Scott, many if not most like size threaded fittings are now manufactured from ductile iron. It's cheaper than malleable and stronger than cast iron.
Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 18, 2016, at 1:52 PM, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > B16.4 is for gray iron which I think is the most common form for fire > sprinkler system above ground threaded fittings. > > I'm attempting to determine the applicable standard for ductile iron flanged > fittings AND whether or not such fittings are permissible in the above ground > portion of the fire sprinkler system. Specifically in the riser manifold. It > could be a flanged ductile iron tee or flanged ductile iron spool piece, etc. > > I heard that they are being used as I described. So, I thought I'd look it > up to see if NFPA 13 allowed it. And, none of the standards listed in the > acceptable materials table address ductile iron. > > I'm comfortable with pointing to 1.7 as a "back up" justification. But, any > more help would be appreciated. > > J. Scott Mitchell, PE > Fire Protection Engineer | > Projects Engineering > CNS Pantex | 806.477.5883 | > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 2:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Ductile Iron Fittings > > Scott, > > Isn't 36.10M for Welded and Seamless pipe? > B16.4 is for fittings. > > R/ > Matt > > Matthew J. Willis > Project Manager > Rapid Fire Protection Inc. > *NEW ADDRESS* > 1530 Samco Road > Rapid City, SD 57702 > Office-605.348.2342 > Direct Line-605.593.5063 > Cell-605.391.2733 > Fax:-605.348.0108 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Ductile Iron Fittings > > Thanks for all the responses. > > The reason is because NFPA 13 does not include ductile iron (ASME B36.10M) in > the acceptable materials table. My opinion is that it is functionally more > than adequate. > > Would this be covered by section 1.7 (2016) for alternate arrangements? > > J. Scott Mitchell, PE > Fire Protection Engineer | > Projects Engineering > CNS Pantex | 806.477.5883 | > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
