Personally I would recalc even if I was replacing copper with copper because like I said, I would wonder if the original installation was 'right'. 20 years ago everyone might have missed something (plus some rules may have changed). I would not want to be in the position of saying "sure it was wrong, but it was approved, and I matched the approved". I would much rather say "Two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do". :)
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Willis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 8:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: copper pipe vs CPVC So if increasing the pipe changes the required flow from 100gpm to 200gpm due to the larger size, you do not think this is more demanding? Would you please change subject line for me/us as gmail is showing it's butt. Thanks, Matt On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Duane Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Your statement earlier holds true only if portions of the system are being > replaced. I was under the assumption the entire system was being replaced, > in which increasing diameter will not be more demanding. > > And yes, there is more to calcs... > > Duane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew > Willis > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:32 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: copper pipe vs CPVC > > There is more to a calc than just pressure. Flow is also part. Why do you > think we are required to pick the sprinkler closer to the main on a tree > calc? > R/ > Matt > On Aug 11, 2014 7:23 AM, "Duane Johnson" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > No, no, no. As long as you are increasing the ID along the primary > > path, you are not making the calc more demanding. Increasing the ID > > reduces the friction loss per ft. and reduces the overall required > > pressure of the system. > > > > Duane > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew > > Willis > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 7:54 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: copper pipe vs CPVC > > > > Especially since the I.D. like you said is larger. This often = more > > demanding. Bigger is not always better. > > > > R/ > > Matt > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Brad Casterline > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > It just occurred to me though Douglas (on a smoke break as usual) I > > > would be worried that the existing pipe size is per code, so I would > > > calc it anyway. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brad Casterline [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 3:30 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: copper pipe vs CPVC > > > > > > Both C=150 and the best part is it looks like the I.D of CPVC is > > > bigger than type K,L, and M copper. > > > > > > Brad > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Douglas Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:41 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: copper pipe vs CPVC > > > > > > One of our group homes has leaking copper pipe. The owner told me > > > their experience is to replace the copper with CPVC. I like that, > > > faster and easier for us. But, do I need to get the system > > > re-engineered when changing to CPVC? Can I just replace size for > > > like size? > > > > > > The system is 20+ years old so I am going to propose new sprinklers. > > > Besides, some of the heads are corroded and some have paint on them. > > > We will also provide a means to test the antifreeze, at present > > > there is no way to test the solution. > > > > > > I am going to exclude sheet rock and painting from the job. > > > > > > Douglas Hicks > > > General Fire Equipment Co of Eastern Oregon, Inc > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > > kl > > > er.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > > kl > > > er.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > > kl > > > er.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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-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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
