ballot final

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

To: NFPA Technical Committee on Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection

Systems

From: Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects

Date: December 3, 2013

Subject: NFPA 13 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015 Cycle)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

33 Members Eligible to Vote

8 Not Returned (Forsythe, Harper, Laguna, Patel, Rothmier, Sanchez, Tauby, Thacker)

16 Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment Deneff, Gillengerten, Valentine, Wagoner, Webb, Wellen)

9 Negative on one or more Revisions (Deneff, Gillengerten, Lindley, Schwab, Valentine, Webb)

0 Abstentions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of

the vote for each first revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3

vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes

are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not

return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample

calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )

As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

NFPA 13 (A2015) AUT‐HBS First Draft Ballot Final

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1Victoria B. Valentine The first “mild steel” should be deleted from the sentence.Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 21Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 4Ronald N. Webb With out any markings on the rod it will make it almost impossible for an AHJ to

know what material the rod was actually made out ofPeter T. Schwab Verification as to what material the rod was made from will be nearly impossible

to enforce. Marking of threaded rod is impossible. AHJ's will want evidence that the installed product was manufactured accordingly.

Leslie (Chip) L. Lindley, II I do not beleive we need to set a minimum standard for mild steel since it will be impossible to enforce.

Victoria B. Valentine Although specifying some level for the steel rods to comply with is important, the ASTM standard should be reviewed by the Committee to determine this meets the expected level of performance. Also, the marking or policing of appropriate product is a concern. In addition, the current language does not allow for brass or copper. This may not be the majority of scenarios but there are situations where these need to be used.

Abstain 0

Results by RevisionFR‐4, Section No. 9.1.1.5.2, See FR‐4

FR‐5, Section No. 9.1.1.6, See FR‐5

Page 1 of 21



Affirmative 25Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Ronald N. Webb By adding rods to this paragraph it will prohibit slotting holes in structural

members which is currently allowed in codes like AISCAbstain 0

FR‐6, Section No. 9.1.1.7.1, See FR‐6


Page 2 of 21



Affirmative 22Affirmative with Comment 1Victoria B. Valentine The first line, "hangar" should be "hanger".Negative 2Peter T. Schwab The requirement to use washers that are half the thickness of the angle is too

restrictive. These products (thick washers) do not exist in the marketplace. The allowance to use multiple washers should be permitted.

Christopher I. Deneff In a trapeze hanger, wouldn't providing a slotted hole in one end be enough to allow adjustment for misaligned rod hangers? Could we not just start the section with "Where angles are used for trapeze hangers, a slotted hole may be provided at one end of the angle to allow adjustment, provided it meets all of the following:" This would then mean items #3 and #5 would not be needed. I am not sure why we need to allow three slots per section (there is also no definition of what a "section" is), if the third slot is near the center of the angle length it may reduce the moment capacity ‐ slots should only be at the ends (preferable only one end). The minimum dimensions of the washer should be specified (perhaps at least as wide as the angle leg) and I would like to see justification for the minimum thickness of the washers being 1/2 the thickness of the angle.

Abstain 0

FR‐39, New Section after 9.1.1.7.8, See FR‐39

Page 3 of 21



Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1Christopher I. Deneff It is unclear whether the intent is to place washers under both the bolt head and

the nut for a bolt. Suggest the verbiage be changed to "Bolts and rods shall be provided with nuts and flat washers under the nuts."

Negative 0Abstain 0






Negative 0Abstain 0




Page 4 of 21





Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Christopher I. Deneff The distance should be 2‐1/2" for pipe up to and including 2" and 3" for pipe

greater than 2". In Table 9.1.5.3.1, 3/8" bolts are used for pipes 2" and less and 1/2" bolts are used for 2‐1/2" and more. Edge distance should match this change in bolt size.

Abstain 0






Page 5 of 21







Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1John D. Gillengerten The armover requirements should cover all piping materials permitted in the

standard. Recommend the section be revised as follows: 9.2.3.5.2.3 Where the armover exceeds the maximum unsupported length of 9.2.3.5.2.1, a hanger shall be installed so that the distance from the end sprinkler or drop nipple to the hanger is not greater than 12 in. (305 mm) for ferrous pipe or 6 in. (150 mm) for non‐ferrous pipe, or the pipe shall be extended beyond the end sprinkler and shall be supported by an additional hanger.

Negative 0Abstain 0

FR‐11, Section No. 9.2.3.4.4.4, See FR‐11


FR‐22, New Section after 9.2.3.5.2.1, See FR‐22

Page 6 of 21








Page 7 of 21



Affirmative 19Affirmative with Comment 3Ronald N. Webb I do not fill comfortable with the statement that piping to be attached to pipe

stand with ubolt or equivalent. This may mis lead to the improper use or loading of a ubolt

Victoria B. Valentine It is good to offer the user prescriptive requirements for pipe stands. However, additional details are needed for this section in order to make it a complete package, especially information on base plates.

Christopher I. Deneff The base of pipe stands needs to be specified to resist a moment in order to be stable. I know the forces may not be much, but it seems to me that a 4 in. diameter pipe column that is only connected to the structure at the base and is 30 ft tall is excessive, even where earthquake is not included. I think Table 9.2.6.3.1 maximum pipe stand heights should be revisited.

Negative 3Peter T. Schwab Pipe stand language is applicable to water spray systems that are almost

exclusively supported by pipe stands. Generally in NFPA 13 sprinkler systems, pipe stands might be placed under a backflow or a riser manifold. If NFPA 13 is going to have requirements for hanging for other documents, then it should be clear what each requirement is applicable to.

Leslie (Chip) L. Lindley, II 9.2.6.7 states that a pipe stand should have a malleable iron flange base. I beleive a pipe stand that is welded to steel plate is acceptable. We need not purchase a manufactured base when we could fabricate same.

Glenn E. Thompson There is no reason to require a malleable iron flange or threaded pipe in 9.2.6.7. A welded steel plate or welded flange would provide adequate support and adequate performance during earthquake, perhaps even superior performance to a threaded connection.

Abstain 0

FR‐41, Section No. 9.2.6, See FR‐41

Page 8 of 21



Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1John D. Gillengerten Section 9.2.6.5.2 should be clarified to more precisely define how the horizontal

length is measured. Suggest the section be revised as follows: Where a horizontal bracket is used to attach the system piping to the pipe stand, the distance from the face of the pipe stand to the centerline of the supported pipe shall not be more than 1 ft (0.3 m).

Negative 0Abstain 0





Page 9 of 21



Affirmative 20Affirmative with Comment 3Thomas G. Wellen Agree with Ray Lambert, Ken Wagoner, and Parks Moore's concern of providing

the 2” clearance from all other equipment will protect the piping somewhat in an earthquake, the following should be taken into consideration before inserting this into the code. 1) All MEP equipment is required to be braced typical to the Fire Protection piping and is attached and braced to the same structure therefore limiting movement. 2) In actual construction this clearance requirement is extremely difficult to provide. BIM Coordination is being performed to reduce the cost of construction. BIM Coordination is reducing the attic spaces above ceilings therefore reducing construction costs. In addition, what is equipment? Flexible duct, wire, flexible conduit? This could turn into an enforcement nightmare, especially in a hospital.

Kenneth W. Wagoner Providing the 2” clearance from all other equipment will protect the piping somewhat in an earthquake, the following should be taken into consideration before inserting this into the code. 1) All MEP equipment is required to be braced typical to the Fire Protection piping and is attached and braced to the same structure therefore limiting movement. 2) In actual construction this clearance requirement is extremely difficult to provide. BIM Coordination is being performed to reduce the cost of construction. BIM Coordination is reducing the attic spaces above ceilings therefore reducing construction costs.

John D. Gillengerten Recommend the following editorial revisions, for clarity: As installed, the horizontal and upward vertical clearance between horizontal sprinkler piping and structural members not penetrated or used, collectively or independently, to support the piping shall be at least 2 in. (50 mm).

Negative 2Peter T. Schwab In section 9.3.4.10, the requirement to maintain 2" from non structural

equipment will be an enforcement nightmare.

FR‐45, Sections 9.3.4.9, 9.3.4.10, See FR‐45

Page 10 of 21

NFPA 13 (A2015) AUT‐HBS First Draft Ballot FinalChristopher I. Deneff For 9.3.4.9, if the structural members are not used to support the piping,

shouldn't the clearance of 2" be all around the pipe? For 9.3.4.10, I think I understand what is being asked, but where a pipe is supported vertically at the bottom of a hole, the horizontal clearance will vary, I think saying the horizontal clearance should be 2" will cause confusion as to where this is measured. I think what we want to say is something more like the pipe hole should be the same size as always, but the pipe can rest at the bottom of the hole.

Abstain 0




Page 11 of 21



Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Christopher I. Deneff This table assumes that the brace is tested at 90 degrees from vertical, that the

listed load is at 90 degrees from vertical, and the load determined at 90 degrees from vertical controls the capacity at all other angles. Braces should be tested at angles of 30 degrees to 90 degrees from vertical, and the listed loads should be those that result from these tests. It is quite possible that the listed load at 90 degrees from vertical divided by 2 would be more than the allowable load determined by actually testing the brace at 30 degrees from vertical. If a manufacturer provides listed (tested) loads at angles of 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees from vertical, these should not be further reduced using this table. The only way this table would be acceptable is if the capacity determined by tests at 30, 45, 60, 90 degrees from vertical were resolved to 90 degrees, and the listed load at 90 degrees from vertical was the minimum load determined.

Abstain 0


Page 12 of 21



Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1John D. Gillengerten In Table 9.3.5.5.2(f), the footnote for 40 foot lateral sway brace spacing should

be "d", not "c", as it is for the other tables in the section.Negative 0Abstain 0


Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1Ronald N. Webb May need to be clarified that it is to be based on the smallest MAIN pipe size so

that someone doesn't start looking at a branch line pipe sizeNegative 0Abstain 0



FR‐322, Section No. 9.3.5.5.2 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐322


FR‐18, New Section after 9.3.5.5.2.3, See FR‐18

Page 13 of 21



Affirmative 18Affirmative with Comment 4Thomas G. Wellen Agree with Ken Wagoner's comments that text for item 2 is confusing and the

new figure should reflect that shown in Figure 9.23 in the current handbook.

Kenneth W. Wagoner Text for item 2 is confusing. Should read: (2) Seventy‐five percent of all the hangers on the branch line shall meet the limitation in 9.3.5.5.10.1(1), and not more than two consecutive hangers shall be permitted to exceed to those limits. The same text should be provided for item 4 in 9.3.5.5.10.2, which should read: (4) Seventy‐five percent of all the hangers on the main shall meet the limitation in 9.3.5.5.10.1(1), and not more than two consecutive hangers shall be permitted to exceed to those limits. Sketch to illustrate measurement should be revised to show retaining strap in proper position, similar to Exhibit 9.23 in current handbook.

Victoria B. Valentine The charging language says to meet the branch line requirements or the main requirements. The sentence can be read that if the branch line requirements are met that the lateral sway bracing could be omitted from the mains it is connected to. This was not the intent of the discussion and the language should be modified during the second revision.

Christopher I. Deneff I would prefer that the maximum size of mains allowed to use this exception be limited further. A 6 inch main or a 4 inch cross main with long lengths of branch lines still may see significant forces and deflections that some vertical hangers would not necessarily be well detailed to accommodate and may allow deflections at sprinklers larger than the 2 inch clearances required.

Negative 3Ronald N. Webb There is no documentation showing that this has been an issue and that it should

be limited to certain size pipe diameters


Page 14 of 21

NFPA 13 (A2015) AUT‐HBS First Draft Ballot FinalPeter T. Schwab There is no documentation showing that this has been an issue and that it should

be limited to certain size pipe diametersJohn D. Gillengerten All hangers should be less than 6 inches long. As written, the pipe could be

laterally unrestrained for up to 45 feet on longer hangers (no limit on length). This will result on high demands on the short hangers adjacent to the unrestrained run. Analysis of unbraced piping done for ASCE/SEI 7‐16 indicates that the hangers can provide adequate lateral restraint, if the ratio of the bending moment in the rod to the yield moment of the rod is less than about 5, which testing suggests will avoid low cycle fatigue. You will not achieve this with 30 feet of piping tributary to a single hanger. The only way the bracing exception works is if all the hangers meet the length requirement.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1Victoria B. Valentine The subscripts are not used in the table headers. This should be corrected.

Negative 0Abstain 0


Page 15 of 21



Affirmative 22Affirmative with Comment 1Christopher I. Deneff The equation for determining acceptable riser nipple heights is determined

based on stresses being less than Fy. It seems to me that the couplings at the bottom of the nipple riser may have a smaller moment capacity and thus control the riser height.

Negative 2Peter T. Schwab I do not agree with this requirement. The 48" threshold placed in the 2013

edition was adequate.John D. Gillengerten I think the moment demand in the formula needs to be "less than or equal to"

the allowable stress, not "greater than or equal to". The bending stress in the riser nipple should be checked against the allowable bending stress, not the yield stress. For the piping types noted, this would be (0.7)(1.33)(0.7Fy) = 0.65Fy, not Fy.

Abstain 0





Page 16 of 21





Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1John D. Gillengerten In table 9.3.6.4(a), the maximum spacing for ½ inch and ¾ inch piping appear to

be based on schedule 40 properties, while the larger sizes are schedule 10. I am not sure if this was intentional. If schedule 10 was used throughout, the values would be the following (reading from left to right on the table): ½ inch pipe 31, 26, 19, 16; ¾ inch pipe 38, 32, 23, 19

Negative 0Abstain 0





FR‐42, New Section after 9.3.7, See FR‐42

Page 17 of 21



Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Peter T. Schwab Verification as to what material the rod was made from will be nearly impossible

to enforce. Marking of threaded rod is impossible. AHJ's will want evidence that the installed product was manufactured accordingly.

Abstain 0





FR‐38, New Section after A.9.1.1.5.3, See FR‐38

FR‐31, Section No. A.9.3.1, See FR‐31


Page 18 of 21









FR‐16, New Section after A.9.3.4, See FR‐16

FR‐33, Section No. A.9.3.5.9, See FR‐33

Page 19 of 21



Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1John D. Gillengerten The term "allowable stress" should be substituted for "yield stress" in the first

sentence. Lateral loads computed using the Cp factor are at working stress level, and should not be compared to the yield strength of the piping.

Abstain 0




Affirmative 24Affirmative with Comment 1John D. Gillengerten This section should reference both Table 9.3.6.4(a) and Table 9.3.6.4(b).Negative 0Abstain 0

FR‐34, Section No. A.9.3.5.9.6.1, See FR‐34

FR‐174, Section No. A.9.3.6.4, See FR‐174

FR‐35, New Section after A.9.3.5.11, See FR‐35

Page 20 of 21








Page 21 of 21

ballot final

Documents