Tom, I'm in a good mood today, decent weather has finally come to a weekend in the North Wet so I'm feeling a bit devilish and I intend to have a bit of fun at your expense. If you look at the BlazeMaster install manual it allows exposed CPVC in certain occupancies including residential, but all exposed piping must be protected by the system. The piping, except risers, must be on the ceiling if a ceiling system and on the wall near the ceiling if a sidewall system. Smooth flat ceiling in both cases. And since a lot of time is spent talking about the system and the riser regarding exposed piping, but nothing about the FDC, in all (13D/13R/13) systems I'd venture an interpretation that the FDC is not allowed to be exposed whether protected or not simply by the silence of the manual. 13D/2007 4.3.2 says you SHALL hydrotest per NFPA 13 when an FDC is present. Older editions also state the same though in different sections. Now if doing all this non-CPVC work is your choice then who cares except you and your client. Of course not doing the hydro is beyond just "your bad" and someone(s) is screwing the pooch on that one. My real concern with your comments is that some AHJ might get the idea that your method is better, and there's nothing but opinion, as you said, behind it, and will decide that all FDCs need to meet your personal standards/requirements because they're "better." Remember that this thread started with the Chief Engineer from Seattle Fire asking the question. I know Rich and can guess what he's fishing for when asking for opinion on this Forum. I know that if he chooses to disallow plastic FDCs it will be because he's thoughtfully weighed all the opinions presented here, information he's gleaned from other sources and opinions from the other engineering types at SFD and, if all FDCs in Seattle need to be metal, then so be it. It is a decision made thoughtfully. The guys that scare me are the AHJs that decide they want plumbing fixture flows added to calcs on big SFDs (those ones with six bathrooms, two laundry rooms, a main kitchen and a second kitchen near the BBQ deck) not because the family that lives there uses that much more water but because those people "have a lot of parties (toilet flushing parties I call them) and use a lot of water and there might be a fire." My answer to that is then don't modify 13D for some property protection issue (can we assume that people at a party that are using water are awake and ambulatory and able to leave the building quickly for life safety purposes?). If property protection is a concern then require (obviously the owners are not getting good consultation from the A/Es or the GC if they're only installing 13D for their seven figure homes) a full 13 system on these behemoths. How many jurisdictions require costly add-ons (garage protection (I know of one jurisdiction that argues that they require garages to be sprinklered because MANY home owners in the jurisdiction also use their garages to park their seaplanes in--I don't know about you but I keep my seaplane--oh wait, I don't have one nor know anyone that does), closets, small bathrooms, attics, etc.) that the NAHB/BIA then use as rationale for why sprinklers are too expensive in houses? Unfortunately 13D Scope & Purpose both mention property protection and so there's a peg to hang these expensive amendments on. Off the soap box now. And I think I'll become a Bostonian for this season so Go Red Sox.
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Tom Duross <[email protected]> wrote: > I dunno. I'd have a hard time walking away from a cpvc FDC line empty and > subject to melting or burning. I've done a fair amount of 13D/R and SFD's > and I've never used cpvc for any controls work or drains. I suppose if the > line was protected in most fashions I'd be a little more at ease about using > it but I'd feel a lot better using steel or copper. I rarely pressure test > the FDC line on a SFD if I even have one which is rare but we use brazed L > copper on 9 out of 10 D and R systems anyway from the service connection to > the riser manifold, and threaded galvy for anything like FDC's or drains > (normally dry sections). MY bad I know but a judgment call I made long ago > and stay with it. I've weighed the material costs and it's really not that > much more, labor's another story. I can see how it's quicker, cheaper and > easier and I've seen my share of others doing this and more. I don't mean > to say it's wrong or anything wrong with it if it meets code and is > approved, just not for me. I usually hook most projects into the first year > of ITM as part of the design and installation and try my hardest to keep > them year after year so all the more reason I don't want any potential > issues and also can't blame the installer in case anything goes wrong. :P > Just my opinion. I am pleased to boast my ITM income surpassed my > construction income on 2008 and I couldn't be happier, except for the > increased insurance costs. > > Tom Duross > Let's Go Red Sox! > > > > Thomas, > > When applying water to the FDC we can assume we are doing so to a pipe > that has already been tested for integrity and not worrying about dry > fits, unconnected pieces, etc. as we would in a new system (property > damage), nor full of air as we experience in a new system (potential > explosive decompression and the resultant bodily injury). We can also > assume that we are adding water to supplement a flow that is already > occurring and therefore there are "holes" (discharging heads) already > in the pipe. Unless we unleash the damned hellish hounds of hundreds > of pounds of over-pressurization upon the system I doubt that we will > even have the mildest of water hammer. And as a side note we have > hooked this FDC up to the truck because the building is on fire and > already experiencing property damage. Now should the pipe run from the > FDC be as short as possible? Certainly the dry portion, and we can > limit an FDC dry run of 100 feet (or more, or less) by placing the FDC > check valve as close as practical to the FDC itself. But if placing it > at the riser is the most practical location (my ridiculous 100 foot > run excepted) then so be it. I wonder how much pressure I would have > to apply to a CPVC system with only one head flowing before I've > created a situation that would rupture piping and connections already > tested to 200 psi in a static state? I'd bet more than my fire engine > could generate. > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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)
