IPC 2006 305.8 Protection against physical damage. In concealed locations where piping, other than cast-iron or galvanized steel, is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top plates.
IMC 2006 305.5 Protection against physical damage. In concealed locations where piping, other than cast-iron or steel, is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top plates. Here's how we deal with this. We nail plate the sole plates(one or up to 3 depending on the construction, houses with gypcrete floors typically have an extra plate or two depending upon how thick the gyp is.) and slip a steel sleeve around the riser coming thru the plate.(We find we have enough scrap pipe around to keep a constant supply of 8" sleeves. We use 8" because we have base moldings here that go to 10" high on occasion.) Most walls we see are double plates at the top. Only the upper plate is the actual "Top Plate" the second plate has a name I forget right now. Any way we nail plate both plates and have our "Nominal" 2" below the top plate. We've never had any problem with doing this from any inspector. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: IMC, IPC and nail plates Had an interesting encounter with an AHJ this week. He stopped by a jobsite where we're installing CPVC in walls, and found fault with the nail plates we're using. I called to follow up on why he didn't like them, and asked for a code reference. He replied even if it wasn't in the code, he'd enforce nailplates extending further than ours as a safety issue. So I reminded him that his authority was to enforce the PA UCC as adopted, not safety issues he took a personal liking to. His code reference arrived by USPS this AM. He cited the IPC and IMC as applicable to sprinkler piping, which I disagree with. Any thoughts or previous rulings by other AHJs? George Church Rowe Sprinkler _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
