Good evening, Forum -
Can someone email or post a set of instruction on how to transfer
clashes out of Navis Manage to an Autocad drawing? I was familiar in
2019 - has something
changed?
Both programs are 2021 versions out of the box.
Thanks!!
Vince
*Vince Sabolik*
*West Tech Fire
Matt - fully understand the position you have.
To answer your initial question specifically, I have heard of *no* push to
change NFPA 13 with regard to piping material.
Thanks,
John
John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
*American Fire Sprinkler
There is no doubt that thicker pipe lasts longer.
However, when the owner of a warehouse specifies schedule 7 piping for the
sprinkler system in a hard bid, the installing contractor will be using
schedule 7.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Lucas Kirn
Sent: Wednesday, January 20,
Matt,
Having seen many cases of failed sch. 7 pipe over the past 10+ years I would
tell anyone willing to listen to stay far, far away from it. Pipe schedule is
the most basic form of corrosion/leak protection. The thinner the pipe, the
shorter the lifespan.
I have also seen several instances
Jeff:
As a 3rd party consultant, we've been offering remediation and claims
management services as well as technical consulting to the legal, property
ownership and property management communities on MIC-related issues for about
15 years. 2 years ago, we spun off a subsidiary business to
Jeff Normand is correct in terms of the 1st exposed thread at the fitting
having less depth of material than a schedule 10 roll groove, however most
corrosion we see is related to oxidation as opposed to MIC. The problem with
roll grooves tends to be water trapped between the grooves sitting
That is what I missed.
Correct - if you *do not *comply with 16.3.1 for the pipe or tube you are
using, Listed pipe or tube is required.
Thanks,
John
John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
I was looking at NFPA 13 - 2019 16.3.2 "when steel pipe referenced in 7.3.1.1
is used... ...minimum nominal wall thickness for pressures up to 300psi shall
be in accordance with Schedule 10..."
Does this require that thinner pipe be listed?
I was curious if the listed s7/s5 products are any
Keep in mind, NFPA 13 states piping or tubing that meets Table 7.3.1.1 is
acceptable. Listing is NOT required.
*NFPA 13 - 2019: 7.3.1.1 Pipe or tube shall meet or exceed one of the
standards in Table 7.3.1.1 or be in accordance with 7.3.3.*
Thus, as long as any piping or tubing material
I have been designing with sch 7 pipe for over 25 years. Not sure about
longevity. But you mentioned A53 unlisted pipe. Possibly getting listed?
I would really like to see comparisons of sch 7, 10 and 40 for corrosion
and MIC. Specially treated pipe some manufacturers claim. Always heard that
sch
Considering how much corrosion I've observed and documented in wet and dry
systems in schedule 10 in 8-15 years - not MIC - we only specify schedule 40.
Scott
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556
-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of Steve Leyton via
Has there been any push/interest in allowing unlisted (standard ASTM A53)
schedule 7 steel pipe to be allowed by code in place of the listed "flow"
piping options?
Matt
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
