Uprights on 3" pipe

[Travis Mack]

In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?

I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.

I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.

There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.

What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.

Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.


Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

[Brad Casterline]

Could you raise the pipe a few inches and use pend, or would pend work at
the elev. you are?

E=mc^2
On Jan 13, 2017 5:25 PM, "Travis Mack" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:

> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights
> directly on a 3" main?
>
> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>
> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
> comply with the 3x rule.
>
> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
> movement for various other reasons.
>
> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need
> formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>
> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-
> LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>

[Hinson, Ryan]

You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that? If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \ M 320-250-5404 \ F 952-229-2923
***@burnsmcd.com \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/>
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe

In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?

I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.

I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.

There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.

What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.

Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

[Travis Mack]

Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules. 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent would be about 24" below deck.

I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over as well.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan <***@burnsmcd.com> wrote:
>
> You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that? If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.
>
> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
> O 952-656-3662 \ M 320-250-5404 \ F 952-229-2923
> ***@burnsmcd.com \ burnsmcd.com
> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
> *Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>
> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?
>
> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>
> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.
>
> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.
>
> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>
> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Mark Phillips]

Is it an XL Gaps or FM job?


Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
On Jan 13, 2017 7:04 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules. 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent would be about 24" below deck.

I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over as well.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan <***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com>> wrote:

You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that? If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.

Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
O 952-656-3662 \ M 320-250-5404 \ F 952-229-2923
***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com> \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/>
8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
*Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
**NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe

In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?

I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.

I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.

There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.

What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.

Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

[Travis Mack]

No. It is a state government project.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mark Phillips <***@webolton.com> wrote:
>
> Is it an XL Gaps or FM job?
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On Jan 13, 2017 7:04 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
> Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules. 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent would be about 24" below deck.
>
> I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over as well.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan <***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com>> wrote:
>
> You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that? If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.
>
> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
> O 952-656-3662 \ M 320-250-5404 \ F 952-229-2923
> ***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com> \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/>
> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
> *Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>
> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?
>
> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>
> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.
>
> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.
>
> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>
> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Brad Casterline]

You mentioned the rule for no upright directly on 3". I am probably way
behind the times but that rule first came about for Large Drop sprinklers.
Does it apply to SSU in LH and OH now?

m=E/c^2
.
On Jan 13, 2017 6:18 PM, "Travis Mack" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:

> No. It is a state government project.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-
> LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mark Phillips <***@webolton.com>
> wrote:
>
> Is it an XL Gaps or FM job?
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
> On Jan 13, 2017 7:04 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
> Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules.
> 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent
> would be about 24" below deck.
>
> I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about
> this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over
> as well.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/
> 92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan <***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:
> ***@burnsmcd.com <***@burnsmcd.com>>> wrote:
>
> You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it
> and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any
> reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that?
> If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or
> exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.
>
> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
> O 952-656-3662 <(952)%20656-3662> \ M 320-250-5404 <(320)%20250-5404> \
> F 952-229-2923 <(952)%20229-2923>
> ***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com <***@burnsmcd.com>>
> \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/>
> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
> *Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.
> org <sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>] On Behalf Of Travis
> Mack
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.
> firesprinkler.org <***@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
> Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>
> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights
> directly on a 3" main?
>
> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>
> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
> comply with the 3x rule.
>
> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
> movement for various other reasons.
>
> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need
> formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>
> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/
> 92218417692
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.
> firesprinkler.org <***@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>

[rongreenman .]

I think u]you are stuck with the rule and your best solution is arm overs
that also meet the 3x rule.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Brad Casterline <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You mentioned the rule for no upright directly on 3". I am probably way
> behind the times but that rule first came about for Large Drop sprinklers.
> Does it apply to SSU in LH and OH now?
>
> m=E/c^2
> .
> On Jan 13, 2017 6:18 PM, "Travis Mack" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>
>> No. It is a state government project.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/
>> 92218417692
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mark Phillips <***@webolton.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is it an XL Gaps or FM job?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
>> On Jan 13, 2017 7:04 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>> Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules.
>> 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent
>> would be about 24" below deck.
>>
>> I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about
>> this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over
>> as well.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages
>> /MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan <***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:r
>> ***@burnsmcd.com <***@burnsmcd.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it
>> and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any
>> reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that?
>> If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or
>> exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.
>>
>> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
>> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
>> O 952-656-3662 <(952)%20656-3662> \ M 320-250-5404 <(320)%20250-5404>
>> \ F 952-229-2923 <(952)%20229-2923>
>> ***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com <***@burnsmcd.com>>
>> \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/>
>> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
>> *Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
>> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>>
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
>> On Behalf Of Travis Mack
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>> To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org <***@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
>> Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>>
>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights
>> directly on a 3" main?
>>
>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
>> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>
>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
>> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
>> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
>> comply with the 3x rule.
>>
>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
>> movement for various other reasons.
>>
>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't
>> need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>
>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages
>> /MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:Sprinklerforum
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org <***@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>


--
Ron Greenman

***@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)

[Travis Mack]

That is what I figured. I just wanted a second opinion.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 6:01 PM, rongreenman . <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think u]you are stuck with the rule and your best solution is arm overs that also meet the 3x rule.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Brad Casterline <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You mentioned the rule for no upright directly on 3". I am probably way behind the times but that rule first came about for Large Drop sprinklers. Does it apply to SSU in LH and OH now?
>>
>> m=E/c^2
>> .
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2017 6:18 PM, "Travis Mack" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>>> No. It is a state government project.
>>>
>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Mark Phillips <***@webolton.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is it an XL Gaps or FM job?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
>>>> On Jan 13, 2017 7:04 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>>>> Beam depth keeps me from going up. Already using obstructed beam rules. 18" beams. If pipe tight to beam then bottom of pipe is 21.5" and a pendent would be about 24" below deck.
>>>>
>>>> I think they need sprigs or arm overs. But before I raise issues about this I wanted to be sure others thought it had to have sprigs or arm over as well.
>>>>
>>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hinson, Ryan <***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You did not say you could not raise the 3” pipe. Couldn’t you raise it and put pendants in? Since the piping is obviously exposed, is there any reason you can’t comply with deflector-to-deck distances if you do that? If the pendants extending below the piping is a height or exposure-to-mechanical-damage issue, install a listed headguard on it.
>>>>
>>>> Ryan L. Hinson, PE*, SET** \ Burns & McDonnell
>>>> Senior Fire Protection Engineer
>>>> O 952-656-3662 \ M 320-250-5404 \ F 952-229-2923
>>>> ***@burnsmcd.com<mailto:***@burnsmcd.com> \ burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/>
>>>> 8201 Norman Center Drive, Suite 300 \ Bloomington, MN 55437
>>>> *Registered in: MN, PA, & TX
>>>> **NICET IV - Water-Based Systems Layout
>>>>
>>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>> To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>>> Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>>>>
>>>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?
>>>>
>>>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>>>
>>>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.
>>>>
>>>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.
>>>>
>>>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>>>
>>>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Greenman
>
> ***@gmail.com
>
> 253.576.9700
>
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Mark Phillips]

I would have to put them on sprigs

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
On Jan 13, 2017 6:25 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?

I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.

I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.

There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.

What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.

Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.


Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

[Ed Kramer]

Travis,



As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to know and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not the designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this project, I’d argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated to notify the company you’re contracted with about this design flaw. Make sure you put it in writing. If the powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly on the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in writing) and sleep well at night.



But that’s just me.

Ed Kramer

Bamford Fire Sprinkler



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe



In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?



I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.



I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.



There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.



What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.



Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

"Follow" us on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to MFP Design via:

https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign



Sent from my iPhone

[Travis Mack, SET]

Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry (and I believe
most are like this) that truly love what we do and view it as a life
saving endeavor every day want to always do the best possible thing and
fix every problem that is found so that the project goes on with limited
hiccups and we all move on to the next project so we can protect more lives.

I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it meet NFPA 13
critieria, coordinating and re-calculating the project to make sure that
at the end of the day, should something happen, the required amount of
wet stuff will get on the hot stuff. My customer and their customer can
decide how they want to handle the re-submittal and extra time/schedule
impact that will possibly happen.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: [phone]
email:***@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>
> Travis,
>
> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to
> know and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not
> the designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this
> project, I’d argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally)
> obligated to notify the company you’re contracted with about this
> design flaw. Make sure you put it in writing. If the powers-that-be
> determine it’s OK to install directly on the 3” main, well – that’s
> beyond your control. Notify them (in writing) and sleep well at night.
>
> But that’s just me.
>
> Ed Kramer
>
> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>
> *From:*Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Travis Mack
> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> *To:* ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Uprights on 3" pipe
>
> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify
> uprights directly on a 3" main?
>
> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>
> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a
> light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you
> can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over
> that would comply with the 3x rule.
>
> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from
> lateral movement for various other reasons.
>
> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't
> need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>
> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> "Follow" us on Facebook:
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Brad Casterline]

Well said Mr. Mack!

Since you will be fixing The Consultant's effort I predict you will resize
the branchlines to 2.5", max, so the problem goes away.
This should be easy in LH and OH, as you know, because it is a simple
matter of a 1" sprig or arm over from a 3" branchline versus an SSU
directly on a 2.5" branchline.

WBR,
2+2=4
.
On Jan 13, 2017 9:26 PM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:

> Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry (and I believe most
> are like this) that truly love what we do and view it as a life saving
> endeavor every day want to always do the best possible thing and fix every
> problem that is found so that the project goes on with limited hiccups and
> we all move on to the next project so we can protect more lives.
>
> I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it meet NFPA 13
> critieria, coordinating and re-calculating the project to make sure that at
> the end of the day, should something happen, the required amount of wet
> stuff will get on the hot stuff. My customer and their customer can decide
> how they want to handle the re-submittal and extra time/schedule impact
> that will possibly happen.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
> fax: [phone] <(866)%20430-6107>email:***@mfpdesign.com
> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>
> Travis,
>
>
>
> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to know
> and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not the
> designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this project, I’d
> argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated to notify the
> company you’re contracted with about this design flaw. Make sure you put
> it in writing. If the powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly
> on the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in
> writing) and sleep well at night.
>
>
>
> But that’s just me.
>
> Ed Kramer
>
> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.
> org <sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>] *On Behalf Of *Travis
> Mack
> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> *To:* ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Uprights on 3" pipe
>
>
>
> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights
> directly on a 3" main?
>
>
>
> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>
>
>
> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
> comply with the 3x rule.
>
>
>
> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
> movement for various other reasons.
>
>
>
> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need
> formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>
>
>
> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> MFP Design, LLC
>
> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-
> LLC/92218417692
>
> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>
> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing ***@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>

[Travis Mack, SET]

Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to downsize the piping. It
will be a matter of reworking the existing pipe sizing. This consultant
took the easy way out and didn't really pay attention to many things.
The job has over 100 psi available. They have 2" branch lines and 3"
mains for everything. I can not decrease sizing at all. I just have to
make sure that the new routings I have to do with the pipe sizing per
their plan is still capable of delivering the minimum required densities.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: [phone]
email:***@mfpdesign.com

http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack

On 1/14/2017 9:46 AM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>
> Well said Mr. Mack!
>
> Since you will be fixing The Consultant's effort I predict you will
> resize the branchlines to 2.5", max, so the problem goes away.
> This should be easy in LH and OH, as you know, because it is a simple
> matter of a 1" sprig or arm over from a 3" branchline versus an SSU
> directly on a 2.5" branchline.
>
> WBR,
> 2+2=4
> .
>
> On Jan 13, 2017 9:26 PM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com
> <mailto:***@mfpdesign.com>> wrote:
>
> Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry (and I
> believe most are like this) that truly love what we do and view it
> as a life saving endeavor every day want to always do the best
> possible thing and fix every problem that is found so that the
> project goes on with limited hiccups and we all move on to the
> next project so we can protect more lives.
>
> I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it meet NFPA
> 13 critieria, coordinating and re-calculating the project to make
> sure that at the end of the day, should something happen, the
> required amount of wet stuff will get on the hot stuff. My
> customer and their customer can decide how they want to handle the
> re-submittal and extra time/schedule impact that will possibly happen.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 <tel:%28480%29%20505-9271>
> fax:[phone] <tel:%28866%29%20430-6107>
> email:***@mfpdesign.com <mailto:email:***@mfpdesign.com>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692>
> Send large files to us via:https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign>
> LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack>
>
> On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>>
>> Travis,
>>
>> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected
>> to know and abide by the standards. However, in this case,
>> you’re not the designer. Since you have a contractual connection
>> to this project, I’d argue you’re morally (and to a less extent
>> legally) obligated to notify the company you’re contracted with
>> about this design flaw. Make sure you put it in writing. If the
>> powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly on the 3”
>> main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in
>> writing) and sleep well at night.
>>
>> But that’s just me.
>>
>> Ed Kramer
>>
>> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>>
>> *From:*Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Travis Mack *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>> *To:* ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org> *Subject:*
>> Uprights on 3" pipe
>>
>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify
>> uprights directly on a 3" main?
>>
>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed
>> by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on
>> the 3" main.
>>
>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a
>> light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states
>> you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or
>> arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.
>>
>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from
>> lateral movement for various other reasons.
>>
>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I
>> don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to
>> figure this out.
>>
>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>>
>> MFP Design, LLC
>>
>> "Follow" us on Facebook:
>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692>
>>
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> <https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum
> mailing list ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Brad Casterline]

It sounds like a good challenge Travis, and congratulations for getting the
contract-- the self employed designer who turns down any work has never
lacked for beer and cigarette money.
And typical of goverment work, there are the doers vs the reviewers, and
every which way the doers turn they are screwed by an inch or two.
When the Corp of Eng is the AHJ though I have had good luck with the field
people- they seem to know when you have gotten as close to the intent as
reality allows-- ie, instead of deflector distance they look at 'bulb'
distance- within an inch or two, and rightly so.

We NICET IVs who can design, calc, bim coordinate, and stocklist are often
the saviours of projects that would otherwise be a total cluster without us.

Brad
On Jan 14, 2017 10:56 AM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to downsize the piping. It will
> be a matter of reworking the existing pipe sizing. This consultant took
> the easy way out and didn't really pay attention to many things. The job
> has over 100 psi available. They have 2" branch lines and 3" mains for
> everything. I can not decrease sizing at all. I just have to make sure
> that the new routings I have to do with the pipe sizing per their plan is
> still capable of delivering the minimum required densities.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
> fax: [phone] <(866)%20430-6107>email:***@mfpdesign.com
> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>
> On 1/14/2017 9:46 AM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>
> Well said Mr. Mack!
>
> Since you will be fixing The Consultant's effort I predict you will resize
> the branchlines to 2.5", max, so the problem goes away.
> This should be easy in LH and OH, as you know, because it is a simple
> matter of a 1" sprig or arm over from a 3" branchline versus an SSU
> directly on a 2.5" branchline.
>
> WBR,
> 2+2=4
> .
> On Jan 13, 2017 9:26 PM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry (and I believe most
>> are like this) that truly love what we do and view it as a life saving
>> endeavor every day want to always do the best possible thing and fix every
>> problem that is found so that the project goes on with limited hiccups and
>> we all move on to the next project so we can protect more lives.
>>
>> I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it meet NFPA 13
>> critieria, coordinating and re-calculating the project to make sure that at
>> the end of the day, should something happen, the required amount of wet
>> stuff will get on the hot stuff. My customer and their customer can decide
>> how they want to handle the re-submittal and extra time/schedule impact
>> that will possibly happen.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <%28480%29%20505-9271>
>> fax: [phone] <%28866%29%20430-6107>email:***@mfpdesign.com
>> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>>
>> On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>>
>> Travis,
>>
>>
>>
>> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to know
>> and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not the
>> designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this project, I’d
>> argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated to notify the
>> company you’re contracted with about this design flaw. Make sure you put
>> it in writing. If the powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly
>> on the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in
>> writing) and sleep well at night.
>>
>>
>>
>> But that’s just me.
>>
>> Ed Kramer
>>
>> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Travis Mack *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM *To:*
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org *Subject:* Uprights on 3" pipe
>>
>>
>>
>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights
>> directly on a 3" main?
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
>> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
>> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
>> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
>> comply with the 3x rule.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
>> movement for various other reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't
>> need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>>
>> MFP Design, LLC
>>
>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/
>> 92218417692
>>
>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>
>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing ***@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing
>> list ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing ***@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>

[Greg McGahan]

Travis,

In one of the classes I have taken - I cannot remember when or where - the
instructor was on the NFPA #13 committee and he implicitly said that the
verbiage was intended for "nominal" pipe size - not actual measurement. I
have NOT heard anything since to collaborate this comment.




Greg McGahan
Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com>
1160 McKenzie Road
Cantonment, FL 32533
850-937-1850
fax [phone]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Brad Casterline <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It sounds like a good challenge Travis, and congratulations for getting
> the contract-- the self employed designer who turns down any work has never
> lacked for beer and cigarette money.
> And typical of goverment work, there are the doers vs the reviewers, and
> every which way the doers turn they are screwed by an inch or two.
> When the Corp of Eng is the AHJ though I have had good luck with the field
> people- they seem to know when you have gotten as close to the intent as
> reality allows-- ie, instead of deflector distance they look at 'bulb'
> distance- within an inch or two, and rightly so.
>
> We NICET IVs who can design, calc, bim coordinate, and stocklist are often
> the saviours of projects that would otherwise be a total cluster without us.
>
> Brad
> On Jan 14, 2017 10:56 AM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to downsize the piping. It
>> will be a matter of reworking the existing pipe sizing. This consultant
>> took the easy way out and didn't really pay attention to many things. The
>> job has over 100 psi available. They have 2" branch lines and 3" mains for
>> everything. I can not decrease sizing at all. I just have to make sure
>> that the new routings I have to do with the pipe sizing per their plan is
>> still capable of delivering the minimum required densities.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271>
>> fax: [phone] <(866)%20430-6107>email:***@mfpdesign.com
>> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>>
>> On 1/14/2017 9:46 AM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>>
>> Well said Mr. Mack!
>>
>> Since you will be fixing The Consultant's effort I predict you will
>> resize the branchlines to 2.5", max, so the problem goes away.
>> This should be easy in LH and OH, as you know, because it is a simple
>> matter of a 1" sprig or arm over from a 3" branchline versus an SSU
>> directly on a 2.5" branchline.
>>
>> WBR,
>> 2+2=4
>> .
>> On Jan 13, 2017 9:26 PM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry (and I believe
>>> most are like this) that truly love what we do and view it as a life saving
>>> endeavor every day want to always do the best possible thing and fix every
>>> problem that is found so that the project goes on with limited hiccups and
>>> we all move on to the next project so we can protect more lives.
>>>
>>> I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it meet NFPA 13
>>> critieria, coordinating and re-calculating the project to make sure that at
>>> the end of the day, should something happen, the required amount of wet
>>> stuff will get on the hot stuff. My customer and their customer can decide
>>> how they want to handle the re-submittal and extra time/schedule impact
>>> that will possibly happen.
>>>
>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <%28480%29%20505-9271>
>>> fax: [phone] <%28866%29%20430-6107>email:***@mfpdesign.com
>>> http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>>>
>>> On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>>>
>>> Travis,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to
>>> know and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not the
>>> designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this project, I’d
>>> argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated to notify the
>>> company you’re contracted with about this design flaw. Make sure you put
>>> it in writing. If the powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly
>>> on the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in
>>> writing) and sleep well at night.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that’s just me.
>>>
>>> Ed Kramer
>>>
>>> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>>> @lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> <sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>] *On Behalf Of *Travis
>>> Mack *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM *To:*
>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org *Subject:* Uprights on 3" pipe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify
>>> uprights directly on a 3" main?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a
>>> consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light
>>> hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put
>>> uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would
>>> comply with the 3x rule.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral
>>> movement for various other reasons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't
>>> need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>>
>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>>
>>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook
>>> .com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>>
>>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>>
>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing ***@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing
>>> list ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f
>>> iresprinkler.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing ***@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>

[Travis Mack]

Yes. It is nominal pipe sizing. But on the project the all knowing PE designed a system with SSUs directly on top of the 3" mains. He did not account for sprigs or arm overs.

Either that, or he did intend for those and then didn't account for any structural beams that would block spray. Let's just say this PE must not have had a good day on this project :-)

I will get it fixed. I just wanted to confirm that I couldn't use the "structural members only" exclusion for this. It seems the general consensus is that it needs arm overs or sprigs. No exceptions.

Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to MFP Design via:
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Greg McGahan <***@livingwaterfp.com> wrote:
>
> Travis,
>
> In one of the classes I have taken - I cannot remember when or where - the instructor was on the NFPA #13 committee and he implicitly said that the verbiage was intended for "nominal" pipe size - not actual measurement. I have NOT heard anything since to collaborate this comment.
>
>
>
>
> Greg McGahan
> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC
> 1160 McKenzie Road
> Cantonment, FL 32533
> 850-937-1850
> fax [phone]
>
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Brad Casterline <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It sounds like a good challenge Travis, and congratulations for getting the contract-- the self employed designer who turns down any work has never lacked for beer and cigarette money.
>> And typical of goverment work, there are the doers vs the reviewers, and every which way the doers turn they are screwed by an inch or two.
>> When the Corp of Eng is the AHJ though I have had good luck with the field people- they seem to know when you have gotten as close to the intent as reality allows-- ie, instead of deflector distance they look at 'bulb' distance- within an inch or two, and rightly so.
>>
>> We NICET IVs who can design, calc, bim coordinate, and stocklist are often the saviours of projects that would otherwise be a total cluster without us.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2017 10:56 AM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to downsize the piping. It will be a matter of reworking the existing pipe sizing. This consultant took the easy way out and didn't really pay attention to many things. The job has over 100 psi available. They have 2" branch lines and 3" mains for everything. I can not decrease sizing at all. I just have to make sure that the new routings I have to do with the pipe sizing per their plan is still capable of delivering the minimum required densities.
>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>>> 480-505-9271
>>> fax: [phone]
>>> email:***@mfpdesign.com
>>>
>>> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>>>> On 1/14/2017 9:46 AM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>>>> Well said Mr. Mack!
>>>>
>>>> Since you will be fixing The Consultant's effort I predict you will resize the branchlines to 2.5", max, so the problem goes away.
>>>> This should be easy in LH and OH, as you know, because it is a simple matter of a 1" sprig or arm over from a 3" branchline versus an SSU directly on a 2.5" branchline.
>>>>
>>>> WBR,
>>>> 2+2=4
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 2017 9:26 PM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry (and I believe most are like this) that truly love what we do and view it as a life saving endeavor every day want to always do the best possible thing and fix every problem that is found so that the project goes on with limited hiccups and we all move on to the next project so we can protect more lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it meet NFPA 13 critieria, coordinating and re-calculating the project to make sure that at the end of the day, should something happen, the required amount of wet stuff will get on the hot stuff. My customer and their customer can decide how they want to handle the re-submittal and extra time/schedule impact that will possibly happen.
>>>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>>>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>>>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>>>>> 480-505-9271
>>>>> fax: [phone]
>>>>> email:***@mfpdesign.com
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>>>> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>>>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>>>>>> On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>>>>>> Travis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to know and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not the designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this project, I’d argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated to notify the company you’re contracted with about this design flaw. Make sure you put it in writing. If the powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly on the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in writing) and sleep well at night.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that’s just me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed Kramer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list ***@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Roland Huggins]

The second paragraph of 8.6.5.2.1 tells us that if you have a solid continuous obstruction you go back to 8.6.5.1. (so that nixes taking the structural get out of jail card). It 2010 that’s all the standard said so if you had a duct and its top was 5 inches below the deflector, it still sent you back treating its like a beam. In 2013, it was added that it applies when the TOP of the obstructions is level with or above the deflector.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/>

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




> On Jan 14, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Travis Mack <***@mfpdesign.com> wrote:
>
> ll get it fixed. I just wanted to confirm that I couldn't use the "structural members only" exclusion for this. It seems the general consensus is that it needs arm overs or sprigs. No exceptions.

[R. M. Walker]

See if you have the room capacity to "Roll" the 1" outlet of the 3", up
from horizontal enough,
to use a 1" x 0'-2" to an ell, then nipple over to a 1 x 1/2 ell (or 1"
ell and drop to RC) and install a pendant.
Roll enough so the deflector "just below" the bottom of the 3". That may
make the 22" directive,
have no obstruction to discharge, and keep in close to the 3" main.
May be the best effort to meet the directive.

R. Mark Walker - SET
M. WALKER SPRINKLER CO. Syracuse, NY

On 1/14/2017 7:32 PM, Greg McGahan wrote:
> Travis,
>
> In one of the classes I have taken - I cannot remember when or where -
> the instructor was on the NFPA #13 committee and he implicitly said
> that the verbiage was intended for "nominal" pipe size - not actual
> measurement. I have NOT heard anything since to collaborate this comment.
>
>
>
>
> Greg McGahan
> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com>
> 1160 McKenzie Road
> Cantonment, FL 32533
> 850-937-1850
> fax [phone]
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Brad Casterline
> <***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> It sounds like a good challenge Travis, and congratulations for
> getting the contract-- the self employed designer who turns down
> any work has never lacked for beer and cigarette money.
> And typical of goverment work, there are the doers vs the
> reviewers, and every which way the doers turn they are screwed by
> an inch or two.
> When the Corp of Eng is the AHJ though I have had good luck with
> the field people- they seem to know when you have gotten as close
> to the intent as reality allows-- ie, instead of deflector
> distance they look at 'bulb' distance- within an inch or two, and
> rightly so.
>
> We NICET IVs who can design, calc, bim coordinate, and stocklist
> are often the saviours of projects that would otherwise be a total
> cluster without us.
>
> Brad
>
> On Jan 14, 2017 10:56 AM, "Travis Mack, SET" <***@mfpdesign.com
> <mailto:***@mfpdesign.com>> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to downsize the
> piping. It will be a matter of reworking the existing pipe
> sizing. This consultant took the easy way out and didn't
> really pay attention to many things. The job has over 100 psi
> available. They have 2" branch lines and 3" mains for
> everything. I can not decrease sizing at all. I just have to
> make sure that the new routings I have to do with the pipe
> sizing per their plan is still capable of delivering the
> minimum required densities.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
> MFP Design, LLC
> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> 480-505-9271 <tel:%28480%29%20505-9271>
> fax:[phone] <tel:%28866%29%20430-6107>
> email:***@mfpdesign.com <mailto:email:***@mfpdesign.com>
>
> http://www.mfpdesign.com
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692>
> Send large files to us via:https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign>
> LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack>
>
> On 1/14/2017 9:46 AM, Brad Casterline wrote:
>>
>> Well said Mr. Mack!
>>
>> Since you will be fixing The Consultant's effort I predict
>> you will resize the branchlines to 2.5", max, so the problem
>> goes away. This should be easy in LH and OH, as you know,
>> because it is a simple matter of a 1" sprig or arm over from
>> a 3" branchline versus an SSU directly on a 2.5" branchline.
>>
>> WBR, 2+2=4 .
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2017 9:26 PM, "Travis Mack, SET"
>> <***@mfpdesign.com <mailto:***@mfpdesign.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you. I think that those of us in this industry
>> (and I believe most are like this) that truly love what
>> we do and view it as a life saving endeavor every day
>> want to always do the best possible thing and fix every
>> problem that is found so that the project goes on with
>> limited hiccups and we all move on to the next project so
>> we can protect more lives.
>>
>> I can pretty much guarantee that I will end up making it
>> meet NFPA 13 critieria, coordinating and re-calculating
>> the project to make sure that at the end of the day,
>> should something happen, the required amount of wet stuff
>> will get on the hot stuff. My customer and their
>> customer can decide how they want to handle the
>> re-submittal and extra time/schedule impact that will
>> possibly happen.
>>
>> Travis Mack, SET
>> MFP Design, LLC
>> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive
>> Gilbert, AZ 85298
>> 480-505-9271 <tel:%28480%29%20505-9271>
>> fax:[phone] <tel:%28866%29%20430-6107>
>> email:***@mfpdesign.com <mailto:email:***@mfpdesign.com>
>>
>> http://www.mfpdesign.com
>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692>
>> Send large files to us via:https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>> <https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign>
>> LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack>
>>
>> On 1/13/2017 8:12 PM, Ed Kramer wrote:
>>>
>>> Travis,
>>>
>>> As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re
>>> expected to know and abide by the standards. However,
>>> in this case, you’re not the designer. Since you have
>>> a contractual connection to this project, I’d argue
>>> you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated
>>> to notify the company you’re contracted with about this
>>> design flaw. Make sure you put it in writing. If the
>>> powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly on
>>> the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control.
>>> Notify them (in writing) and sleep well at night.
>>>
>>> But that’s just me.
>>>
>>> Ed Kramer
>>>
>>> Bamford Fire Sprinkler
>>>
>>> *From:*Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> <mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Travis Mack *Sent:* Friday, January 13,
>>> 2017 5:25 PM *To:*
>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> *Subject:* Uprights on 3" pipe
>>>
>>> In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to
>>> justify uprights directly on a 3" main?
>>>
>>> I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project
>>> designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated
>>> uprights directly on the 3" main.
>>>
>>> I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and
>>> this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the
>>> section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3"
>>> and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply
>>> with the 3x rule.
>>>
>>> There is no room to lower the pipe and I am
>>> semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> What does the collective wisdom think with this
>>> scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred
>>> exponents and variables to figure this out.
>>>
>>> Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Travis Mack, SET
>>>
>>> MFP Design, LLC
>>>
>>> "Follow" us on Facebook:
>>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692>
>>>
>>> Send large files to MFP Design via:
>>>
>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
>>> <https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum
> mailing list ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum
> mailing list ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> <mailto:***@lists.firesprinkler.org>
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> <http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

[Matthew J Willis]

I'll second Ed, but you know me. Move on if they acknowledge the problem and ignore.

R/
Matt

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
On Jan 13, 2017 8:13 PM, Ed Kramer <***@BamfordFire.com> wrote:

Travis,



As a design professional (and you’re a good one), you’re expected to know and abide by the standards. However, in this case, you’re not the designer. Since you have a contractual connection to this project, I’d argue you’re morally (and to a less extent legally) obligated to notify the company you’re contracted with about this design flaw. Make sure you put it in writing. If the powers-that-be determine it’s OK to install directly on the 3” main, well – that’s beyond your control. Notify them (in writing) and sleep well at night.



But that’s just me.

Ed Kramer

Bamford Fire Sprinkler



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-***@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:25 PM
To: ***@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Uprights on 3" pipe



In a light or ordinary hazard area, would you be able to justify uprights directly on a 3" main?



I have been hired to do the 3D coordination of a project designed by a consultant. The consultant indicated uprights directly on the 3" main.



I can justify it in that the main is non-structural and this is a light hazard area. However, there is also the section that states you can not put uprights on pipe 3" and larger without a sprig or arm over that would comply with the 3x rule.



There is no room to lower the pipe and I am semi-restricted from lateral movement for various other reasons.



What does the collective wisdom think with this scenario? And I don't need formulae with a hundred exponents and variables to figure this out.



Have a great weekend. Thanks in advance.



Travis Mack, SET

MFP Design, LLC

"Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692

Send large files to MFP Design via:

https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign



Sent from my iPhone