Supplementary

Report of

Con~nittee on Automatic Sprinklers

Chester W. Schirmer, Chairman, Schirmer Engineering Corp., 5940 West Touhy Avenue, Niles, IL 60648

Richard F. Edington, Corresponding Secretary Insurance Services Office - Midwestern Region, 230 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60606

(Alternate to Richard E. Hughey)

J. C. Thomson, Jr.,+ Recording Secretary, North Carolina Fire Insurance Rating Bureau, Box 2021, Raleigh, NC 27602

Charles J. Betts, American Institute of Architects

William Carey, Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.

G. Clarke, Factory Mutual Engineering Corp.

Richard Custer, National Bureau of Standards

John L. DeRoo, NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

Robert E. Duke, National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

Frank J. Fee, Jr., National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

Denny Featherstonhaugh, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn.

D. B. Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization of Canada

D. M. Hammerman, Fire Marshals Assn. of North America

W. L. Henry, Manufacturing Chemists Assn.

Richard E. Hughey, Insurance Services Office

Rolf H. Jensen, Rolf Jensen & Associates

W. N. Lawton, National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

Donald I . McGi l l iv ray, Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada

A. J. Mercurio, Factory Insurance Assn.

Robert L. Retel le, Insurance Services Off ice - New England Region

E. J. Schiffhauer, Eastman Kodak Company

M. Ray Walker, Insurance Services Off ice - Southeastern Region

John J. Walsh, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada

Harry Winchell, American Mutual Insurance Alliance

J. A. Wood, National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

D. M. Yarlas, NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

Alternates

Donald H. Adickes, American Mutual Insurance Alliance, (Alternate to Harry Winchell)

A. H. Bywater, Insurance Services Office - Pacific Region, (Alternate to M. Ray Walker)

John K. Gerhard, Fire Marshals Assn. of North America, (Alternate to D. M. Hammerman)

Thomas W. Hanna, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, (Alternate to John J. Walsh)

Stanley W. Muller, American Institute of Architects, (Alternate to Charles J. Betts)

Edward J. Reilly, Alternate for National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

Roland I . Spencer, Factory Insurance Assn. (Alternate to A. J. Mercurio)

W. L. Stuart , Manufacturing Chemists Assn. (Al ternate to W. L. Henry)

Wil l iam Testa, Al ternate for National Automatic Spr inkler and Fire Control Assn.

F. A. Wi l l i ts , Jr., Alternate for National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

Robert C. Worthington, Alternate for National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn.

R. H. Zelinske, Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., (Alternate to William Carey)

20

Nonvoting Members

G. C. Ackroyd, Fire Of f ices ' Committee, Aldermary House

H. W. Marryat t , Aust ra l ian Fire Protect ion Assn.

+Nonvoting

The Committee on Automatic Spr inklers presents fo r o f f i c i a l adoption i t s supplementary report on NFPA 13, Standard fo r the I n s t a l l a t i o n of Spr ink ler Systems, and NFPA 13D, Standard fo r the I n s t a l l a t i o n of Spr inkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes. This supplementary report contains the documentation of the committee's act ion on those publ ic comments and recommendations submitted to i t in response to i t s report as published in the Technical Con~mittee Report on October 30, 1974. In addi t ion to the publ ic comments received, numerous e d i t o r i a l changes were made.

Because of some recent tes t ing of sidewall spr ink lers by one of the committee members, the committee f e l t that the section per ta in ing to the pos i t ion of sidewall spr ink lers should not be changed un t i l more data has been obtained and reviewed by the committee.

The supplementary report was submitted in three parts to l e t t e r ba l l o t by the committee.

Part I presents fo r adoption the documentation of the committee's act ion on the publ ic comments and recommendations fo r NFPA 13.

Part I has been submitted to l e t t e r ba l l o t of the committee which consists of 24 vot ing members, of whom 23 have voted a f f i rma t i ve l y and 1 b a l l o t was not returned.

Part I I presents for adoption the delet ion of Item 27 of NFPA 13 from the 1975 Technical Committee Reports.

Part I I has been submitted to l e t t e r b a l l o t of the committee which consists of 24 vot ing members, of whom 21 have voted a f f i r m a t i v e l y , 2 (Messrs. Henry and Wood) have voted negat ive ly , and 1 b a l l o t was not returned.

Part I I I presents fo r adoption the documentation of the committee's act ion on the publ ic comments and recommendations fo r NFPA 13D.

Part I I I has been submitted to l e t t e r b a l l o t of the committee which consists of 24 vot ing members, of whom 23 have voted a f f i r m a t i v e l y and 1 b a l l o t was not returned.

21

1 Submitter:

B. B. Aycock, Raleigh, North Carolina

Recommendation: I-7.3.1, I-7.3.2, I-7.3.3

PART I

2 S u b m i t t e r :

Donald W. Belles, Hendersonville, Tennessee

Recommendations: Table 2-2.1(B) - Fifth Note

End paragraphs I -7 .3 .1 , I -7 .3 .2 and I -7 .3 .3 wi th word "expected". Inser t remainder of paragraphs (edited) at end of next paragraph fo l low ing occupancy l i s t . C la r i f y scope of term "rack storage" based on whatever information was used by spr ink le r committee fo r inc lus ion in these groups.

The f i f t h note w i l l require f i re rated compart- mentation to just i fy an area of sprinkler opera- tion for calculated systems.

Calculations shall be based . . . . . room. Such a room shall be enclosed with partitions capable of retarding smoke and acting as a "draft stop".

Supporting Comment: Supporting Comment:

I t has always been my interpretation that the f i r s t sentence (or paragraph) of existing I-7.2.1, I-7.3.1, I-7.3.2, I-7.3.3 and I-7.4.1 broadly defined l ight , ordinary (Group l ) , ordinary (Group 2), ordinary (Group 3) and extra Hazard occupancies and that the second paragraph of each of these definitions provided only examples of the defined occupancies applicable under average or normal conditions, subject to modification for unusual conditions including provisions of I-7.5. F~r example, restaurant seating areas containing extensive highly combustible decorations would not be classed " l ight" . To depart from the format of the 1974 Standard appears to be a mistake.

The proposed change of wording in I-7.3.1, I-7.3.2 and I-7.3.3 makes the entire paragraph d i f f i cu l t to read and interpret and detracts from the i n i t i a l statement.

In addi t ion the use of the term "rack storage" wi thout ampl i f i ca t ion or d e f i n i t i o n is confusing.

Only the term "racks" is defined in NFPA 231C as "Any combination of vertical, horizontal and diagonal members that support stored materials. Some rack structures use solid shelves. Racks may be fixed or portable".

I t does not appear that the term "rack storage" as used in I -7 .3 .2 and I -7 .3 .3 is intended to encompass the f u l l range of rack conf igurat ions.

Committee Act ion:

Accepted

Committee Comment:

The Committee withdraws Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of i ts report for further study and development of a new recommendation.

The requirement as proposed at present, within the technical committee reports, requires f i re rated compartmentation to substantiate areas of sprinkler operation for calculated systems. The barriers w i l l not be threatened i f sprinklers respond as anticipated. I f sprinklers are not effective, barrier f i re resistance becomes important, however, not from the standpoint of sprinkler design. The requirements for f i re rated partitions are determined on the basis of need and usually specified by other sections of the Code. Further, the requirement for f i re rated construction appears to confl ict with other NFPA Standards. For example, NFPA #101, Chapter lO, permits the use of non-combustible, smoke retarding (non-fire rated) partitions within sprinklered hospitals and nursing homes.

Committee Action:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

The proposed change is essentially for c l a r i f i - cation of the existing (1974) provisions. This note merely provides for an alternate method of design in the event the designer wishes to u t i l i ze areas separated as indicated in l ieu of an area of sprinkler operation selected from the graph. The use of a design area of sprinkler operation less than 150O square feet requires these compensating structural features in the opinion of the committee. The committee also feels that the use of design areas of sprinkler operation less than 1500 square feet can only be just i f ied on the basis of permanent separations indicated.

3 Submitter"

W. M. Brenan, Livonia, Michigan

22

Recommendations: Table 3-1.1.1

Pr in t ing error of ANSI Standard.

Wrought Steel Pipe - ANSI B36.10-70a.

Supporting Comment:

Committee Comment:

The 1975 standards were not o f f i c i a l l y adopted standards at the time of th i s meeting. The 1974 standards are in the hands of the appropriate subcommittee fo r review. The content of any new standard which is referenced must be thoroughly reviewed before inc lus ion in the standard.

None.

Committee Act ion:

Accepted

Committee Comment:

The l i s t i n g is changed to Wrought Steel P ipe. . . ANSI B36.10-70.

5 Submitter:

John M. Foehl, Stamford, Connecticut

Recommendation: Table 3-12.1.1

The t i t l e of ANSI Standard B16.18-1972 is i n - correct as shown in the Table.

Change the Standard t i t l e to "Cast Bronze Solder- Jo in t Pressure F i t t i ngs "

4 Submitter: John M. Foehl, Stamford, Connecticut

Recommendation: Table 3-1.1.1

The year of issue shown for Standards ASTM B75, B88 and B251 are badly outdated. Current year of issue is 1974 with 1975 issues due in January.

Copper Tube (Drawn, Seamless)

Spec. For Seamless Copper Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM B74-75

Spec. For Seamless Copper Water Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM B88-75

Spec. For General Requirements fo r Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM B251-75

Supporting Comment:

The Secretary of the ASTM B-5 Committee indicates that 1975 ed i t ions of a l l three Standards are expected to be avai lab le in January 1975. Changes in the 1975 ed i t ions r e f l e c t upgrading of previous Standards in the areas of d e f i n i t i o n , chemical compositions, and non-destruct ive inspec- t ion.

Committee Acti on:

Rejected

23

Supporting Comment:

See attached copy of the referenced Standard.

Mr. Foehl i n J u d e d a copy of ANSI B16.18-1972, " C ~ t Bronze S o l d ~ J o i ~ P r ~ s u r e F i t t i n g s . ~'

Committee Act ion:

Accepted

6 Submitter: James N. MacDonald, Hart ford, Connecticut

Recommendation: 7-4.3.1, Exception No. 2

Reference to " . . . the hyd rau l i ca l l y most remote square." is too r e s t r i c t i v e .

"For gridded systems, the design area shal l be the hyd rau l i ca l l y most remote rectangle or square."

Supporting Comment:

(a) Depending on the branch l i ne design a square area of app l ica t ion may not be p rac t i ca l . This is shown in some of the examples given in Figure A-7-4.3.1. Branch l ines may be i ns ta l l ed on both sides of a gridded or looped main.

- T - n l - - - - i . . . . . . . " - " . . . . . . .

(b) I feel a rectangle w i l l be more remote h y d r a u l i c a l l y than a square.

Committee Act ion:

Accepted with modi f icat ion.

Revise to read: For gridded systems, the design area shall be the hydraulically most remote area which approaches a square.

Committee Comment:

Committee Act ion:

Accepted

Committee Comment:

Figure A-7-4.3.1 w i l l be revised to remove "(Exception 3)" from t i t l e under las t group of f igures (bottom of page AS-18). Examples are retained. ("PEP - Point of Equal Pressure" is also removed.)

A rectangle may be or iented with the long dimension perpendicular to branch l ines which could reduce hydraul ic demand.

7

Submitter:

Warren E. Lawrence, Boston, Massachusetts

Recommendation: 7-4.3.1, Exception No. 3

This exception is e i t he r a r e i t e ra t i on of the o r ig ina l statement and confusing or i t ca l l s fo r determining the area to be calculated based on the conf igurat ion of the looped cross mains wi thout regard fo r the size or arrangement of the branch l ines which, in many cases, would produce a design based on an area other than the hyd rau l i ca l l y most remote.

Recommend delet ion of exception No. 3, under paragraph 7-4.3.1.

Supporting Comment:

I f exception No. 3 is a r e i t e ra t i on or explana- t i on , i t should not be included in the main body of the standard. I f th is exception ca l l s fo r the calculated area to be determined so le ly on the conf igurat ion of the cross mains wi thout regard to the size or arrangement of the branch l i nes , the area chosen w i l l , in some instances of non-uniform branch l i ne conf igura t ions, not be the hydrau l i - ca l l y most remote, In the attached examples (Sheets I -6) area "A" would, using exception No. 3, be chosen as the calculated area, whi le area "B" is the hyd rau l i ca l l y most remote. The d i f ference in demands in th is example is only 55 g.p.m, and 2 p . s . i . , but could have been subs tan t i a l l y larger had there been a greater d i f ference in branch l i ne conf igura t ion.

With his recommendations, Mr. Lawrence submitted detai led H y ~ c Calculation Sheet~.

24

8 Submitter:

R. W. Cohrs, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Recommendation: 7-4.3.1.5

Spr inklers of d i f f e r e n t o r i f i c e sizes should be permitted in calculated systems. To p roh ib i t them w i l l increase the cost of systems which are already too high. There is no technical reason why they w i l l not funct ion as designed.

a. Changer"shall '' to "should"

b. Add: "Where a d i f f e r e n t size of sp r ink le r o r i f i c e is used, the tee in which i t is to be i ns ta l l ed shal l be color coded to a le r t i n s t a l l e r s and to avoid i n s t a l l a t i o n e r ro rs . "

Supporting Comment:

a. The use of various sp r ink le r o r i f i c e sizes is an engineering design funct ion and no code should forb id t h e i r use.

b. Substant ial monetary cost might be incurred where t h e i r use is forbidden. For example, large systems could use larger o r i f i ces on the remote por t ions, and the standard o r i f i c e size on the port ion closer to the water supply. The option should be l e f t to the design engineer. Our codes are too r e s t r i c t i v e and tend to produce "cook book engineers" instead of r ea l l y qua l i f i ed designers.

Committee Acti on:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

The committee feels random mixing of o r i f i ces in sp r ink le r systems may cause d i f f i c u l t i e s in assuring proper replacement as when spr ink lers are

changed. Note that the emphasis in 7-4.3.1.5 is on use of variable or i f ice sizes for hydraulic balancing. The standard does not preclude use of different or i f ice sizes in major system segments.

Committee Action:

Accepted. Item 42 of report (new A-7-4.3.2) is withdrawn.

9 Submitter:

B. B. Aycock, Raleigh, North Carolina

Recommendation: 7-4.3.2

Committee Comment:

I t is the feeling of the con~nittee that revision of 3-15.2.5 cannot be considered at this time as same was not a part of the Technical Committee Report. This item w i l l be considered by the committee at the time of the next revision.

(1) Add "and 3-15.2.5" at end of paragraph A-7-4.3.2.

(2) Revise 3-15.2.5 as follows: 3-15.2.5 For locations or conditions not requiring as much water as is discharged by a nominal I/2-inch or i f i ce sprinkler, sprinklers having a smaller or i f i ce may be used subject to the following restr ict ions:

(a) Small or i f ice sprinklers shall not be used on dry-pipe or pre-action systems.

(b) An approved strainer shall be provided in the riser or feed main which supplies sprinklers having ori f ices smaller than 3/8-inch.

(c) Only one or i f ice size automatic sprinkler identif ied by a pint le shall be used in any one building.

The above precautions are rather obvious and have been exercised in actual practice under old standards. FM l i s ts only 3/8-inch small or i f ice sprinklers. UL l i s ts do not now contain any precautionary notes with regard to use of small or i f ice sprinklers and l i s t s or i f ice sizes as small as I/4-inch.

The purpose of (a) and (b) above is to reduce possibi l i ty of stoppage. Para. (b) above is identical with 6-2.2 of NFPA 13 and consistent with NFPA 15. Para. (c) is to reduce error in replacement.

Note: I f not possible to consider revision of 3-15.2.5, please consider withdrawing A-7-4.3.2 unti l entire problem can be solved.

Supporting Comment:

A-7-4.3.2 appears to sanction the use of small orif ice sprinklers without adequate safeguards. Section 3-15.2 does not now contain adequate safe- guards against mis-use of small or i f ice sprinklers. 3-15.2.3 requires "types speci f ical ly approved for such use" which is wide open to interpretat ion. The 1972 edition in paragraph 3613 required that "the authority having jur isd ic t ion shall be con- sulted in every case". This was replaced by 3-15.2.3. Problems in this connection have been encountered in actual practice during 1974.

10

Submitter:

Andrew J. Myer, Hartford, Connecticut

Recommendation: A-7-4.3

The shaded calculated area of 1500 sq. f t . shown in Fig. A-7-4.3 (p. 408 of the TCR) is incorrect in that i t does not depict the most hydraul ical ly remote 1500 sq. f t . as specified in par. A-7-4.3. The hydraulic calculations shown (p's. 410&411 of the TCR) are likewise incorrect. Final ly, the sprinkler demand curve (p. 412) is also incorrect.

I t is recommended that the above four parts ent i t led "Fig. A-7-4.3" be corrected to ref lect the proper calculated area for this example.

Supporting Comment:

25

When a part ial branch l ine is to be calculated, i t is more hydraul ical ly remote to select the heads as close to the CM as possible. In situa- tions where BL's are center-fed from the CM (such as the examp, in the TCR), i t is more hydraulical ly remote to select heads on both sides of the CM. The result ing pressure demand at the CM using this method is lower than the pressure obtained using the method in the TCR. This results in a larger pressure d i f ferent ia l when pressures are equated (or in a larger "K factor"), and, therefore, a larger f ina l flow demand for the part ial BL. The attached examples demonstrate:

I . That the example used in the TCR does not use the most hydraul ical ly remote area of appli- cation; and

2. That the error introduced becomes more pronounced as the density, area, no. of heads per BL, etc. increase.

Al l the attachments are based on the sprinkler layout given on p. 408 of the TCR.

With hZ~ recommendations, Mr. Myer submitted detailed Hydraulic Calculation Sheets.

Committee Action: Committee Comment:

Accepted

Committee Comment:

This proposal is essentially the same as that proposed by Mr. Myer - see (A-7-4.3).

The hydraulic calculation shown on pages 410 & 411 and the curve shown on page 412 w i l l be revised.

11

Submitter:

Warren E. Lawrence, Boston, Massachusetts

Recommendation: A-7-4.3

A. The calculated area indicated on the sprinkler drawing and used as a basis for the calculation is not the hydraulically most remote.

B. The system demand curve on the hydraulic data sheet is not the characteristic curve#or the system.

Change the calculated area on the sample drawing as indicated on attached sheet No. 7. Replace steps on the calculation sheet with s imi lar ly numbered steps on attached calculation sheets Nos. 8 and 9. Change demand curve on hydraulic data sheet as indicated on sheet No. lO.

Supporting Comment:

12 Submitter:

D.H. Featherstonhaugh, Richmond H i l l , Ontario, Canada

Recommendation: Fig. A-7-4.3

System demand l ine starts at equivalent of static head at zero flow.

Revise demand l ine to start at stat ic head plus pressure demand at most remote sprinkler (6.5+13.6 = 20.I p .s . i . )

Supporting Comment:

The system demand l i ne obviously does not represent f low from one spr ink le r .

Committee Action:

This recommendation was withdrawn by the submitter.

A. Calculating the last branch l ine in i ts entirety and including the nearest heads on both sides of the cross main (see sheets Nos. 7-I0) or the two nearest heads on one side of the cross main (see Sheets II and 12) produces a s l ight ly increased flow rate and pressure requirement over the require- ments of the proposed example, thereby establishing these areas as hydraulically more remote.

B. The demand curve of a sprinkler system graphically depicts the relationship between pressure and flow for the system and is based only on the type and configuration of pipe and sprinkler heads and the area calculated, regardless of any arbitrary minimum water requirement.

With h~s recommendations, Mr. L~rence submit~ed detailed Hydraulic Calc~ation Sheet~.

Committee Action:

None

13

Submitter: James N. MacDonald, Hart ford, Connecticut

Recommendation: Figure A-7-4.3.1. (Exception 2)

Diagram shows square areas of application.

Extend branch lines to other side of looped or gridded cross mains and show rectangular or square area. See attached diagram.

Supporting Comment:

To be consistent with recommended change in Section 7-4.3.1. Exception 2.

With his recommendaJ~ions, Mr. MacDonald submitted a diagram.

26

Committee Act ion:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

The committee feels that the examples shown are adequate and that i t is not p rac t ica l to show examples of many conf igurat ions.

Part I I presents fo r adoption the delet ion of Item 27 of NFPA 13 from the 1975 Technical Committee Reports.

PART II

PART III

I S u b m i t t e r :

John Ed Ryan, HoHoKus, New Jersey

Recommendation: Ent ire Standard

We recognize the seriousness of the res iden t ia l f i re problem. At the same time, wi thout f u r the r time to study the proposal, i t appears that a great deal of mischief can be caused un in ten t i ona l l y by adopting th is proposal in May.

Hold standard fo r at least one year. At very least adopt only as ten ta t i ve un t i l f u l l impact of i t s provisions can be assessed.

Supporting Comment:

Sprinklers, to date have a very good record in both l i f e and property hazard. However, most of th is experience has been in bu i ld ings used fo r other than res ident ia l occupancy. Therefore, we have strong reservations that the cost of such systems in one - and two- fami ly dwel l ings and mobile homes can necessari ly be j u s t i f i e d i f more certain and less expensive protect ion can be provided by other f i r e protect ion pract ices, such as i ns ta l l a t i on of smoke detectors.

The greatest social need in th is country today is for more adequate housing. I t is estimated that at least twice again the present ava i lab le housing is going to be needed before 1980, most of i t by 1973 which is long gone.

Therefore, i t is of great importance that a l l aspects of a regulat ion be appraised before i t is issued. Adoption of th is standard wi thout f u r the r

study only i nv i tes i r responsib le enactment of l e g i s l a t i o n which does more harm than good.

We st rongly urge therefore, that th is standard be held in abeyance u n t i l a f u l l study can be made.

Committee Act ion:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

Cost and p r a c t i c a l i t y of i n s t a l l a t i o n were major considerat ions in development of th is standard. I t is f e l t by the committee that the publ ic is bet ter served by pub l ica t ion and use of th is standard than by fu r the r delay. This standard f i l l s a present ly ex i s t i ng void wi th regard to th i s type of occupancy.

2

S u b m i t t e r :

A1 T r e l l i s , National Associat ion of Home Bui lders, Washington, D.C.

Recommendation:

Delete Preface.

27

Supporting Comment: Committee Comment:

The wording of the preface is not re levant to standard, and, as we have previously states, implies that spr ink lers are necessary in residences to reduce f i r e f a t a l i t i e s . This wording should be deleted.

Committee Action:

The essence of the en t i re standard, as expressed in A - I - I , indicates i t is appl icable to a l l one- and two-fami ly dwel l ings where the nature of the f i r e load is reasonably uniform and consistent wi th usage and where rooms normally occur as small compartments.

Accepted

Committee Comment:

Material is to be contained in the "o r ig in and development" section of the standard in accordance with the NFPA Manual of Sty le.

4 Submit ter :

Al T r e l l i s , National Associat ion of Home Bui lders, Washington, D.C.

Recommendation: 2 - I , 2-2

3 Submit ter :

Horatio Bond, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts

Recommendation: I - I . I

The wording leaves an impression that th is proposed standard should be fol lowed in any dwel l ing so le ly on the c r i t e r i o n that i t is occupied by e i t he r one or two fami l ies .

Add another sentence to I - I . I to read, "Automatic sp r ink le r systems for dwel l ing un i ts , any f l o o r of which exceeds l,O00 square feet , shal l comply wi th Standard fo r I n s t a l l a t i o n of Automatic Spr ink lers , NFPA No. 13."

Supporting Comment:

I am sure the Committee does not intend that th is proposed standard should be applied to one- and two-story dwel l ings regardless of s ize. I am sure tha t some members of the Committee occupy dwell ings on a one-family basis which are too large to be protected by the requirements of th is proposed standard. Those who l i ve in small dwell ings undoubtedly have f r iends who l i v e in large one-family dwel l ings, some approaching the size of a country club bu i ld ing . I know cer ta in do-gooders who w i l l argue that no one should l i v e in large dwel l ings, but the standard should recognize that many persons, f o r tuna te l y , s t i l l do.

Revise to read:

2-I General Provisions

2- I .1 Every automatic sp r ink le r system shal l have at least one automatic water supply. When the water supply is not d i rec t from c i t y w a t e r mains the minimum stored quant i ty shal l be 250 gal lons.

Supporting Comment:

Section 2-I General Provisions and Section 2-2 Water Supply appear to be in c o n f l i c t wi th each other. I f water connections from c i t y water mains are an acceptable water supply source then must there be a minimum stored water quant i ty of 250 gallons?

Committee Action:

Accepted with modi f icat ion.

Revise second sentence of 2-1.1 to read: "When stored water is used as the sole source of supply, the minimum quant i ty shal l be 250 ga l lons . "

Committee Comment:

Committee feels the above c l a r i f i e s in ten t .

Committee Act ion:

Rejected

5 Submit ter :

Horatio Bond, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts

28

Recommendation: 2-2, Figs. A-2-2.1 and A-2-2.2

The requirements ignore the poss ib i l i ty that a f ire department might be able to use the sprinkler system in f ight ing a f i re and in supplementing the water supply both as to amount and duration.

Amend Subsection 2-2.1.I to read, "A rubber faced check valve shall be instal led on the dis- charge side of the control valve and in the l ine from the f i re department connection."

Add a Section 2-2.4 to read, "A connection through which a f i re department can pump water into the sprinkler system shall be provided. I t shall consist of a pipe, at least as large as the system supply pipe, connected thereto between the the check valve and the system, and extended to a f ire department female hose coupling l I/2 inches, or a standard 2 I/2-inch f i re department connection coupling may be used. The hose coupling shall be on the outside of the building and be provided with a cap and ident i fy ing sign."

Amend Appendix A, Figs. A-2-2.1 and A-2-2.2, to show the f i re department connection between the check valve and the water flow indicator.

Recommendation: Table 3-I.5.1

Standard l is ted for wrought steel pipe is in- correct.

Wrought Steel Pipe...ANSI B36.1O-70a.

Supporting Comment:

None.

Committee Action:

Accepted

Committee Comment:

The l i s t i ng is changed to Wrought Steel Pipe... ANSI B36.10-70.

Supporting Comment:

I t is not very practical to provide a sprinkler system for f i re f ight ing and not give a f i re department some way to use i t . I t is a demonstra- ble fact that a lot of dwellings are located in communities where the f i r s t f i re department pumper to arrive at the f i re w i l l often be manned by only one man or by no more than two.

Committee Action:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

The committee did not require a f i re department connection since our primary emphasis was on l i f e safety with secondary emphasis on property protec- tion. While the standard does not prohibi t a f i re department pumper connection, i t should be noted that the sprinkler system is intended to operate

a t common domestic water pressures and that f i re department operational pressures may cause damage to installed piping. Further, we doubt that the f i re department in most dwelling f i res would depend on a f i re department connection when quick access and rapid use of hose l ines may often accomplish fast extinguishment.

6

Submitter:

W. M. Brenan, Livonia, Michigan

7 Submitter:

John M. Foehl, Stamford, Connecticut

Recommendation: Table 3-I.5.1

The year of issue shown for Standards ASTM B75, B88 and B251 are badly outdated. Current year of issue is 1974 with 1975 issues due in January.

Copper Tube (Drawn, Seamless)

Spec. For Seamless Copper Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM B74-75

Spec. For Seamless Copper Water Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM B88-75

Spec. For General Requirements For Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM B251-75

Supporting Comment:

The Secretary of the ASTM B-5 Committee indicates that 1975 editions of a l l three Standards are expected to be available in January 1975. Changes in the 1975 editions ref lect upgrading of previous Standards in the areas of def in i t ion, chemical compositions, and non-destructive inspection.

Committee Action:

Rejected

29

I

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i - - ' I ~ " T T I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' a ....

I Committee Comment: Supporting Comment:

The 1975 standards were not o f f i c i a l l y adopted standards at the time of this meeting. The 1974 standards are in the hands of the appropriate sub- committee for review. The content of any new standard which is referenced must be thoroughly reviewed before inclusion in the standard.

See attached copy of the referenced Standard.

Mr. Foehl included a copy of ANSI B16.18-1972, "Cast Bronze Solder Jo in t Pressure F i t t i n g s . "

Committee Action:

8 Submitter:

Al Tre l l i s , National Association of Home Builders, Washington, D.C.

Recommendation: Table 3-I.5.1

Accepted

10

Submitter:

Horatio Bond, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts

Add plast ic piping to Table.

Supporting Comment:

Table 3-I.5.1 The exclusion of plast ic piping from this table is discriminatory.

Committee Action:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

No test data has been submitted to this committee on which to base a recommendation for use of plast ic pipe in these sprinkler systems. We call attention of the submitter of this proposed change to paragraph 3-1.5.4 which provides the means for proper development of such data for use of piping made of any material.

9 Submitter:

John M. Foehl, Stamford, Connecticut

Recommendation: Table 3-I.5.7

The t i t l e of ANSI Standard B16.18-1972 is incorrect as shown in the Table.

Change the Standard t i t l e to "Cast Bronze Solder-Joint Pressure Fit t ings"

Recommendation: 3-3.3, Figs. C-3, C-4, C-5, C-9, C-lO, and C-ll

Stat ist ics show closets as spaces with a low percentage as a place of f i re or igin. I question that reporting practices are good enough to be sure that closets were always ident i f ied separately from an adjoining room or space. Considering that protection is based on operation of one sprinkler, a l l spaces should be covered. I t is some kind of Russian Roulette to offer the hope of some kind of protection with possible ommission of sprinklers from spaces such as closets and others that could amount to 15 to 20 percent of the tota l .

Add a sentence to the stated Exception to Section 3-3.3, to read, "In other systems, sprink- lers with or i f ices smaller than I/2-inch may be used in bathrooms not exceeding 40 square feet and small closets or foyers where the least dimension does not exceed 3 feet and the area does not exceed 24 square feet."

Change the following captions in Appendix C to read:

"Figure C-3. Insta l l small or i f ice sprinklers in three closets. Disregard these lines and sprinklers in calculations, Figure C-5."

"Figure C-4. Insta l l small or i f ice sprinklers in three closets. Disregard these lines and sprinklers in calculations, Figure C-5."

"Figure C-9. Insta l l small or i f ice sprinkler in lavatory closet. Disregard this l ine and sprinkler in calculations, Figure C- l l . "

"Figure C-lO. Insta l l small o r i f i ce sprinklers in f ive closets and lavatory. Disregard these lines and sprinklers in calculations, Figure C-If."

Captions Figures C-5 and C-I I , add the following statement: "Disregard small or i f ice sprinklers and the lines serving them."

30

Supporting Conlnent:

Very short lengths of additional pipe to serve sprinklers in closets and similar spaces and only a few heads would be required.

Committee Acti on:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

The Committee feels that the provisions of A-l-l and A- l - l .1 adequately cover this subject.

11 Submitter:

Al Trel l is , National Association of Home Builders, Washington, D. C.

Recommendation: 3-3.4

Exception No. 3: Sprinklers may be omitted from epeB attached porches, carports, garages and similar ~hea~ed attached epeB structures.

Supporting Comment:

Since the requirements of this standard are based on the stat is t ics l is ted in Table A - l - l . . (a) we see no jus t i f i ca t ion in requiring garages to be sprinklered when closets, bathrooms and att ics are listed as exceptions. According to Table A - l - l . l (a) only 1.6% of the f i res occur in garages while 2.4% occur in closets and in att ics and 1.9% occur in bathrooms. Addit ional ly, the wall between the house and garages is already required by building codes to be f i re rated. With respect to porches, why are only open porches and open attached structures an exception?

Committee Action:

fact that we have not suggested omission of sprinklers in a l l closets, bathrooms or att ics but only closets and bathrooms of small size and unused at t ics.

12 Submitter:

Horatio Bond, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts

Recommendation: 3-3.4.1

Considering that protection is based on operation of one sprinkler, a l l spaces should be covered. Otherwise you have a Russian Roulette si tuat ion. What is meant by "open" attached structures could be interpreted too l i be ra l l y unless these are defined better.

Replace the f ive exceptions with a single one, reading, "Exception: Sprinklers may be omitted from attached porches, carports and similar attached structures provided they do not include concealed spaces which are par t ia l l y or to ta l l y enclosed so that f i re f ighters would be delayed in reachingsuch spaces with hose streams."

Supporting Comment:

Unless a l l spaces are protected with sprinklers, no one can be assured that the contemplated system, in fact, w i l l actually put out a f i r e and thus contribute to saving l i f e or property. In any dwelling occupancy, i ts ab i l i t y to put out a f i re is sub-marginal to the extent that there are spaces without sprinklers. With al l spaces covered by sprinklers, i t appears to have the ab i l i t y to put out a f i r e in the smallest dwelllngs such as mobile homes, but this ab i l i t y is marginal at best for other dwellings.

Committee Action:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

Rejected

Committee Comment:

See 3-3.4 submitted by Mr. T re l l i s on same subject.

The committee, in deciding on the exceptions to 3-3.4.1, depended on the s ta t is t ics of Tables A- l - l . l (a) and A - l - l . l ( b ) , an analysis of the degree of hazard in these areas, the contribution of f i res originating in these areas to f a ta l i t i es , and cost factors to achieve an adequate inexpensive dwelling system. In this regard, we call attention to the

31