"Standard Weight" is an industry "slang" and should never be used by a reputable Engineer in a Specification! IMHO Mark at Aero
----- Original Message ----- From: Ronl.Fletcher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 08:04 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE Agreed, standard weight is usually interpreted to be schedule 40. But couldn't it be said that any pipe meeting ASTM is a "standard weight"? Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE I'll agree sch 10 is a standard weight, but not that it is "standard weight" pipe. Dunno when it stopped being so, but when I was a kid, there was lightwall and standard weight, half and large orifice.....life was simpler and sch 40 was (is) standard weight. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE Sch10 is a standard weight. Dyna-flo, XL and the now not listed Sch5 are none standard. Maybe he just wanted to exclude the latter. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Mark Sornsin <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe the engineer just stuck the term 'standard weight' in there out of > habit; or because his master spec has that in there; or because he thinks > he's doing somebody a service by requiring it.... or possibly, he has a > legitimate reason. Sadly, the last option is normally NOT the most likely. > > Sornsin > Ulteig > Fargo > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [[email protected]] on behalf of George Church > [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE > > There is no requirement in 13 for a riser to be Schedule 40. > The EOR must be wanting to increase the robustness of the riser for some > other reason. > Hopefully he doesn't require threaded joints or there may be some guys > looking for larger wrenches than they're used to using (and maybe some larger > muscles than they have). > > While some might quibble that "standard weight" could now be argued to be Sch > 10 for sprinkler mains and risers based on industry usage, I don't think > they'd win an argument with the EOR that when he said standard weight, he > meant Sch 40. > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:29 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: STANDARD WEIGHT RISER PIPE > > In the spec it states; "Each vertical water supply riser shall be standard > weight pipe from grade floor level at entry of feed main into building up to > the highest horizontal cross main." > > > What is that supposed to mean? I've had more contractor confusion over that > statement and I've been trying to find if there's a requirement for the riser > to be Schedule 40 instead of allowing it to be Schedule 10 within the NFPA 13 > Standard. So far I haven't found anything that dictates pipe weight for a > riser. > > Anyone have any insight to offer? > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
