Has anyone considered the trade off presented with the schedule 80 nipple between added structural strength and actual delivered density? Just thinkin' Mark at Aero
----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Thurston [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 01:56 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Shoulder Nipple Hello All, For some reason we still have about half a box of 1/2" x Close Sch 80 nipples in the warehouse I ordered a while back. I remember seeing that somewhere but can't find it in NFPA 13 2010 or 2013. I know I would not have spent the extra money for them if I did not have to... Friday, September 6, 2013, 9:41:27 AM, you wrote: > As an "Old Time Fitter" from the early 70's to the 90's before I got > into design, I was taught to use Sch 80 nipples for the additional > strength that they had over the standard Sch 40. > On 9/6/2013 5:53 AM, Bobby Gillett wrote: >> Duane, >> As I mentioned, I was going off of memory. Not sure where exactly the Sch. >> 80 came from, maybe it was an old requirement for seismic areas before the >> limitation of 1" diameter nipples was enforced?? May have been a company >> requirement before that as where I was before was in a "seismic zone"...not >> quite sure. Anybody else out there ever hear of that? >> Bobby Gillett >> *Living Water Fire Protection, LLC* >> 1160 McKenzie Rd. >> Cantonment, FL 32533 >> (850) 937-1850 >> livingwaterfp.com <http://livingwaterfp.com/> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> They are using an existing 1/2" outlet (likely an upright) to supply a >>> relocated sprinkler (likely a pendent)...completely legitimate. >>> 8.15.20.4.1 (2013) When pipe schedule systems are revamped, a nipple >>> not exceeding 4 in. (100 mm) in length shall be permitted to be installed >>> in the branch line fitting. >>> 8.15.20.4.2 All piping other than the nipple permitted in 8.15.20.4.1 >>> and 8.15.20.4.3 shall be a minimum of 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter in >>> accordance with Figure 8.15.20.4.2. >>> 8.15.20.4.3 When it is necessary to pipe two new ceiling sprinklers >>> from an existing outlet in an overhead system, the use of a nipple not >>> exceeding 4 in. (100 mm) in length and of the same pipe thread size as the >>> existing outlet shall be permitted, provided that a hydraulic calculation >>> verifies that the design flow rate will be achieved in accordance with >>> Figure 8.15.20.4.3. >>> 8.15.20.4.4 Where an armover is attached to connect to a sprinkler, the >>> use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter shall not be >>> permitted where seismic design is required on the system. >>> By the way, where did the sch 80 requirement come from? I have never been >>> able to locate that in code. >>> Duane Johnson, PE >>> Program Manager >>> Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) >>> Office of Research Services >>> National Institutes of Health >>> 301-496-0487 >>> "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bobby Gillett [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:46 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Shoulder Nipple >>> Hoping they are requesting sch 80 and they are not in a seismic zone. >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Sep 5, 2013, at 9:12 PM, "JSM Fire Pro" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> You’re a third party glancing over a bill of materials for an >>>> add/relocate day job. You notice one of the line items is calling for >>> several ½” >>>> shoulder nipples. >>>> What goes through your mind? >>>> J. Scott Mitchell, PE >>>> B&W Technical Services Pantex >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >>>> er.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6641 - Release Date: 09/05/13 > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Best regards, Charles mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
