Has there been any testing for MIC? Paul J. Pinigis, P.E. Chief Life Safety Engineer
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Stong Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Replacement of 1 1/2", Sch 10, A135 due to corrosion The system was a 4x3x11/2 grid (wet). The original system was installed in late 70's, early 80's and had experienced numerous tenant fit outs/revisions. This was a gradual failure. The sch 10 developed pin holes & begin dripping. We would replace an area and the following year we would replace another area. There were no apparent metallurgical faults and while there may have been factors in the building(electrolysis) that accelerated corrosion, none were isolated. Neil Stong 742 W Front Street Chester, PA 19013 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 610-872-8831 x231 302-798-1483 610-496-7690(cell) 610-874-3980(fax) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Piping installed vs. Piping Spec'd We've been comparing sch40 and sch 10 - I guess XL and Dynaflow (and the like) are REALLY out of the question if you care a wit about longevity. Let's keep this to wet systems only: When Neil and others talk about replacing sch 10 piping systems, are they on wet-pipe systems? I am curious how often you folks are seeing failing sch 10 or lighter pipe on wet systems. How long can stagnant water sit in a lightweight system before it corrodes the pipe to the point of leaks? Especially if you keep the Test connection at the riser and not allow oxygen into the piping network during testing. Mark A. Sornsin, PE Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc. Fargo, ND 701.280.8591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Stong Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Piping installed vs. Piping Spec'd Joe Maybe when you say it for the third time. "Sch 40, A53 pipe, lasts longer". We have never replace one of our sch 40(A120 or A53) installations. We have had to replace/repair sch 10 A135 installations. That's all we need to know. Customer deserves the best we can give them (assuming they are willing to pay) If you were the person with liability for the performance of your design which would you prefer??? Neil Stong 742 W Front Street Chester, PA 19013 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 610-872-8831 x231 302-798-1483 610-496-7690(cell) 610-874-3980(fax) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Piping installed vs. Piping Spec'd You're totally missing the point here. This thread started with with a question about why an AE would specify schedule 40 pipe. The general response seemed to be that the only possible reason is that he is stupid and doesn't know that schedule 10 is cheaper. I fully understand that you unfortunately (for some customers) have to go with schedule 10 in a competitive situation, I can't for the life of me figure out why you would try to talk someone who specified schedule 40 out of it. Joe >Unfortunately in the industrial realm, sprinkler systems are often >reluctantly looked upon as a necessary evil. They don't produce any >revenue and as far as most clients are concerned they aren't really >needed because they've never experienced a fire in any of their other >facilities. But they must be present because codes dictate such. So >cost of installation becomes a MAJOR issue. They don't often think >about or care about longevity of the system, just about what it will >cost right now. They will worry about repair or replacement 10 or 20 >years down the road. Plus as competitive bidders, you've got to bid >what will get you the job then offer an alternative later for their >consideration. > > >Craig L. Prahl, CET >Fire Protection Group >Mechanical Department >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.lg.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe >Hankins >Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:09 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Piping installed vs. Piping Spec'd > >Rob is the only one who got the answer right, and seems to bee the only >one able to see beyond the "when I finish the system and get paid, it's >somebody else's problem" school of thought. Building owners expect >their buildings to last. The savings in installation cost from using >schedule 10 can (and many, many times has) turn into a significant loss >due to reduction in useful life. Regardless of the rate of corrosion, >schedule 10 will last roughly half as long as schedule 40. Large >companies who have engineering departments are well aware of this, and >specify schedule 40. > >Don't make decisions for your customers if you don't know what the >expect and want. Contrary to popular opinion, they don't all want the >least effective sprinkler system the code allows. They have to live with >it when you are long gone. > >Joe > >Robert Terry wrote: > > > >>I have always been told it has to do with wall thickness and the >>longevity of the systems. Sch 10 pipe 2" and smaller has a wall >>thickness of 0.109 which is much less than the old sch 40. Sch 10 pipe >> >> >2.5" and up has a wall > > >>thickness of 0.120 and thicker. That is much closer to the minimum >> >> >wall > > >>thickness of sch 40 which is 1" pipe at 0.133. >> >> >>That just what I have been told in the past. >> >>-Rob Terry >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:52 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Piping installed vs. Piping Spec'd >> >>As a contractor I've usually seen sch. 10 grooved piping for anything >>above 1". But it seems most AE firms are specing sch 40 threaded for >>anything below 2.5". Now this is for the average project with no >>special requirements. >> >>When I've asked why, there is no real answer other "than that's what >>we've always done". Installers prefer the grooved pipe, and the sch. >>10 is usually cheaper than sch. 40. So for those AE's out there >>specifying the heavier weight pipe, I'd like to know if there is a real >> >> > > > >>reason or it it's just because that's what is in the Guide Spec. >> >> >>Craig L. Prahl, CET >>Fire Protection Group >>Mechanical Department >>CH2MHILL >>Lockwood Greene >>1500 International Drive >>PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - >>864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ********************************************************************************************** IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ********************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
