieved, there still may be small amounts of air due to trapped air pockets. This amendment allows for small amounts of air. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Guidance is now provided in A.24.2.3.2.2 which indicates the time for water delivery is the first flow of water. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-515 Log #206 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(24.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Deutsch, City of Brea Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Add new text as follows:(3) The hydraulically calculated protection area of the most demanding sprinkler within the remote area.Substantiation: This is a critical piece of information which controls the design of the entire system. The maximum allowable area for sprinkler coverage is not always used for sprinkler system design. The actual protection area is what is used in the hydraulic calculations and is used to determine the pipe sizes. Without this information included in the “Hydraulic Design Information Sign” on the riser, anyone doing service or TI work will not be aware of the existing protection area limitations. En example of the problem would be during a small TI it is assumed that a building which has a system which was originally designed for ordinary hazard can support a sprinkler spacing of 130 sq ft when the original design may have been much less. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal does not provide any value to existing systems. In addition, revisions or additions to existing systems should require re-calculation of this value. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-516 Log #15 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(24.5.2(3))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Elliot Gittleman, ESH ConsultantsRecommendation: Required flow and residual pressure demand at the point of connection to the water mains base of riser.Substantiation: When reviewing existing hydraulically calculated sprinkler systems, for potential changes to the design, or to determine if the current water supply is acceptable for the design of the system (or system changes), the base of riser information is not acceptable. This only shows the need at the base of the riser, that does not take into account any friction or fitting losses from the base of the riser to the point of connection to the water supply. When performing a hydraulic calcuation, the source node is at the water supply not at the base of the riser. For existing sprinkler systems, drawings of the underground utilities (as-builts) are not always available. If There has been a change to the water supply system, it is not possible to accurately determine if there is sufficient pressure and flow available since we are not comparing hydraulic information at the same location (BOR vs. at POC). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This information is not required by the standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-517 Log #431 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(24.6.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Insert a new 24.6.1.3 as follows: 24.6.1.3 Where anti-MIC and anti-corrosion injection systems are installed on fire sprinkler systems, signs shall be placed at the system control valve, main drain valve, inspector’s test connection and alarm test connection stating the type of chemical, concentration of the chemical, and where information can be found as to the proper disposal of the chemical. Substantiation: Some corrosion inhibitors, including anti-MIC chemicals, are a problem for the environment and can cause problems for the individual doing routine testing of a system if they get the chemical on them during a test. If these chemicals are going to be used, we need to know about them prior to performing any main drain, alarm, or trip tests on the system. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd to the general information sign in 24.6.2(17) “ Where injection systems are installed to treat MIC or corrosion, the type of chemical, concentration of the chemical, and where information can be found as to the proper disposal of the chemical.” Committee Statement: This information should only be located in one location on the general information sign. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: I agree with this action, but I also believe that Figure A.24.6 also needs to be revised, so as to reflect this new requirement for the illustration of a General Information Sign. ________________________________________________________________ 13-518 Log #235 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Chapter 1, Administration A 1.1 This standard provides a range of sprinkler system approaches, design development alternatives, and component options that are all acceptable. The owners and their designated representatives are Engineer of Record is advised to carefully evaluate proposed selections for appropriateness and preference. Substantiation: The design and calculation of fire protection systems is the practice of engineering. The owners and their designated representatives are not qualified to fulfill this charge unless they are a duly qualified licensed professional engineer. See Joint Position Statement published by the SFPE, NSPE, and NICET. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The designated representative can be the engineer of record. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-519 Log #339 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Part(A.3.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add to Annex Note A.3.3.4: It is not the intent of this definition to be applied to structural and/or framing members otherwise used to define obstructed or unobstructed construction. Ceiling pockets can be protected or unprotected. A protected ceiling pocket is one where the upper ceiling is within 12 inches vertically of the sprinkler deflector. Buildings with protected ceiling pockets are permitted to use the quick response reduction of 11.2.3.2.3. Buildings with unprotected ceiling pockets greater than 32 sq ft are not allowed to use the quick response reduction of 11.2.3.2.3, but are also not required to have a 3000 sq ft design area because the unprotected pocket is not a concealed space.Substantiation: Clarification is needed to help the user understand the difference between protected and unprotected pockets. This proposal is important because of the erroneous commentary in the handbook that states the 3000 sq ft rule shall be applied to unprotected ceiling pockets. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartAdd to Annex Note A.3.3.4: It is not the intent of this definition to be applied to structural and/or framing members otherwise used to define obstructed or unobstructed construction. Ceiling pockets can be protected or unprotected. A protected ceiling pocket is one where the upper ceiling is within 12 inches vertically of the sprinkler deflector. Buildings with protected ceiling pockets are permitted to use the quick response reduction of 11.2.3.2.3. Buildings with unprotected ceiling pockets greater than 32 sq ft are not allowed to use the quick response

13-136

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 reduction of 11.2.3.2.3. Committee Statement: A portion of the last sentence was not accurate and was deleted. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-520 Log #166 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.3.3.18)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add as a second paragraph to A.3.3.18The installation of a control valve, even when accompanied by a water flow switch, within the body of the sprinkler system (downstream of the sprinkler system riser) is for specific area isolation and/or annunciation purposes. These valve assemblies are not intended to define or constiture a separate sprinkler system.Substantiation: Valves are often installed downstream of the system riser and when one elects to install additional components, many assume it becomes a separate system riser. This is especially true for floor control valves. Although, this issue has the largest impact on inspection, testing, and maintenance activities, the Installation standard seems to be the most appropriate document to define what constitutes the boundaries of an individual system. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise the submitter’s wording as follows: The installation of a control valve even when accompanied by or a control valve and a water flow switch within the body of the sprinkler system (downstream of the sprinkler system riser) is intended for specific area isolation and/or annunciation purposes. These valve assemblies are not intended to define or constitute a separate sprinkler system. Committee Statement: Editorially revised wording to clarify the intent. However, it was not agreed that floor control valves in all cases constitute a separate system. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and reject this proposal. The proponents substantiation and the Committee Statement are both contrary to the substantiation and the Acceptance for Proposal 13-521, (Log #440). We cannot have it both ways, and since the definition of a sprinkler system does indeed describe the configuration of a floor control valve station, then Proposal 13-521(Log #440) must take precedence over this Proposal 13-520 (Log #166). ________________________________________________________________ 13-521 Log #440 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.3.3.18)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add an additional paragraph at the end of the existing annex note as follows: Using this definition of a sprinkler system, each floor of a high-rise building is considered a separate system and every riser in a storage occupancy constitutes a separate sprinkler system. Substantiation: Clarification is needed on what is considered an individual sprinkler system, especially for inspection and testing purposes. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: MILLER, T.: There is no reason to classify each floor of a multi-story building as a separate sprinkler system. The standard has historically allowed one riser control valve for a multi-story building. This definition will impose considerable expense for the life of the sprinkler system without supporting data for such expense. Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: See my comments for Proposal 13-520, (Log #166). ________________________________________________________________ 13-522 Log #265 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.3.7.1(6))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.3.7.1 (6) Wood Joist Construction. The term wood joist construction refers to solid wood members of rectangular cross section, which can vary from 2 in. to 4 in. (51 mm to 102 mm) nominal width and can be up to 14 in. (356 mm) nominal depth, spaced up to 3 ft (0.9 m) on centers, and can span up to 40 ft (12 m) between supports, supporting a floor or roof deck. Solid wood members less than 4 in. (102 mm) nominal width and up to 14 in. (356 mm) nominal depth, spaced more than 3 ft (0.9 m) on centers, are also considered as wood joist construction. Wood joists can exceed 14 in. in nominal depth.

Substantiation: Wood joists can be greater than 14 in. Some AHJs do not allow this to be called wood joist construction when the structural members are greater than 14 in. Wood joists that were 20 in. deep have been found in older buildings with wood construction. There should not be a limitation on the depth of the wood joists. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Current wording is adequate. Additional wording does not add any information. In addition wood joists are no longer produced in sizes larger than 14 in. in depth. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 4 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: The substantiation statement assumes sprinklers are only installed in new construction projects. Without adding this language, the standard provides no guidance when joists are deeper than 14 in. CAPUTO, R.: The substantiation statement assumes sprinklers are only installed in new construction projects. Without adding this language, the standard provides no guidance when joists are deeper than 14”. KEEPING, L.: This matter should not be shown as a Rejection. According to my notes, the Committee voted to Accept this proposal. MCPHEE, R.: Solid wood joists manufactured using structural composite lumber can be more than 14” in depth. This proposal should be accepted. ________________________________________________________________ 13-523 Log #167 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.3.7.2(1) and A.3.7.2(5))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Change the text back to that in the 2007 edition along with the associated Figures. Substantiation: My proposal and comment (ROC 13-16) during the 2007 cycle was attempting to define the vague point of demarcation between obstructed and unobstructed construction. Although the change for A.3.7.2(1) if done alone could have accomplished that, the change to A.3.7.2(5) creates a conflict with obstructed construction. As written, if the top chord is greater than 4” deep (perpendicular to the ceiling), the structural member is a truss. So if I have an 8” deep top chord, it is a truss and it falls within UNOBSTRUCTED construction. Now take away the web and bottom chord and that same 8’ deep member becomes a joist (or beam depending of width) and it is now clearly OBSTRUCTED construction. I assume this was an unintentional consequence of the 2007 change since the heat flow and water distribution sees them both as the same. To be honest, a cleaner approach is to delete the precision applied to differentiating between a bar joist and a typical truss since it imposes no impact on the installation requirements (both are unobstructed and both are treated the same). A deep chorded truss, though, does need to be identified as being obstructed construction. What ever value the TC deems appropriate is better than leaving that decision up to every individual designer and AHJ. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise A.3.7.2 (5) and add a New A.3.7.1 (9) as follows: A.3.7.2 (5) Truss Construction (Wood or Steel). The term truss construction refers to parallel or pitched chord members connected by open web members supporting a roof or floor deck with top and bottom members not exceeding 4 in. (102mm)in depth. A.3.7.1 (9) Truss Construction (Wood or Steel). The term truss construction refers to parallel or pitched chord members connected by open web members supporting a roof or floor deck with top and bottom members greater than 4 in. (102mm)in depth. [See Figure A.3.7.2(c).] Committee Statement: Corrected the conflict between the description and figures was corrected as requested by the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-524 Log #168 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.3.7.2(3)(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.3.7.2(3)(a) .6 Flat slab, pan-type reinforced concreteRenumber remaining portions of A.3.7.2(3) accordingly. Substantiation: Pan-type construction needs to be retained as an example of unobstructed construction but it does not comply with the definition of smooth ceiling. This example also creates confusion regarding the use of sidewall and extend coverage sprinklers for this type of construction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Flat slab pan type construction is smooth steel with a “V” shape extending downward approximately 1 in. below the surface and repeated approximately each linear foot. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-137

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Explanation of Negative: BROWN, P.: Pan-type reinforced concrete is flat on top but the bottom has deep cavities typically created by pans which leave voids - also called waffle slab construction. CAPUTO, R.: Pan-type reinforced concrete is flat on top but the bottom has deep cavities typically created by pans which leave voids - also called waffle slab construction. ________________________________________________________________ 13-525 Log #365 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Figure A.3.9.4.9(d))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Fix Figure A.3.9.4.9(d) so that the flue spaces are evident and maintained through the rack. Substantiation: Flue spaces are critical to protecting rubber tire storage and the figure does not appear to have the required spaces continuous up through the rack. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The transverse flue space is evident. The submitter should submit a detailed drawing of how he would correct the figure. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-526 Log #234 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A 4.3 A building constructed where the expected occupancy hazard and commodity classification of tenant uses are unknown at the time of the design and installation of the sprinkler system presents special problems due to unknown factors of future tenants and uses. The design of sprinkler systems for such buildings should be carefully reviewed by the Engineer of Record with the owners, builders, leasing agents, and local authorities having jurisdiction prior to the selection of design criteria and installation of the system. Consideration should be given to the available height for storage, as well as the occupancy hazards of potential tenants and their likely storage needs. The intent of Section 4.3 is to provide the owner’s engineer’s certificate for all new systems and where there is a change of occupancy and/or building use. [See Figure A.22.1(b).]Substantiation: The design and calculation of fire protection systems is the practice of engineering. The owners, builders, and leasing agents are not qualified to fulfill this charge unless they are a duly qualified licensed professional engineer. See joint Position Statement published by the SFPE, NSPE, and NICET. **Change the Owner’s Certificate accordingly (See Figure A.22.1(b)). (not shown)** Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This standard is adopted internationally. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-527 Log #71 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Gun Ranges Police & Fire Stations (excluding truck garages) Educational (including gymnasiums, auditoriums and theaters)Substantiation: Gun ranges have almost zero amounts of combustibles and should be added to the list. Added several areas found in educational occupancies that AHJ’s have more often classified as higher hazard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: These examples are often mixed occupancies beyond the minimum exclusions identified. Gymnasiums are often greater than light hazard, The lists found in this annex section is not intended to be all inclusive but rather to give examples of what might be considered the norm for the occupancy type Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-528 Log #72 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.5.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Fire Station Garages Restaurant Seating Areas with permanent cooking facilities

Barber/Beauty ShopsSubstantiation: Many Japanese restaurants have cooking at the table. The garage is evident but I have seen engineers classify the whole station as residential including the garage since it is directly attached to the sleeping units. Beauty Salons have limited amounts of commodity. One might classify them as OH II because they would say they are mercantile. Because of the chemicals associated with nail care OH I should be sufficient. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: These examples are often mixed occupancies beyond the minimum exclusions identified. Gymnasiums are often greater than light hazard, The lists found in this annex section is not intended to be all inclusive but rather to give examples of what might be considered the norm for the occupancy type Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-529 Log #73 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.5.3.2 and A.5.4.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.5.3.2 Exhibition Halls (20 ft - 0 in. and less ceiling)A.5.4.1 Exhibition Halls (Greater than 20 ft - 0 in. ceiling)Substantiation: Exhibition halls are not currently included in occupancy classifications. There is no way to be sure of what is being exhibited on any given day but the standard should prescribe a minimum based on reasonable assertions. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No data was presented to validate the choice of occupancy groups based on ceiling height differences alone. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-530 Log #546 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Table A.5.6.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John A. LeBlanc, FM GlobalRecommendation: Table A.5.6.3 (p. 13-256). Delete the following line items:Liquor 100 proof or less, 1 gal (3.8 L) or less, cartoned - Glass (palletized)e Class IV - Plastic bottles Class IVSubstantiation: FM Global has conducted a number of full scale fire tests on plastic and glass containers containing 50%v alcohol and 50%v water. Container sizes have ranged from 1 pint to 1 gal plastic bottles and 1.75 liter glass bottles. The alcohol used for the testing was isopropyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol. Storage arrays looked at rack and palletized arrangements. In all cases using Class III and IV commodity protection (based on FM Global DS 8-9) resulted in large pool fires. Palletized arrays of glass bottles collapsed resulting in the failure of the majority of the bottles and a large pool fire. A pool fire in a general purpose warehouse is beyond the designs of the fire protection in NFPA 13. Alcohol-water solutions above 20%vol alcohol are liquids that will burn and they should be covered by NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. A Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The information in the tables is based on testing and protection criteria is not contained in NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: BAKER, JR., W.: NFPA 13 and FM Global need to reconcile what the differences are between what the test results were that originally allowed for the current guidance and why the new test data indicates otherwise. Just because it is not in NFPA 30 does not mean we ignore test data. KEEPING, L.: I do not believe that the Action reported here is in accordance with the final discussion on the subject. According to my notes, the Committee voted to Accept in Principal, and intended to delete the information from Table A.5.6.3, and then add it to Table A.5.6 as commodities that are not addressed by the classifications in Section 5.6. ________________________________________________________________ 13-531 Log #155 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.6.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Table A.6.1.1 ANSI/UL 852, Metallic Sprinkler Pipe for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 2443, Flexible Sprinkler Hose With Fittings for Fire Protection Service.

13-138

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: Add ANSI approval designation to ANSI/UL 852 and ANSI/UL 2443 as they appear in Table A.6.1.1. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-532 Log #383 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.6.2.7.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.6.2.7.1 When escutcheon and cover plates are used with pendent sprinklers below ceilings, they need to completely cover the hole (i.e., the annular space) that was cut in the ceiling or through the ceiling tile for the sprinkler penetration. This is to ensure the sprinkler will operate properly and per the sprinkler’s listing.Substantiation: The purpose of this annex note is to alert owners and enforcers (and errant installers) that it’s important to minimize the hole that is cut through ceilings or ceiling tiles to only what is necessary so the escutcheon and cover plate can cover the annular space and enable the sprinkler to perform properly. Though not enforceable, such language will enable AHJs to have the background knowledge needed in order to remind owners that their sprinkler system may not perform properly unless the escutcheon plate and cover is replaced and/or the annular space is sealed. Note: the committee is welcome to reword my proposed text if/as necessary in order to make this point. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This is common practice and should be obvious to the users. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider and accept this proposal. Concealed and recessed sprinklers rely on the flow of hot gases through their escutcheons and past their fusible elements and up into the ceiling spaces, to enable them to operate properly. If the holes in the ceilings that they are mounted in are too large, those hot gases could vent up into the ceiling spaces beside the sprinkler assemblies instead of up through them, and thereby retard sprinkler activations. Contrary to the Committee Statement, this is not obvious to everyone, hence the tendency for some parties to want to caulk around the cover plates to hide the vent/gaps, which keep the plate from fitting tight to the ceilings. ________________________________________________________________ 13-533 Log #74 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.6.2.8 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.6.2.8 Generally sprinklers that will require guards will be installed in areas that are low and easily reachable by the average person or where there is frequent movement of materials. It should be noted that there are no listed guards for residential sprinklers. Also, in gymnasiums and certain sports courts there is an increased possibility of damage from activities to which there are no listed sprinklers. Manufacturers do not list sprinkler guards to resist impacts from basketballs or racquetballs. This standard anticipates that concealed or institutional sprinklers should be used when a dropped ceiling is installed. Guards listed with the sprinkler should be sufficient when no ceiling exists and the piping is exposed.Substantiation: This annex language should be added as I have addressed several issues that are understood but not spelled out. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: There is currently direction in the standard on when to provide guards. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-534 Log #505 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Figure A.7.2.3.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Change the figure text as follows: Equivalent orifice K factor for dry system sprinklers.Substantiation: The term “K factor” has replaced the term “orifice size” several editions ago. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

________________________________________________________________ 13-535 Log #340 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.8.4.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Karl Wiegand, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRecommendation: Add an additional paragraph to the existing annex text as follows: Residential sprinklers can only be used in corridors that lead to dwelling units. However, the corridors that lead to dwelling units can also lead to other hazards that are not dwelling units and can still be protected with residential sprinklers.Substantiation: This addition is necessary because the wording in the handbook says that corridors that are adjoining to hazards other than dwelling units are not permitted to be protected by residential sprinklers, which that is not the intent of the standard. Corridors that lead to dwelling units in buildings protected by NFPA 13 sprinkler systems often also lead to meeting rooms, public bathrooms, mechanical rooms, electrical rooms and elevator lobbies. Just because these other (non dwelling unit) hazards are adjacent to the corridor is no reason to exclude the use of residential sprinklers in the corridor. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 13 currently allows residential sprinklers in corridors adjacent to dwelling units. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: DORNBOS, D.: The proposal should be accepted. The proposal effectively clears up confusion concerning the issue. ________________________________________________________________ 13-536 Log #76 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.8.5.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Delete the 4 ft - 0 in. horizontal range.Substantiation: This range has no impact on the installation requirements and should be removed or annex language added as to its importance or relevance. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This annex figure supports 8.5.5.1 requirement to add sprinklers when obstructions close to the sprinkler disrupt full pattern development. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-537 Log #358 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.5.5.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete A.8.5.5.2.Substantiation: This text was brought over from NFPA 13R without any real thought to the rules in NFPA 13. The three-times rule (Section 8.6.5.2.1.3 and 8.7.5.2.1.3 for spray sprinklers) and the four-times rule (Sections 8.8.5.2.1.3 and 8.9.5.2.1.3) for extended coverage sprinklers already allow greater shadow areas than what is discussed in this section. It is better to address shadow areas in each sprinkler obstruction section and we have submitted proposals to do that. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-538 Log #169 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.5.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:A.8.5.6 A.12.1.3 The fire protection system design should consider the maximum storage height. For new installations, maximum storage height is the usable height...”. Substantiation: This section applies just to storage and should be located in chapter 12. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-139


Figure A.8.8.5.1.2 Soffit/Obstruction Against Wall Greater Than 18 in. Below Deflector.Substantiation: The allowance for the elimination of sprinkler beneath a wall soffit shelf less than 4 ft in depth should be included for extended coverage upright and pendent sprinklers in the same manner as is allowed for SSU/SSP in A.8.6.5.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-542 Log #262 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.8.12.5.1.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: A.8.12.5.1.2 It is the intent for this to apply to vertical building columns, drain pipe, and similar obstructions.Substantiation: There is some confusion if this section can be applied to address vertical columns as an obstruction. This is similar to FM Global 2-0 Data Sheet requirements. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is the intent of the committee to allow this alternate spacing when the obstruction is created by structural elements. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-543 Log #395 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.8.15.1.2.10)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert J. Davidson, Davidson Code Concepts, LLCRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.8.15.1.2.10 This would include rigid combustible materials that have been coated with fire-retardant coatings and assigned a flame spread index of 25 or less after being tested with the coating and show no evidence of propagation of the fire during the additional 20 minutes of fire testing.Substantiation: As background, our firm has marketed our tested and listed product for application when applying the combustible concealed space sprinkler exception found at NFPA 13, Section 8.15.1.2.10. For this application the wood structure and components provide for the rigidity and our product provides for meeting the surface burning characteristics specified in 8.15.1.2.10. Section 8.15.1.2.10 states, “Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials have been demonstrated not to propagate fire more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI / UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extended for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they are installed, shall not require sprinkler protection.” During the cycle for development of the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 an appendix note was added for Section 8.15.1.2.11 to clarify that the exception for fire-retardant treated wood applied to pressure-treated applications, not coatings. During the processing of the ROC ballots committee member Rodney McPhee pointed out that to avoid confusion the action should include a new A.8.15.1.2.10 to point out fire-retardant coatings were appropriate for

________________________________________________________________ 13-539 Log #261 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.6.3.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.8.6.3.2.4 An example of sprinklers in small rooms for hydraulically designed and pipe schedule systems is shown in Figure A.8.6.3.2.4(a), and examples for hydraulically designed systems only are shown in Figure A.8.6.3.2.4(b), Figure A.8.6.3.2.4(c), and Figure A.8.6.3.2.4(d). Substantiation: It does not make any sense to limit the application of the small room rule to 1 sprinkler for pipe schedule systems. Regardless if the system is pipe schedule or hydraulically calculated, it’s the area of the room, compartment, light hazard occupancy, and unobstructed construction that is of concern rather than the system design method. The heat will be contained to allow sprinklers to operate regardless if it’s a hydraulically calculated or pipe schedule system. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-540 Log #43 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.7.4.1.2.1 and A.8.9.4.1.2.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add annex language and a new figure as follows: A.8.7.4.1.2.1 The 6 in. (152 mm) as referenced is measured from the wall to the vertical plane representing the surface of attachment of the deflector. See Figure A.8.7.4.1.2.1.

Figure A.8.9.4.1.2.1 See A.8.7.4.1.2.1 Substantiation: The question arose as to where on a sidewall sprinkler the 6-inch (152 mm) dimension is measured. The language and figure clarify this measurement for the user. This proposal was developed by the UL/FM/NFSA Standards Review Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-541 Log #304 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.8.5.1.2 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Insert a new Annex Section A.8.8.5.1.2 and Figure A.8.8.5.1.2A.8.8.5.1.2 The intent of 8.8.5.1.2(3) is to apply to soffits that are located within the 18 in. (457 mm) plane from the sprinkler deflector. A soffit or other obstruction (i.e., shelf) located against a wall that is located entirely below the 18 in. (457 mm) plane from the sprinkler deflector should be in accordance with 8.8.5.3.2. (See Figure A.8.8.5.1.2.)

X

Where X is 6 in.(152 mm) or less

Ceiling

Wall

Soffit or obstruction

No additional protection requiredwhen 4 ft 0 in. or less

Greater than 18 in.

13-140

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: This section was added in the last cycle for small combustible elements that are common on many buildings. The language references combustible soffits and eaves. This can be construed by an AHJ or user to assume it applies to the soffits and eaves on a typical roof. This new annex section and figure makes it clear that this is not the intent. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: VICTOR, T.: This new annex text will cause confusion when applying this section. By showing a sprinkler in the small awning in the figure provided, the user will get the impression that one is required, when it may not be. It is also confusing when considering sprinkler protection for the eave of an attic. If the eave is large enough with sufficient inside clearances it may require sprinklers. ________________________________________________________________ 13-545 Log #385 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.8.15.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.8.15.5.1 The sprinklers in the pit are intended to protect against fires caused by debris, which can accumulate over time. Ideally, the sprinklers should be located near the side of the pit below the elevator doors, where most debris accumulates. However, care should be taken that the sprinkler location does not interfere with the elevator toe guard, which extends below the face of the door opening. ASME A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, allows the sprinklers within 2 ft (0.65 m) of the bottom of the pit. to be exempted from the special arrangements of inhibiting waterflow until elevator recall has occurred. When sprinklers are installed within 2 ft of the bottom of the pit, there is no requirement for the shutdown of power to the elevator upon or prior to the application of water in the pit, thus there is no requirement to install heat detectors in the pit.Substantiation: The revised annex material is intended to clarify existing language and its intent by using similar text from A.8.15.5.3. Additional annex text pertaining to heat detectors is to ensure coordination with NFPA 72. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The reference to ASME A.17.1 is sufficient explanation for the location of the sprinkler. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-546 Log #222 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Figure A.8.16.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Relocate the point of connection for the FDC to system side at a location above the dry pipe valve for dry pipe system, and above the alarm valve and dry pipe valve in the wet pipe and dry pipe system examples.

Substantiation: ● To be consistent with other valve arrangements in this section – on system side. ● Check valves and gasket materials are suitable to hold air pressure. ● In an event the dry pipe valve does not trip, the fire department still has the ability to pump water into the sprinkler system. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Proposed change conflicts with 8.17.2.4.2(2).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

application of 8.15.1.2.10. (See attached ROC A2009 item 13-282 Log#29 AUT-SSI) We agreed there would be confusion and misapplication and as a result No Burn, Inc filed an appeal of the committee action to add the new A.8.15.1.2.11. Though the appeal was denied since no procedural errors occurred in the process and the new wording just repeated what was commonly understood, one Standards Council member inquired during the hearing concerning our ability to apply our product through 8.15.1.2.10. We acknowledged that was possible, but still had concern of misinterpretation. (See attached Transcript of Hearing Pages 71 and 90). Recently at the request of a designer, a project consultant contacted NFPA to verify that fire-retardant coatings could be applied under 8.15.1.2.10. (See attached email communication). No matter how many times the consultant pointed out that he was asking about 8.15.1.2.10 the NFPA responder insisted on pointing out that 8.15.1.2.11 with the new A.8.10.1.2.11 makes it clear only pressure-treated FRTW was permitted. The project consultant never did get an answer for the question on 8.15.1.2.10. This is the confusion we worried about when the new appendix explanation was added for 8.15.1.2.11 without a corresponding new A.8.15.1.2.10 as suggested by Mr. McPhee. The proposed new appendix note for Section 8.15.1.2.10 will eliminate confusion and identify an acceptable method of compliance. We note that the application of the fire-retardant coatings to meet the requirements of 8.15.1.2.10 is recognized by the sprinkler industry as explained in the attached white paper published by a respected member of the NFSA. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: If a product complies with 8.15.1.2.10 it is acceptable for use and therefore there is no need to add this annex material as the standard already contains adequate language. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-544 Log #75 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.15.1.2.18 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Peter T. Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.8.15.1.2.18 This section is intended to apply to small decorative projections used aesthetically to compliment building design. This section does not apply to the standard soffits and eaves that are common with truss framed roofs. See Figure A.8.15.1.2.18. Sprinklers would be required at location B in the combustible space unless the rules in Section 8.15.1.2.18.1 through Section 8.15.1.2.18.4 are met. Sprinklers are not required and these rules do not have to be met for location A. Add new Figure A.8.15.1.2.18.

Figure A 8.15.1.2.18 Combustible Building Overhangs

A

B

13-141

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 localized sprinkler protection provided to protect the pipe from fire. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It is not within the scope of the standard to determine what is a hazardous area. The definition reference is incorrect. NFPA 13 does not define a hazardous area. See committee action on 13-21 (Log #247). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-549 Log #100 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.8.17.2.6 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new Section to read: A.8.17.2.6 In cases where water in the piping between the system side and the FDC check valve would be trapped, an auxiliary drain is required. Substantiation: NFPA 25 requires that each check valve be internally serviced each 5 year period. Shutting down and draining the sprinkler system does not necessarily drain the section of piping leading to the FDC check valve. There have been many cases where the piping to the FDC is positioned overhead with a considerable drop to the FDC check valve location, leaving many gallons of trapped water in the piping above the check valve with no provision to drain it, other than removing the face plate of the check valve and then having to deal with the resulting water damage and clean up. An auxiliary drain would provide an outlet for drainage of the trapped water in a controlled manner and would be required by 8.16.2.5. Addition of this appendix section would remind the reader of an often overlooked requirement. Additionally, expense would be minimal for the system installer and save the owner added expense at time of 5 year service. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-550 Log #386 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.1.1.7)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.9.1.1.7 The rules covering the hanging of sprinkler piping take into consideration the weight of water-filled pipe plus a safety factor. No allowance has been made for the hanging of nonsystem components from sprinkler piping. NFPA 13 provides the option to support sprinkler piping from other sprinkler piping where the requirements of Section 9.1.1.2 are met. It is not the intent to prohibit materials that have no impact on the external load bearing capability of the sprinkler pipe such as decorations, unless these materials obstruct the sprinkler discharge.Substantiation: Why does the standard need to be so stringent? This item is cited all too much by overzealous AHJs. By adding the new annex note, AHJs will at least understand that the intent of the base paragraph is only to prohibit hanging materials that impact on the external loading of the sprinkler pipe or interfere with sprinkler performance (discharge). The reality is: while some items attached to or hung from sprinkler pipe can clearly have an adverse impact on the sprinkler performance, other items such as paper decorations and similar objects hung from pipe will have no bearing on sprinkler performance whatsoever. Hence, this annex note is aimed to clarify this intent so AHJs have sufficient guidance to use professional judgment when they choose to cite this requirement. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The weight of other materials hanging from pipe is not the only reason for this requirement. The issue of materials obstructing sprinkler discharge is a factor of the installation criteria found in Ch 8. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-551 Log #112 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.2.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Janak B. Patel, Bechtel National Inc.Recommendation: A.9.2.1.3 The building structure is only required to handle …………loads are calculated and safety factors are applied. (delete the third paragraph) .In contrast, when sprinkler system so NFPA 13 mandates a safety factor of 5 times the weight of the pipe. (delete the fifth paragraph) Substantiation: To be consistent with the Hanger Performance (design load) criteria proposed in 9.1.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See Action on 13-312 (Log #104). If the dead load for the sprinkler system needed to be provided for structural calculations it was intended to be the weight of the water-filled system plus 250 lb. Number Eligible to Vote: 28

________________________________________________________________ 13-547 Log #223 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Figure A.8.16.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gordon Farrell, Tyco Fire and Building ProductsRecommendation: Revise Figure A.8.16 1.1 as shown below:

Figure A.8.16.1.1 Examples of Acceptable Valve Arrangements Substantiation: It is not the intent of this section to limit this type of valve to an OS&Y valve. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The OS&Y terminology should be replaced with Indicating type control valve. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-548 Log #263 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(A.8.16.4.3 (New) )________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: A.8.16.4.3 A building area that is not sprinklered in a general occupancy should not be considered a hazardous area. See the definition of hazardous area in 3.3.12.Substantiation: This will clarify that a given occupancy does not become a hazardous area due the lack of fire sprinklers. At times, fire sprinkler supply piping is located in portions of buildings without sprinkler protection that feed remodeled areas, new additions, or small areas such as a paint booth. It is ruled by AHJs that occupancies without sprinklers are considered hazardous areas. AHJs are requiring the piping to be enclosed with fire rated enclosures or that

Check valve

Type control valve

Alarm valve

Dry pipe valve

Preaction system

Deluge valve

Fire department connection

Preaction valve

Deluge system

Wet pipe and dry pipe system

Wet pipe system Dry pipe system

13-142

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Filiatrault, Higgins and others has been published in the ASCE Structural Practice Periodical Volume 11 issue 3 and Volume 12 issue 4 and Earthquake Spectra Volume 24 issue 3. The articles and test data support a maximum potential down aisle displacement of 3.5 to 4 percent, not 5 percent. I suggest that the following formula be used to determine the potential rack displacement. Where: D = rack displacement H = height of the top point of attachment to the rack 0.04 = 4 percent rack displacement 0.8 = is the design seismic event used for developing the shake table spectra in the cited references. For areas with the most severe demands (S1=1.0, which is an extraordinary value), this equation will yield the upper bound 5% drift value suggested, but will also provide more realistic values for all other sites. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The technical committee discussion determined that the equations required more refinement. The submitter is encouraged to provide more detailed substantiation for the equation to consider multiple arrangements and materials. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-555 Log #517 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(A.9.3.2(a), Detail A)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Figure A.9.3.2(a) Detail A: delete the note “(Pipe must rotate within brace)” found near the top of the figure. Substantiation: Section 9.3.5.8.1 states that the “sway bracing shall be tight”. This would not all.ow for rotation. Therefore, the text should be removed. If the intention of the note is to point out that the pipe should still be able to move with the flexible coupling at the top of the riser, then the text should be worded differently. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-556 Log #522 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.9.3.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add a new sentence at the end of Section A.9.3.4 as follows: In areas that use suspended ceilings and are subject to earthquake forces, a larger clearance is required around the sprinkler unless the suspended ceiling is rigidly braced as noted in ASTM E580, Standard Practice for Installation of Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panels in Areas Subject to Earthquake Ground Motions.Substantiation: This larger clearance has been required by ASCE7-05 and now ASCE7-10. However, the specific language on the clearance is not only found in the ASTM document, which is referenced by ASCE7-10. Since it is not as readily located, it should be added as annex language so that users know where the requirement is located for these types of installations. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd a new sentence at the end of Section A.9.3.4 as follows: A.9.3.4 While clearances are necessary around the sprinkler piping to prevent breakage due to building movement, suitable provision should also be made to prevent passage of water, smoke, or fire. Drains, fire department connections, and other auxiliary piping connected to risers should not be cemented into walls or floors; similarly, pipes that pass horizontally through walls or foundations should not be cemented solidly or strains will accumulate at such points. Where risers or lengths of pipe extend through suspended ceilings, they should not be fastened to the ceiling framing members. In areas that use suspended ceilings and are a seismic design category of D, E or F, a larger clearance may be necessary around the sprinkler unless the suspended ceiling is rigidly braced or listed flexible connections are used as noted in ASTM E580, Standard Practice for Installation of Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panels in Areas Subject to Earthquake Ground Motions.Committee Statement: Modifications were made to the original submittal to clarify when ASTM E580 will may be applicable. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 23 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-552 Log #18 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.3.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ellsa Guber, Simplex GrinnelRecommendation: Include Seismic Map.Substantiation: Seismic Map is in NFPA 13, 2002 Edition, but is missing in NFPA 13, 2007 Edition. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The map was removed by the TC because it was intended to be an example but was being used in the field. Appropriate information can be found in the applicable building code or from the AHJ. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-553 Log #143 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.3.2.3(1))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Eliminate the section.Substantiation: This information should be part of the standard, rather than the annex. See subsequent proposal for addition to 9.3.2.3. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposed change was contingent upon 13-333 (Log #142) be accepted. 13-333 (Log #142) was rejected therefore this is not applicable. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-554 Log #204 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.3.2.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Deutsch, City of Brea Fire DepartmentRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.9.3.2.4 See Figure A.9.3.2.4. Drops that extend into freestanding storage racks or other similar structures should be designed to accommodate a horizontal relative displacement between the storage rack and the overhead supply piping. The horizontal relative displacement should be determined using the following formula and shall be taken as the height of the top point of attachment to the storage rack above its base or the highest point of potential contact between the rack structure and the piping above its base, whichever is higher., multiplied by ±0.05 unless a smaller value is justified by test data or analysis. The horizontal relative displacement should be accommodated by two or more flexible couplings, swing joints, or other approved means. It shall be the responsibility of the sprinkler designer to determine how to account for the determined differential movement using flexible couplings or other approved means. D = H * 0.05 * S1 Where: D = Differential movement between the rack and the roof H = Height of the top point of attachment to the rack S1 = Long period spectral acceleration. Substantiation: All rack storage systems everywhere should not be subjected to the same worst case potential displacement just as NFPA 13 does not require the same Cp value for all brace load calculations for sprinkler systems everywhere. The proposal allows for smaller displacement values, but it does not provide any direction on how to determine this. The proposal suggests the use of flexible coupling to account for displacement; however, 5 percent rack displacement is well beyond the capabilities of 2 couplings. The proposal’s reference to couplings is contradictory to the 5 percent. In most situations the potential rack displacement will be much less than 5 percent. The storage rack potential displacement should be determined using site specific information. This can be accomplished using the same USGS web page and as is currently being used to determine Ss. The potential rack displacement is a function of the ASCE 7-05 variable S1 (rather than the Ss which is more appropriate for buildings) which is the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 s as defined in Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7-05. The use of the variable S1 to determine rack displacement would not require everyone to use a worst case scenario and therefore racks installed in areas which are not subject to potentially large seismic events will not be required to provide for the same potential displacement. The assumption of 5 percent displacement is an extrapolation of known data to an extremely high seismic demand. It is not representative of typical seismicity, and applies only to small areas in the vicinity of major faults. Accordingly, it is an excessively high value neither supported by known science, nor published test results. Articles and test data results authored by

D = HS

H S0 004

0 80 051

1

..

.∗ = ∗ ∗

13-143

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-558 Log #CP106 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(Figure A.9.3.5.6(a) through Figure A.9.3.5.6(d))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Recommendation: Insert revised Figures A.9.3.5.6(a)(b)(c)(d)- Revise Title A.9.3.5.6(a) - Typical Earthquake Protection for Sprinkler Main Piping Revise Title A.9.3.5.6(b) - Typical Location of Bracing on Mains on a Tree System Revise Title A.9.3.5.6(c) - Typical Location of Bracing on Mains on a Gridded System Revise Title A.9.3.5.6(d) - Typical Location of Bracing on Mains on a Looped System

Figure A.9.3.5.6(a) Typical Earthquake Protection for Sprinkler Main Piping

Figure A.9.3.5.6(b) Typical Location of Bracing on Mains on a Tree System

Explanation of Negative: DEUTSCH, J.: The requirement for over sized holes is not a part of NFPA 13 and does not belong in NFPA 13. I feel that the requirement should not even exist in other standards. When the sheering of sprinklers has occurred, it has not been clear as to what type of sway bracing (if any) was installed or if the ceiling was installed to ASTM C635, C636. I am not aware of any damage of sprinklers in which the sprinkler system has been sway braced and restrained in conformance with current NFPA standards the ceiling has been installed in ceilings conforming to current standards. When sheering has occurred it is not even clear as to what type of sprinkler was sheered recessed or pendent sprinkler on a 2 piece escutcheon. A pipe supplying a pendent head which penetrates a frangible suspended ceiling tile does not require clearance as per section 9.3.4.4. Why should ALL sprinklers without flexible hose fittings be required to have an oversized hole? KIRSCHNER, K.: Oversized holes in these ceilings should not be a requirement of NFPA 13 because there is not sufficient loss experience to support a problem thesis. I don’t agree with burdening contractors with oversized trim rings and annular space requirements when they are not necessary. The proposal and the committee action is inserting corrective language text in the wrong section of the standard. The Chapter 9 T.C. created the T-Bar exceptions at 9.2.1.3.3 which is the best place to modify and insert the following proposed text; 9.2.1.3.3.2 When installed and supported by suspended ceilings, the ceiling shall meet ASTM C635, Standard Specifications for the Manufacturer, Performance, and Testing of Metal Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-In Panel Ceilings, and shall be installed in accordance with ASTM C636, Standard Practice for Installation of Metal Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-In Panels, and in seismic areas these ceilings shall be braced per ASTM E580, Standard Practice for Installation of Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-In Panels in Areas Subject to Earthquake Ground Motions. THACKER, J.: Sprinkler failures in systems which are braced to the current standards has not been well documented. An oversized hole is not a requirement of NFPA 13. Comment on Affirmative: BACHMAN, R.: I am in agreement with this proposal but 2 requested additional changes. 1. In the second line of the proposed revised change, I would request that word “connection” be replaced by the words “sprinkler hose fitting”. This is the adopted wording for these type of connections that is referenced throughout NFPA-13. 2. At the end of the proposed revised wording (after Motions), I would request that the following wording be added: “that have been seismically qualified by testing based upon a nationally recognized testing standards such as AC-156”. It is necessary to demonstrate that flexible hose fittings will perform as intended during design earthquake motions. The added wording is consistent with the testing requirement language specified in Section 13.2.5 of ASCE 7-10. ________________________________________________________________ 13-557 Log #137 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.3.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kraig Kirschner, AFCONRecommendation: Page 13-306 A.9.3.5.8 Sway brace design and installation requires attention to detail. Proper design is critical to sway brace performance. Sway brace design parameters are dynamic and interdependent. Accordingly, force is influenced by geography, brace location is impacted by system design and brace geometry is relative to the building structure. Proper sway brace installation will evidence good craftsmanship with correct perpendicular and parallel planes, adhere to fitting manufacturers protocol and include installation conforming to approved plans and drawings. Substantiation: AHJ’s continually request a QC statement for reference in this standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: A quality installation is anticipated by the TC for all hanger installations. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Explanation of Negative: KIRSCHNER, K.: Descriptive text is valuable to AHJ’s to enhance their Q.C. efforts. We have a Q.C. text for hangers at A.9.2 It is logical for AHJ’s to request a similar Q.C. text for sway braces. This T.C. should honor their request.

A Four-way brace at riserB Lateral braceC Lateral braceD Short riser [Figure A.9.3.2(b)]E Couplings at wall penetrationF Longitudinal brace

B

B

B

D E

CBuilding 1

A

F

C

Building 2

F

Longitudinal brace

Lateral brace

Four-way brace

13-144

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Committee Statement: Editorial modifications were made to the legislative text for the first sentence. Table 9.3.5.3.2(c) was added to the second sentence to be more complete. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-560 Log #407 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(A.9.3.5.3.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(a) and Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(b) are examples of typical lateral bracing locations at a change in direction. This section is not intended to consider back-to-back elbows a change in direction provided the adjacent runs of pipe are parallel.Substantiation: The proposed annex section and corresponding figures indicate current bracing requirements and add clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The TC is in favor of the concept, however the diagrams do not coincide with the proposed language the TC has included in the standard during the ROP meeting. Cumulative lengths are permitted for lateral bracing for changes in direction. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-561 Log #408 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See proposed Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(a) Typical Location of Bracing at a horizontal change in direction. See Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(a) on the next page Substantiation: The proposed figure indicates current bracing requirements and adds clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-560 (Log #407). The TC is in favor of the concept, however the diagrams do not coincide with the proposed language the TC has included in the standard during the ROP meeting. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-562 Log #409 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See proposed Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(b) Typical Location of Bracing at a vertical change in direction. See Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(b) on page 146 Substantiation: The proposed figure indicates current bracing requirements and adds clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-560 (Log #407). The TC is in favor of the concept, however the diagrams do not coincide with the proposed language the TC has included in the standard during the ROP meeting.

Figure A.9.3.5.6(c) Typical Location of Bracing on Mains on a Gridded System

Figure A.9.3.5.6(d) Typical Location of Bracing on Mains on a Looped System Substantiation: The clarity of the existing Figures was in question based on the series of public proposals recommending revisions to the figures. All of the dimensioning was removed from the figures to make the figures more general. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.Comment on Affirmative: VALENTINE, V.: Figure A.9.3.5.6(b) has three arrows from “lateral brace” the top two should be removed as one points to a longitudinal brace and the other points to nothing. ________________________________________________________________ 13-559 Log #518 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.9.3.5.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Modify Section A.9.3.5.3.2: The first sentence should read, “The sway brace spacings in Table 9.3.5.3.2(a) and through Table 9.3.5.3.2(be) were developed...” Then at the end of the second sentence add “... for Table 9.3.5.3.2(a) and Table 9.3.5.3.2(b). Substantiation: In the 2010 edition three additional tables were added. This is an editorial change to address that there are now 5 tables for the different types of pipe. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleModify Section A.9.3.5.3.2 to read as follows: A.9.3.5.3.2 The sway brace spacings in Table 9.3.5.3.2(a) and through Table 9.3.5.3.2(be) were developed to allow designers to continue to use familiar concepts, such as zone of influence, to lay out and proportion braces while ensuring compatibility with modern seismic requirements. The spacing of braces was determined using the provisions of SEI/ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, assuming steel pipe with threaded or grooved connections for Table 9.3.5.3.2(a) through Table 9.3.5.3.2(c). The tabulated values are based on conservative simplifying assumptions. A detailed engineering analysis, taking into account the properties of the specific system, might provide greater spacing. However, in order to control deflections, in no case should the lateral sway brace spacing exceed 40 ft (12.2 m).

Lateral brace Longitudinal brace

No bracing

Lateral brace

Four-way brace

Longitudinal brace

Lateral brace

Four-way brace

13-145


Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(a) Typical Location of Bracing at a Horizontal Change in Direction.

13-146


Figure A.9.3.5.3.5(b) Typical Location of Bracing at a Vertical Change in Direction.

13-147

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A. ________________________________________________________________ 13-567 Log #414 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.9.3.5.6(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See revised Figure A.9.3.5.6(b) Typical Location of Bracing on a Tree System.

Figure A.9.3.5.6(b) Typical Location of Bracing on a Tree SystemSubstantiation: The proposed figures indicate current bracing requirements within the standard and add clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-558 (Log #CP106).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-568 Log #415 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.9.3.5.6(c))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See revised Figure A.9.3.5.6(c) Typical Location of Bracing on a Gridded System.

Figure A.9.3.5.6(c) Typical Location of Bracing on a Gridded System

Substantiation: The proposed figures indicate current bracing requirements within the standard and add clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See TC Action on 13-558 (Log #CP106).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.

Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-563 Log #410 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Figure A.9.3.5.4.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(a) and Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(b) are examples of typical longitudinal bracing locations at a change in direction. This section is not intended to consider back-to-back elbows a change in direction provided the adjacent runs of pipe are parallel.Substantiation: The proposed annex section and corresponding figures indicate current bracing requirements and add clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing when system piping changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-560 (Log #407). The TC is in favor of the concept, however the diagrams do not coincide with the proposed language the TC has included in the standard during the ROP meeting. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-564 Log #411 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See proposed Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(a) Typical Location of Bracing at a horizontal change in direction. See Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(a) on the next page Substantiation: The proposed figure indicates current bracing requirements and adds clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-560 (Log #407). The TC is in favor of the concept, however the diagrams do not coincide with the proposed language the TC has included in the standard during the ROP meeting. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-565 Log #412 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See proposed Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(b) Typical Location of Bracing at a vertical change in direction. See Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(b) on page 149 Substantiation: The proposed figure indicates current bracing requirements and adds clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing when a system main changes direction. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See committee action on 13-560 (Log #407). The TC is in favor of the concept, however the diagrams do not coincide with the proposed language the TC has included in the standard during the ROP meeting. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-566 Log #413 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(A.9.3.5.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The four-way brace provided at the riser can also provide longitudinal and lateral bracing for adjacent mains. This section is not intended to require four-way bracing on a sprig or on a drop to a single sprinkler.Substantiation: Section 9.3.5.5.1 Risers acknowledges that by definition a “Sprig” is a riser and this annex section is provided to clarify that four-way bracing is not intended to be provided on vertical supply piping for individual sprinklers. Because a “Drop” can also be considered a riser this proposed change adds clarity to the intent of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28

Longitudinal brace

Lateral brace

Four-way brace


No bracing

Lateral brace

Four-way brace

13-148


Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(a) Typical Location of Bracing at a Horizontal Change in Direction.

13-149


Figure A.9.3.5.4.3(b) Typical Location of Bracing at a Typical Location of Bracing at a Vertical Change in Direction

13-150

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 maximum allowable loads have been derived for the controlling condition (braces in compression) using allowable stress design provisions of American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design (9th Edition), Equations E2-1 and E2-2, and taking a 1/3 increase in design stresses as allowed for seismic loads per Section A.5.2 of that document. In determining allowable horizontal loads in the tables, a modulus of elasticity (E) of 29,000 ksi, a yield stress (Fy) of 36 ksi, and an effective length factor (K) of 1.0 were assumed, since these are common. If these values are different in a specific situation, table values might need to be adjusted. Gross section properties are used for all shapes except for all-thread rods. For all-thread rods, area and radius of gyration are based on the minimum area of the threaded rod based on the radius at the root of the threads. Substantiation: The horizontal loads for steel sway braces in Tables 9.3.5.8.7(a) through (c) in the 2010 revision of NFPA 13 were calculated using AISC 360-05 provisions for allowable stress design, which do not allow the 1/3 increase in design stresses for seismic loads. The Annex language was, inadvertently, left unchanged from the previous edition of NFPA 13. This change corrects the oversight and references the current edition of AISC 360 (2010), which uses the same equations as AISC 360-05. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-572 Log #417 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(A.9.3.5.11.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas G. Wellen, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 9.3.5.11.3* Pipe runs less than 12 ft (3.7 m) in length shall be permitted to be supported by the braces on adjacent runs of pipe. Insert new figure in the annex:

Figure A.9.3.5.11.3 Examples of Brace Locations for Change in Direction of Pipe Substantiation: A figure will clarify the application of braces when there is a change in direction of pipe less than and greater than 12 ft. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.

________________________________________________________________ 13-569 Log #416 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.9.3.5.6(d))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See revised Figure A.9.3.5.6(d) Typical Location of Bracing on a Looped System.

Figure A.9.3.5.6(d) Typical Location of Bracing on a Looped System

Substantiation: The proposed figures indicate current bracing requirements within the standard and add clarity to the intent of the standard by providing direction for locating bracing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See TC Action on 13-558 (Log #CP106).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-570 Log #148 AUT-HBS Final Action: Reject(Figure A.9.3.5.6(d))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Delete existing figure and insert revised:

Figure A.9.3.5.6(d) Typical Location of Bracing on a Looped System Substantiation: Existing figure suggests that last lateral brace on main may be spaced up to 40’-0” from the end of the main, which is contrary to 9.3.5.3.5, which limits this distance to maximum 6’-0”. Further, the diagram did not address the possibility of a lateral brace functioning as a longitudinal brace for an adjacent main, provided the location was in accordance with 9.3.5.3.7. The revised figure provides clarification for both issues. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See TC Action on 13-558 (Log #CP106). The location of the bracing in the proposed figure was not consistent with the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-571 Log #CP104 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(A.9.3.5.8.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.9.3.5.8.8 Maximum allowable horizontal loads for steel sway braces shown in Table 9.3.5.8.7(a), Table 9.3.5.8.7(b), and Table 9.3.5.8.7(c) are applicable when the system is designed using allowable stress design methods. The

Longitudinal brace

Lateral brace

Four-way brace

<12 ft >12 ft

13-151

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-576 Log #521 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.9.3.5(a) and A.9.3.5(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Modify the Seismic Bracing Calculation form to better address Fpw, Cp, and Wp as used in the standard.Substantiation: In recent editions of the standard Fpw, Cp, and Wp have been modified. The forms need to be updated to ensure that they match the text in the body of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on 13-575 (Log #CP105).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-577 Log #144 AUT-PRI Final Action: Reject(Table A.10.8.2(b))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Example. Using Table A.10.8.2(c) (b), find the horizontal bearing block area for a 6 in. diameter, 45 degree bend with an internal pressure of 150 psi. The soil bearing strength is 3,000 lb/ft2, and the safety factor is 1.5. From Table A.10.8.2(c) (b), the required bearing block area for a 6 in. diameter, 90 degree bend with an internal pressure of 100 psi and a soil horizontal bearing strength of 1,000 psi is 7.9 ft2.Substantiation: Table being referenced should be Table (b), as Table (c) does not provide horizontal bearing block area. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This material was extracted from NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, which has responsibility for these requirements. NFPA 13 cannot modify these requirements. This proposal will be addressed in NFPA 24, NFPA 24-45 (Log #CP3). Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Bonds, R., Frakes, B., Laguna, A., Twele, S.________________________________________________________________ 13-578 Log #170 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.11.1.2 and A.12.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Locate at the end of A.11.1.2 and after the fourth paragraph of A.12.1.3 When the small higher hazard area is larger than the required minimum area dictated by the surrounding occupancy, even when separated by partitions capable of stopping heat, the size of the operating area is determined by the higher hazard storage.Substantiation: The current worded was developed for small areas, such as 600 sf. The current wording would allow a 1,700 sf storage room to have a remote area of only 1,500 sf (using the occupancy for the existing example). Requiring it to just be the size of the room is inappropriate, since the room is not rated. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-579 Log #25 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.11.1.4.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise section A.11.1.4.2 as follows:A.11.1.4.2 Appropriate area/density, other design criteria, and water supply requirements should be based on scientifically based engineering analyses that can include submitted fire testing, calculations, or results from appropriate computational models. Recommended water supplies anticipate successful sprinkler operation. Because of the small but still significant number of uncontrolled fires in sprinklered properties, which have various causes, there should be an adequate water supply available for fire department use. The hose stream demand required by this standard is intended to provide the fire department with the extra flow they need to conduct mop-up operations and final extinguishment of a fire at a sprinklered property. This is not the fire department manual fire flow, which is determined by other codes or standards. However, it is not the intent of this standard to require that the sprinkler demand be added to the manual fire flow demand required by other codes and standards. The sprinkler demand should be permitted to be considered in the fire flow required by other codes and standards. The fire sprinkler demand and manual fire flow demand are intended to be separate stand-alone calculations. NFPA 1, emphasizes this fact by the statement in A.18.4.1 that “It is not the intent to add the minimum fire protection water supplies, such as for a fire sprinkler system, to the minimum fire flow for manual fire suppression

________________________________________________________________ 13-573 Log #21 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure A.9.3.5(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David Mason, California FireRecommendation: Revise Figure as follows: See Figure A.9.3.5(a) on the next page See Figure A.9.3.5(b) on page 153 Substantiation: None providedCommittee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on 13-575 (Log #CP105).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-574 Log #406 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure A.9.3.5(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: William J. Dust, Code Consultants, Inc.Recommendation: See proposed Seismic Bracing Calculation Form. See Figure A.9.3.5(a) on page 154 Substantiation: The current figures do not correctly identify Wp and Cp which may cause the calculation for Fpw to be done incorrectly. Additionally the revised form has added locations for the Ss value and for a Sway Brace Attachment when the structural attachment is not directly connected to the Brace itself [e.g. when using a Tolco Fig. 825 bar joist attachment, an additional sway brace attachment (Tolco Fig. 908) is required] Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on 13-575 (Log #CP105).Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.________________________________________________________________ 13-574a Log #574 AUT-AAC Final Action: Accept(10.3.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Recommendation: Where and when the TC’s use the term “Readily Accessible”, the TC’s are directed to better define their intent on a case by case basis. Substantiation: The AUT-PRI TC reviewed a proposal that used the term “Readily Accessible” and rejected the proposal as the term is not enforceable. The term shows up multiple times in the 2010 edition and should be reviewed and modified for clarity where appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept[The TCC ballot results were 20 voting members; of whom 19 voted affirmatively and 1 ballot was not returned (R. Spaulding).]________________________________________________________________ 13-575 Log #CP105 AUT-HBS Final Action: Accept(Figure A.9.3.5(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Recommendation: Accept Forms submitted as part of 13-573 (Log #21) with the following modifications: 1) Change the word “Total” to “pipe” in the last two columns in the bottom right hand corner of proposed form (Exhibit #2) 2) Figure A.9.3.5(b) will need to be updated to mirror A.9.3.5(a) with values provided 3) Section numbers under “Seismic Brace Attachments” need to be upgraded to current edition 4) Revise “Seismic Brace Attachment” section to include three inputs as shown in the include for 13-574 (Log #406). See Figure A.9.3.5(a) on the page 155 See Figure A.9.3.5(b) on page 156 Substantiation: The table is being modified to incorporate concepts outlined in 13-573 (Log #21) and 13-574 (Log #406). This also creates the need to modify A.9.3.5(b). Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Bonds, R., Laguna, A.

13-152


13-573 (Log #21) Rec

13-153


Figure A.9.3.5(a) Seismic Bracing Calculation Form

13-573 (Log #21) Rec

13-154


Figure A.9.3.5(a) Seismic Bracing Calculation Form13-574 (Log #406) Rec

13-155


Seismic Bracing Calculations

Project:

Address:

Ss:

Op:

Contractor:

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

Sheet of

Brace Information Seismic Brace Attachments

Fastener Information Seismic Brace Assembly Detail

Length of brace:

Diameter of brace:

Type of brace:

Angle of brace:

Least radius of gyration:*

l/r value:*

Maximum horizontal load:

Orientation of connecting surface:

Fastener:

Type:

Diameter:

Length (in wood):

Maximum load:Brace identification no. (to be used on plans)


Diameter Type Wp = 1.15 × Pipe WeightTotal (ft)Length (ft) Weight per ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

Pipe Weight

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

Total

* Excludes tension-only bracing systems

NFPA 13© 2012 National Fire Protection Association

Fpw = CpWp

Sprinkler System Load Calculation [Fpw = CpWp]

Structure attachment fitting or tension-only bracing system:

Make: Model:

Listed load rating: Adjusted load rating per 9.3.5.10.3:

Sway brace attachment to structural attachment or fastener:

Make: Model:


Sway brace (pipe attachment) rating:

Make: Model:


Figure A.9.3.5(a) Seismic Bracing Calculation Form Sheet 113-575 (Log #CP105) Rec

13-156


Structure attachment fitting or tension-only bracing system:

Make: Model:


Sway brace attachment to structural attachment or fastener:

Make: Model:


Sway brace (pipe attachment) rating:

Make: Model:


Seismic Bracing Calculations — [Ss = ]

Contractor:

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

Brace Information Seismic Brace Attachments

Fastener Information

Length of brace:

Diameter of brace:

Type of brace:

Angle of brace:

Least radius of gyration:*

l/r value:*

Maximum horizontal load:

Orientation of connecting surface:

Fastener:

Type:

Diameter:

Length (in wood):

Maximum load:

Bracing identification no. (to be used on plans)


Diameter Type Total (ft)

* Excludes tension-only bracing systems

NFPA 13© 2012 National Fire Protection Association

Project:

Address:

Ss:

Op:

Wp = 1.15 × Pipe WeightWeight per ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb/ft

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

Pipe Weight

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

lb

Total

Fpw = CpWp

Sprinkler System Load Calculation [Fpw = CpWp]

Figure A.9.3.5(b) Seismic Bracing Calculation Form Sheet 213-575 (Log #CP105) Rec

13-157

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-581 Log #171 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.11.2.3.1.4(1))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add after the exist text in A.11.2.3.1.4(1):For small sub-systems, such as an antifreeze system system protecting a loading dock or a preaction system protecting a computer room, where the total area is less than the required minimum, additional area is not required to be added from the adjacent wet-pipe system. Fire rated construction is not required between the two areas.Substantiation: Guidance is needed on how to address small sub-systems.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: No supporting documentation submitted for allowing a smaller sized remote area. It is the intent of the committee to calculate the minimum design area in accordance with chapter 11. The room design method may be applied if applicable. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: STANLEY, G.: I agree with submitter that the standard needs to give better guidance on how to deal with these small sub-systems. ________________________________________________________________ 13-582 Log #345 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.11.2.3.2.3.1(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Add an annex note as follows:A.11.2.3.2.3.1(4) Ceiling pockets can be protected or unprotected. A protected ceiling pocket is one where the upper ceiling is within 12 in. vertically of the sprinkler deflector. Buildings with protected ceiling pockets are permitted to use the quick response reduction of Section 11.2.3.2.3. Buildings with unprotected ceiling pockets greater than 32 sq ft are not allowed to use the quick response reduction of Section 11.2.3.2.3, but are also not required to have a 3000 sq ft design area because the unprotected pocket is not a concealed space.Substantiation: This clarification is needed because of erroneous commentary in the Automatic Sprinkler Handbook that requires the use of the 3000 sq ft rule if ceiling pockets are unprotected. The 3000 sq ft rule was intended to apply to concealed spaces, not unprotected pockets, which are not concealed and the floor space under the pockets are protected by sprinklers at other elevations. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Ceiling pockets are not considered concealed spaces.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-583 Log #145 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.11.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.11.3.1.1 The protection area for residential sprinklers with extended coverage areas is defined in the listing of the sprinkler as a maximum square or rectangular area. Listing information is presented in even 2 ft (0.61 m) increments from 12 ft to 20 ft (3.6 m to 6.1 m) for residential sprinklers. When a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage must be equal to or greater than both the length and width of the hazard area. For example, if the hazard to be protected is a room 14 ft 6 in. (4.3 m) wide and 20 ft 8 in. (6.2 m) long, a sprinkler that is listed to protect an area of 16 ft × 22 ft (4.9 m × 6.8 m) must be selected. The flow used in the calculations is then selected as the flow required by the listing for the selected coverage. (See Figure A.11.3.1.1 (a) & (b))In Figure A.11.3.1.3 (b), calculate the area indicated by the heavy outline and X. The circle indicates sprinklers.Substantiation: Text from A.11.3.1.3 should be moved to A.11.3.1.1, as that paragraph relates to the information in the figure. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: 11.3.1.1 addresses the protection area of a single extended coverage sprinkler whereas 11.3.1.3 addresses defining the four sprinklers within the design area. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

purposes required by this section.”Substantiation: The term “manual” and “required by other codes and standards” is editorial and added to improve clarity of the paragraph as to the specific application. The sentence “The sprinkler demand should be permitted to be considered in the fire flow required by other codes and standards” infers to the user that the calculations should somehow be merged. This is entirely incorrect. The hose stream and sprinkler demand calculation for NFPA 13 is separate from the manual fire flow demand calculated by NFPA 1 and the IFC. Each calculation stands on its own in needing to be fulfilled. In some cases, the sprinkler and hose stream demand per NFPA 13 maybe larger than the manual fire flow demand calculated by NFPA 1 due to the fact that NFPA 1 provides significant credits of 50-75% when building are protected by a fire sprinkler systems. In addition, the flow points for the sprinkler system/hose stream demand will be different in each of the stand-alone calculations. While NFPA 13 indicates that the hose stream demand “shall be added to the sprinkler requirement at the connection to the city main or a private fire hydrant...”, manual fire flow calculations will utilize the fire hydrants, drafting locations, ground storage tanks or a tanker shuttle in order to meet the manual fire flow demand. How would the sprinkler demand “be permitted to be considered in the fire flow required for other code and standards” in a manual water supply hydraulic model? Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise to read as follows: A.11.1.4.2 Appropriate area/density, other design criteria, and water supply requirements should be based on scientifically based engineering analyses that can include submitted fire testing, calculations, or results from appropriate computational models. Recommended water supplies anticipate successful sprinkler operation. Because of the small but still significant number of uncontrolled fires in sprinklered properties, which have various causes, there should be an adequate water supply available for fire department use. The hose stream demand required by this standard is intended to provide the fire department with the extra flow they need to conduct mop-up operations and final extinguishment of a fire at a sprinklered property. This is not the fire department manual fire flow, which is determined by other codes or standards. However, it is not the intent of this standard to require that the sprinkler demand be added to the manual fire flow demand required by other codes and standards. The sprinkler demand should be permitted to be considered in the fire flow required by other codes and standards. While the other codes and standards may factor in the presence of a sprinkler system in the determination of the manual fire flow requirement, the sprinkler system water demand and manual fire flow demand are intended to be separate stand-alone calculations. NFPA 1, emphasizes this fact by the statement in A.18.4.1 that “It is not the intent to add the minimum fire protection water supplies, such as for a sprinkler system, to the minimum fire flow for manual fire suppression purposes required by this section.Committee Statement: Additional clarified needed.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-580 Log #558 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.11.2.3.1.4)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven J. Scandaliato, SDG, LLCRecommendation: Annex: Paragraphs 11.2.3.1.4(4)(a-j) clarify that the 3000 ft² design area does not apply where certain unsprinklered concealed spaces are present. If Where residential sprinklers are used in a dwelling unit and an unprotected combustible concealed space exists above the space where the residential sprinklers are installed, the area limitations of 11.2.3.1.4.(3) do not apply, because the discharge criteria for residential sprinklers are not based on the density/area or room design methods. Those spaces where residential sprinklers are not installed such as common and public areas as described in 8.4.5, 11.2.3.1.4 should be used including the modifications for area and density.Substantiation: There is a prevailing thought among many designers and AHJ’s alike that when mixing residential and commercial designs, commercial wins. This is not the case eg. 11.2.3.1.4, however, there is no clear distinction actually saying that residential is considered one of the “special methods”. The guts of this proposed annex material comes from the 2010 narrative material. I am proposing that while it may not warrant a mandatory address, the committees opinion regarding this distinction should carry more weight. Moving it into the annex provides the practitioner a clearer view of the intent behind the 3000 sf. requirements especially when so much of the residential types of construction involve combustible concealed spaces. The text enhancements are made in an effort to be more specific, avoiding words like “adjacent”. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: 11.2.3.1.4 does not apply to residential design. 11.3.1.2 requires 3000 sf for residential sprinklers. There may be further revision to this proposal. See Committee Action on Proposal 13-382 (Log #367). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

13-158

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Substantiation: Current Figure A.11.3.1.3 should be a part of Fig. A.11.3.1.1, as the referring paragraph relates to the information in the figure with respect to number of residential sprinklers to be calculated. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleModify text and Figures as follows: A.11.3.1.1 In Figure A.11.3.1.1(a), calculate the area indicated by the heavy outline and X. The circle indicates sprinklers. The protection area for residential sprinklers with extended coverage areas is defined in the listing of the sprinkler as a maximum square area for pendent sprinklers or a square or rectangular area. Listing information is presented in even 2 ft (0.61 m) increments from 12 ft to 20 ft (3.6 m to 6.1 m) for residential sprinklers. When a sprinkler is selected for an application, its area of coverage must be equal to or greater than both the length and width of the hazard area. For example, if the hazard to be protected is a room 14 ft 6 in. (4.3 m) wide and 20 ft 8 in. (6.2 m) long, a sprinkler that is listed to protect an area of 16 ft x22 ft (4.9 m x6.8 m) must be selected. The flow used in the calculations is then selected as the flow required by the listing for the selected coverage. (See Figure A.11.3.1.1 A.11.3.1.1(b).)FIGURE A.11.3.1.1 A.11.3.1.1(b) Determination of Protection Area of Coverage for Residential Sprinklers.A.11.3.1.3 In Figure A.11.3.1.3,calculate the area indicated by the heavy outline and X. The circle indicates sprinklers.FIGURE A.11.3.1.3 A.11.3.1.1(a) Examples of Design Area for Dwelling Units.Revise the old A.11.3.1.1 (new A.11.3.1.1(a)) as follows:

Committee Statement: The proposal was accepted with the addition of relocating text and Figure from A.11.3.1.3 before old text in A.11.3.1.1 as it fits better in the new location. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: a. Figure A.11.3.1.1.(a) The 14 ft. 6 in. and 20 ft. 8 in. is suppose to stop at the solid line representing the actual dimensions of the room. There should be a 16 ft. and 22 ft. assigned to the dotted lines representing the assigned area of coverage for the sprinkler. b. Figure A.11.3.1.1(a) should be (b) and vice versa KEEPING, L.: While I basically agree with the Committee Action, I believe there is a typographical error in the second sentence of A.11.3.1.1. Currently the text, which says “... maximum square area for pendent sprinklers or a square or rectangular area”, is incomplete. These words should be revised to say either “… maximum square area or rectangular area” or “… maximum square area for pendent sprinklers or a square or rectangular area for sidewall sprinklers”.

________________________________________________________________ 13-584 Log #149 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure A.11.3.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Renumber original figure A.11.3.1.1 as A.11.3.1.1(a), and renumber Fig. A.11.3.1.3 as Fig. A.11.3.1.1 (b)

Figure A.11.3.1.1(a) Examples of Design Area for Dwelling Units

Figure A.11.3.1.1(b) Determination of Protection Area of Coverage for Residential Sprinklers

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

20 ft 8 in.

16 ft

22 ft14 ft 6 in.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure A.11.3.1.1(a) Examples of Design Area for Dwelling Units

13-159

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 however according to the substantiation all tests were conducted with the ignition location between 4 upright sprinklers. Before we agree to the design guidelines that have been offered in this submittal it would be wise to see what the test results would be if the ignition location were located under a single upright sprinkler. The reason why I offer this is because testing conducted at FM Global has indicated that for an upright sprinkler the worst-case fire condition may be one that originates under the sprinkler as opposed to between two or more. For example, I have seen situations where the number of sprinklers that operate during a fire can more than double (i.e. 25 AS vs. 10 AS) when you maintain all parameters of a test to be the same for an upright sprinkler except you move the ignition location from between sprinklers to under one sprinkler. I would hate for the Committee to agree to these design guidelines only to find out later that they need to be changed based on simply an ignition location scenario. Bottom line is that for a K11.2 (K160) upright sprinkler I agree that nominally rated 160F (70C) sprinklers are better than nominally rated 280F (140C) sprinklers, but the ignition location is actually best-case for upright sprinklers as opposed to worst-case for upright sprinklers and therefore subsequent testing could indicate that the design area should be larger than currently indicated in this submittal. ________________________________________________________________ 13-588 Log #13 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Table A.15.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Lars Kjolby, Hjerno A/SRecommendation: Revise examples or revise Table 15.2.5(a) and (b).Substantiation: Answer 2, 3 and 6 are according to 13-02 Table 12.2.3.1.6.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Submitter did not provide any specific wording to make changes. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-589 Log #172 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.16.1.9 and A.17.1.8)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete first and third paragraphs in both sections A.16.1.9 Where the ceiling is more than 10 ft above the maximum height of storage ……through Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(j).Barriers should be of sufficient strength to avoid sagging that interferes with loading and unloading operations. Horizontal barriers are not required to be provided above a Class I or Class II commodity…….installed above the top tier fo storage.A.17.1.8 Where the ceiling is more than 10 ft above the maximum height of storage ……through Figure 16.3.4.1.1.1(j).Barriers should be of sufficient strength to avoid sagging that interferes with loading and unloading operations. Horizontal barriers are not required to be provided above a Class I or Class II commodity…….installed above the top tier fo storage.Substantiation: The addition of 12.1.3.4 resolved how to address excessive clearance above storage so the option to provide a barrier above the racks (discussed in the first and third paragraph) is not needed. The second paragraph is needed to address barriers within the rack. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-590 Log #305 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.22.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.22.1.1 See Figure A.22.1.1. Underground mains should be designed so that the system can be extended with a minimum of expense. Possible future plant expansion should also be considered and the piping designed so that it will not be covered by buildings.Substantiation: The recommendation provided by the final sentence of A.22.1.1 should not be part of the criteria of Working Plans and moreover should not be part of NFPA 13. It might be better suited for inclusion as a part of NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

________________________________________________________________ 13-585 Log #150 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure A.11.3.1.1 and A.11.3.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Renumber figures as A.11.3.1.1 (a) and A.11.3.1.1 (b), respectively Substantiation: Current Figure A.11.3.1.3 has no relation to the discharge from each flowing sprinkler, which is the focus of the referring paragraph, 11.3.1.3. It does however give examples of how many and which residential sprinklers are required to flow in a dwelling unit, and it should be linked to the correct section. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-584 (Log #149). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-586 Log #146 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.11.3.1.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth W. Wagoner, Parsley Consulting EngineersRecommendation: Delete text as follows: A.11.3.1.3 In Figure A.11.3.1.3, calculate the area indicated by the heavy outline and X. The circle indicates sprinklers.Substantiation: Text should be moved to A.11.3.1.1, as that paragraph relates to the information in the figure. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Action on Proposal 13-584 (Log #149). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-587 Log #CP306 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.12.12, 12.12.1.2(a))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Add the following text at the end of existing A.12.12:A series of seven large scale fire tests involving idle wood pallets stored on the floor was conducted at Underwriters Laboratories in 2009 and 2010. This testing was conducted to investigate the performance of an upright sprinkler having a nominal K-Factor of 11.2 (160) when installed to protect a 8 ft. (2.4 m) high array of new 4-way entry, softwood pallets under a 30 ft. (9.1 m) ceiling. The pallets used for this test series were supplied by CHEP USA. The impact of the sprinkler temperature rating on fire control performance was the key variable investigated during this test series. Except for the temperature rating of the sprinkler’s heat responsive element, the same sprinkler design was used for all seven tests. Three tests were conducted using 286 °F (141°C) temperature rated sprinklers, two tests were conducted using 200 °F (93°C) temperature rated sprinklers and two tests conducted using 155 °F (68°C) temperature rated sprinklers. The ignition location for all tests was centered between four sprinklers. To enhance test repeatability, the four sprinklers nearest the ignition location were arranged to discharge water when the first sprinkler operated. The results of this test series are summarized in Table A.12.12. The results of this large scale fire test series indicated that sprinklers in the 155 °F (68°C) and 200 °F (93°C) temperature ratings performed significantly better than the 286 °F (141°C) temperature rated sprinkler as evidenced by a reduced number of operated sprinklers and lower steel temperatures. See Table A.12.12 Summary of Fire Test Data for Idle Pallets (4-way Entry Softwood) on the next page See Revised Table 12.12.1.2(a) on page 158 Substantiation: Test data of idle pallet storage supports the revision of Table 12.12.1.2(a) Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: HOPKINS, JR., D.: Complete test data was not provided to facilitate review. Comment on Affirmative: BAKER, JR., W.: I agree that the protection options for a particular storage arrangement would be better served when a sprinkler having a minimum K-factor of 11.2 (160) utilizes a nominal temperature rating of 160F (70C),

13-160


1N

FPA

13

Log

#CP3

06 R

ec A

2012

RO

P

Tab

le A

.12.

12 S

umm

ary

of F

ire

Tes

t Dat

a fo

r Id

le P

alle

ts (4

-way

Ent

ry S

oftw

ood)

Sto

red

on th

e Fl

oor

Tes

tD

ate

Tes

t Arr

ay

Nom

inal

St

orag

e H

eigh

t, ft

(m

)

Cei

ling

Hei

ght

ft(m

) Sp

rink

ler

Info

rmat

ion

Num

ber

of

Ope

rate

d Sp

rink

lers

Tim

e of

Fir

st

Spri

nkle

r O

pera

tion,

M

in:s

ec

Tim

e of

Las

t Sp

rink

ler

Ope

ratio

n,

Min

:sec

Max

. 1 M

in.

Ave

. Ste

el

Tem

p.

ºF (º

C)

9/1/

09

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

286º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(141

ºC, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

12

5:00

23

:03

220

(104

)

9/10

/09

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

286º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(141

ºC, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

13

5:05

19

:10

208

(98)

9/11

/09

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

286º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(141

ºC, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

16

5:48

19

:04

228

(109

)

6/21

/10

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

200º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(93º

C, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

4 4:

10

4:10

13

4 (5

7)

6/22

/10

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

200º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(93º

C, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

4 3:

34

3:34

13

5 (5

7)

6/23

/10

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

155º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(68º

C, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

4 3:

46

3:46

11

5 (4

6)

6/23

/10

2X3

w/ 6

in.(1

52 m

m) L

ongi

tudi

nal F

lue

Mai

n A

rray

2X

1 Ta

rget

Pal

lets

on

Each

End

w/ 6

in.

(152

mm

) Lon

gitu

dina

l and

Tra

nsve

rse

Flue

s

8 (2

.4)

30 (9

.1)

155º

F, K

=11.

2 0.

45 g

pm/ft

2

(68º

C, K

=160

18

.3 m

m/m

in)

4 3:

09

3:09

11

3 (4

5)

13-161


13

/LC

P306

/Tb

12.1

2.1.

1(a)

/A20

12/R

OP

Tab

le 1

2.12

.1.2

(a)

Con

trol

Mod

e D

ensi

ty/A

rea

Spri

nkle

r Pr

otec

tion

for

Indo

or S

tora

ge o

f Idl

e W

ood

Palle

ts

Typ

e of

Sp

rink

ler

Loc

atio

n of

St

orag

e N

omin

al K

-Fa

ctor

Max

imum

St

orag

e H

eigh

t

Max

imum

C

eilin

g/R

oof

Hei

ght

Spri

nkle

r D

ensi

ty

Are

as o

f Ope

ratio

n

Hos

e St

ream

A

llow

ance

W

ater

Supp

lyD

urat

ion

(hou

rs)

Hig

h T

empe

ratu

reO

rdin

ary

Tem

pera

ture

ft

m

ft

m

gpm

/ft2

mm

/min

ft

2 m

2 ft2

m2

gpm

L

/min

Con

trol m

ode

dens

ity/a

rea

On

floor

8

(115

) or

larg

erU

p to

6

Up

to 1

.820

6.

1 0.

20

8.2

2000

3000

1 18

6279

1 30

00

279

500

1900

1½

O

n flo

or

11.2

(160

) or

larg

erU

p to

8

Up

to 2

.430

9.

1 0.

45

18.3

25

00

232

4000

37

2 50

0 19

00

1½

O

n flo

or o

r ra

ck w

ithou

t so

lid sh

elve

s 11

.2 (1

60) o

r la

rger

>8 to

12

>2.4

to

3.7

30

9.1

0.60

24

.5

3500

32

5 60

00

557

500

1900

1½

>1

2 to

20

>3

.7 to

6.

1 30

9.

1 0.

60

24.5

45

00

418

NA

N

A

500

1900

1½

O

n flo

or

16.8

(240

) or

larg

erU

p to

20

Up

to 6

.130

9.

1 0.

60

24.5

20

00

186

2000

18

6 50

0 19

00

1½

Not

e 1

– Th

e ar

ea o

f spr

inkl

er o

pera

tion

shal

l be

perm

itted

to b

e re

duce

d to

200

0 ft2

(186

m2)

whe

n sp

rinkl

ers h

avin

g no

min

al a

nom

inal

K-F

acto

r of 1

1.2

or la

rger

are

use

d, o

r if h

igh

tem

pera

ture

ra

ted

sprin

kler

s spr

inkl

ers h

avin

g a

nom

inal

K-F

acto

r of 8

.0 a

re u

sed.

13-162

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 Comment on Affirmative: DENHARDT, J.: Three points need to be stated or clarified. - Section 23.1.3 needs to be reviewed in detail. When we accept this proposal, we are violating paragraphs 23.1.3.1 and 23.1.3.2 since domestic demands are not allowed on pipes less than 6”. - No guidance is given on how to calculate the domestic demand - What is domestic demand? Is it just the normal plumbing fixtures in a typical “housing unit” or does include commercial loads? Is the intent to allow commercial water flow demands to be added in a common private service main? These questions need to answered before this proposal moves forward. ________________________________________________________________ 13-594 Log #306 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.23.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tracey D. Bellamy, Telgian CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.23.2.2 An automatically controlled vertical turbine pump taking suction from a reservoir, pond, lake, river, cistern or well or a centrifugal pump supplied for a waterworks system connection, or tank, complies with 23.2.2.See sections dealing with sprinkler equipment supervisory and waterflow alarm services in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.Substantiation: The provisions of A.23.2.2 appear incomplete in that no mention is made for the use of centrifugal pumps supplied by a watersworks system connection or connection to a tank. The last sentence does not appear to be related to water supply and should be deleted. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Change the word “for” to “from” in the following: “...supplied for from a waterworks...”.Committee Statement: Editorial correction.Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-595 Log #471 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.24.2.3.2.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John August Denhardt, Strickland Fire Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The test criteria are based on the first evidence of waterflow to the inspector’s test. Air or nitrogen can be mixed with the water for several minutes until the air or nitrogen is completely flushed from the system.Substantiation: Adding “or nitrogen” is to allow nitrogen to be used as currently allowed by Section 7.2.6.1. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See action on Log 13-56 (Log #CP400).Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-596 Log #173 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Figure A.24.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Figure A.24.5 Sample Nameplate Hydraulic Design Information SignSubstantiation: This change correlates with the title in the body of 13. The term Nameplate was changed in the 1991 edition. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-597 Log #557 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(Figure A.24.6)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire ProtectionRecommendation: In Figure A.24.6, above the line for: “High-piled storage ? Yes ? No” add a new line to say: “ Occupancy Classification: --------------------------” and revise the line that says: “Location of aux/low point drains:” to now say: “Location of aux/low point drains on dry pipe and preaction systems:” Substantiation: During the previous revision cycle, Proposal 13-482 asked that both 24.6.2 and Figure A.24.6 be revised and the Committee Statement said that the Action was to “Accept the proposal and …”, but while the revisions were made to 24.6.2, the corresponding changes to Figure A.24.6 were not incorporated in the 2010 edition. Therefore the changes should now be brought into the standard, for this new cycle. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28

________________________________________________________________ 13-591 Log #156 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(A.22.4.4.5.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, Fire & Life Safety America / Rep. AFSARecommendation: Provide the rest of the information needed to apply the Darcy-Weisbach equation or delete it all and provide a table of modified C factors and use the Hazen-Williams equation. Additionally, if we feel we really need to be this precise, guidance is now needed to more accurately determine the total volume of water (ie sizing tanks) since the system demand is too low once the antifreeze is discharged (or during the majority of the year when it is warmer so the antifreeze is less viscous), and now our tank is too small for it’s assigned duration.Substantiation: An equation was provided as well as the Moody diagram and the equivalent epsilon for specific roughness for aged pipe but one still has to leave NFPA 13 to determine the Reynolds number. That’s one approach but it still leaves the AHJ and contractors in the dark as to what is really being done and not knowing if the right values were applied. A better approach is to determine conservative C values for different compounds. This way our safety net (the AHJ) can understand what they are looking at along with the contractors submitting it (as well as the engineers without breaking out their dust covered fluid dynamics book). Without a doubt the impact of the increased viscosity needs to be accounted for but it needs to be done in a reasonable manner. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter did not provide any specific wording to make changes. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: DENHARDT, J.: The technical committee should provide the details on how to perform this calculation with all supporting data and formulas. HUGGINS, R.: If the TC elects to retain partial criteria, it seems the TC should be responsible for doing the work to tell the users of NFPA 13 how to determine the Reynolds number. ________________________________________________________________ 13-592 Log #424 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.22.4.4.5.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete A.22.4.4.5.5.Substantiation: This section contradicts the section about not calculating sprinklers under obstructions. Sprinklers closer to the fire, when they open, help provide fire control or suppression and help prevent sprinklers at a higher ceiling elevation from opening. For cloud ceiling arrangements and mezzanine design, this annex note confuses the determination of a design area. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-593 Log #429 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(A.23.1.3.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: Delete section A.23.1.3.2 and insert a new section 23.1.3.3 as follow: When a single main less than 4 in. in diameter serves both domestic and fire systems, the domestic demand shall be added to the hydraulic calculations for the fire system at the point of connection unless provisions have been made to isolate the domestic demand. Substantiation: This concept has been in the annex for some time, but it should be mandated for systems with small mains (lead-ins). Some residential systems with a four-sprinkler design end up having small enough demands that they can be served by 2 1/2 or 3 in. pipe. A simultaneous domestic demand could significantly increase the friction loss in the pipe and decrease the available flow to the sprinkler system. The subject needs to be addressed specifically in the body of the document. This proposal was prepared on behalf of the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 21 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: Mr. Denhardt is right, there are items that need to be clarified. Until it has been determined how the domestic demand is to be calculated, this material should remain as just a guidance item in the Annex.

13-163

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ________________________________________________________________ 13-601 Log #519 AUT-SSD Final Action: Accept(E.5)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: In the 3rd paragraph, the 2nd sentence should be modified as follows: The value of Ss = 1.75 lies between two entries on the table, 1.50 and 2.00, so use linear interpolation to get value of Cp for Ss 1.75 coordinates to 0.82. The 4th paragraph and following equation should be deleted. In the equation in the 5th paragraph it should be 0.82 times 960. The value is then 787 Ibs. This should be corrected in paragraphs 6 and 7 as well. Substantiation: In the 2010 Edition, the Cp table was expanded and the example value can now be found on the table. In addition, the interpolation procedure was added in Section A.9.3.5.6.2 to assist the user. These changes are editorial to keep proper correlation with the body of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The TCC should have the HBS committee review this proposal at the ROC stage. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.________________________________________________________________ 13-602 Log #232 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(F.1.1)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: NFPA Publications. NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, 2010 EditionSubstantiation: Water Mist has been approved and installed in a wide range of sprinkler applications globally and for clarity NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems should be included in NFPA 13 as a Referenced Publication. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Water mist is not a sprinkler system and NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, is not referenced in the standard and can not be added to the reference section. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-603 Log #233 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(F.1.2.10)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry W. Owen, Dooley Tackaberry, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: FM ApprovalsANSI/FM 5560, Water Mist SystemsSubstantiation: Water Mist has been approved and installed in a wide range of sprinkler applications globally. For clarity the FM Approval Standard For Water Mist Systems Class Number 5560 should be included in the NFPA 13 Annex F as an Informational Reference in the FM Publications section F.1.2.10. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Water mist is not a sprinkler system and NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, is not referenced in the standard and can not be added to the reference section. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-604 Log #154 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(F.1.2.15)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows: F.1.2.15 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. Commodity Hazard Comparison of Expanded Plastic in Portable Bins and Racking, Project 99NK29106, NC4004, September 8, 2000.Technical Report of Fire Testing of Automotive Parts in Portable Storage Racking, Project 99NK29106, NC4004, January 5, 2001.ANSI/UL 193, Alarm Valves for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 199, Automatic Sprinklers for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 203, Pipe Hanger Equipment for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 213, Rubber Gasketed Fittings for Protection Service.ANSI/UL 260, Dry Pipe and Deluge Valves for Fire Protection Service.UL 262, Gate Valves for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 312, Check Valves for Fire Protection Service.UL 393, Indicating Pressure Gauges for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 852, Metallic Sprinkler Pipe for Fire Protection Service.UL 1091, Butterfly Valves for Fire Protection Service.UL 1285, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe and Couplings for Underground Fire Service.

Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: While I certainly agree with this action, I would offer an editorial comment that the question marks (?) adjacent to the “Yes” and the “No” are intended to be check boxes instead. ________________________________________________________________ 13-598 Log #14 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(A.25.4.10.1(4))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH InternationalRecommendation: Replace the term “fire endurance” by the term “fire resistance” in section 4.2.1.8.A.25.4.10.1(4) Because of its melting point, brazing would be considered heat sensitive. The criterion of this paragraph is intended to permit brazed joints without requiring that they be installed behind a marine thermal barrier, while maintaining the fire resistance endurance as stated in 25.4.10.1 under reasonably foreseeable failure modes. Substantiation: The term “fire endurance” is being replaced in all NFPA documents by the preferred term “fire resistance”. The term “fire endurance classification” is being replaced by “fire resistance rating”. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-599 Log #382 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(D.2)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, U.S. General Services AdministrationRecommendation: Relocate Section D.2 of Annex D back into the body of the standard as a new section in Chapter 21 (e.g., 21.38). Then, delete everything else in Annex D (e.g., Section D.1). Substantiation: It is necessary to house the extracted material from the 2009 edition of NFPA 101 within the body of the standard to ensure uses can discern the difference between the requirements of NFPA 101 and NFPA 13. By locating this in Annex D, users of NFPA 13 will not have ready access to (or knowledge of) the unique requirements of NFPA 101 like they currently have for all the other standards listed in Chapter 21. Note: it would be even better to create yet another section in Chapter 21 for all the applicable NFPA 5000 extracts as they would allay the original proponents concern with respect that NFPA 101 only pertains to life safety while NFPA 13 (and NFPA 5000) pertains to both life safety and property protection. Should the committee reject this proposal, they still need to correct Annex D as no explanation is provided on how to use Section D.2 or to distinguish I from Section D.1 since Sections D.1 and D.2 are almost identical and appear to be redundant (suggest deleted Section D.1). And if the committee rejects this proposal, they still should incorporate the applicable extracts from NFPA 5000 into this (or another) annex. Finally, should Section D.1 remain, the committee needs to correct/update the reference in Section D.1 to NFPA 101 so it references the 2012 edition, which will have been issued by the time NFPA 13 holds its ROC meetings. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The material was moved into the annex to eliminate conflicts within NFPA 13 and reduces conflicts with NFPA 101. The SSD task group should also look at updating these references. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Explanation of Negative: GERDES, R.: The proponent makes a sound reason to have the material on atrium glass protection in the body of the standard. ________________________________________________________________ 13-600 Log #516 AUT-SSI Final Action: Accept(E.3)________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Victoria B. Valentine, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.Recommendation: In the 7th and 8th equations under E.3, it should be SDS and there should not be a negative sign at the beginning of the the equation. Substantiation: These were corrected in an erratum on the 2010 Edition. The two referenced equations are the first two equations found in the second column of the text on p. 391 of the hardcopy version. This proposal is just to ensure that they will be correct in the next edition. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.

13-164

Report on Proposals A2012— Copyright, NFPA NFPA 13 ANSI/UL 1468, Direct Acting Pressure Reducing and Pressure Restricting Valves. UL 1474, Adjustable Drop Nipples for Sprinkler Systems.ANSI/UL 1626, Residential Sprinklers for Fire Protection Service.ANSI/UL 1739, Pilot-Operated Pressure-Control Valves for Fire Protection Service. ANSI/UL 1767, Early-Suppression Fast-Response Sprinklers.ANSI/UL 1821, Thermoplastic Sprinkler Pipe and Fittings for Fire Protection Service. ANSI/UL 2443, Flexible Sprinkler Hose With Fittings for Fire Protection Service.Substantiation: Add ANSI approval designation to ANSI/UL 852 and ANSI/UL 2443. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.________________________________________________________________ 13-605 Log #16 AUT-SSI Final Action: Reject(Chapter X (New))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Douglas Page, The Redwoods GroupRecommendation: A section should be added on the installation of a residential type sprinkler system to protect saunas in health club facilities. A growing number of fires are occurring in these areas. The proposed wording is as follows: “All dry saunas should be equipped with a minimum of a residential type sprinkler head off of a domestic water line. The head that should be installed is a 286 F degree head.” A sample diagram is attached of the problem and the correction to the problem. Refer to the attached Risk Management Alert. Substantiation: An increase in the number of fires that occurring in dry saunas at health club related facilities, YMCAs, JCCs, etc. The losses occur primarily at night after the facility is closed are causing a number of serious losses. Current data that our insurance operation has that over 7 million dollars in losses have occurred in these types of locations between 2003 and 2007 at locations within the YMCA community. An easy proposal is to install a residential type sprinkler system with a 286 degree F head in each sauna. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: If the building requires a sprinkler system, a commercial high temperature sprinkler is acceptable. The standard already provides guidance on this subject. Number Eligible to Vote: 30 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Kirn, M., Slocum, L.Comment on Affirmative: GERDES, R.: The proposal attempts to require sprinklers for saunas whether the building is sprinklered or not. NFPA 13 deals with fully sprinklered buildings. This proposal is more suited for a building code that addresses special hazards. ________________________________________________________________ 13-606 Log #CP320 AUT-SSD Final Action: Reject(Section X.X (New))________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria, Recommendation: Add new section X.X to address the sprinkler protection requirement for the storage of lithium ion batteries. Substantiation: Lithium ion battery cells and small battery packs (8 to 10 cells) are in wide consumer use today. Superior capacity has driven the demand for these batteries in electronic devices such as laptops, power tools, cameras, and cell phones. In the very near future, vehicle manufacturers will bring electric or hybrid electric vehicles to market using large lithium ion battery packs (several thousand cells). Lithium ion batteries can experience internal short circuits due to internal defects (production issues), physical abuse (handling issues), or exposure to high temperature (fire). Once an internal short develops, a sudden release of stored energy occurs. This event can cascade thru adjacent cells within a battery pack or a pallet load. Unlike most commodities, fires involving lithium ion batteries can initiate within the product. In storage, this means a fire can initiate within a pallet load and beyond the influence of conventional fire protection systems. As a note, one pallet may hold 60,000 lithium ion cells. It is recognized that lithium ion battery manufacturers are pursuing a variety of chemistries, geometries, and safety features to reduce or manage the hazards associated with lithium ion batteries. Therefore protection requirements are required for this commodity. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Specific requirements will be added in the future when the results of the Research Foundation project are published. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 22 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Brown, T., Hogan, A., McNamara, T.

2012 Annual Revision Cycle Report on Proposals · 2012 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Contents by NFPA...

Documents

Transcript of 2012 Annual Revision Cycle Report on Proposals · 2012 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Contents by NFPA...