Really, we're talking about the stub up only, 6-24"? Not the header, not the overhead. And really, the plastic stub was the difference in the outcome, not the design, not a closed valve, not something going boom. Which came first, the melting or the sprinkler failure. Let's just say I believe you but am rather skeptical the only difference was the plastic pipe. That means the fire had to start literally within feet of the stub and burn quite a while. If much farther and it spread to the stub one has to question why it spread that far. Yes, I know it's control mode for the most part. Reality in most cases though begs to differ. Where was the FD in all this?
I was talking to the CPVC guys once about the testing. They said the pipe would thin on top from heat during fire tests. Sometime a pinhole leak developed, sometimes putting out the fire or just wetting the pipe enough so there would be no further degradation. Part of the testing was a hydro after the fire and with a hole it obviously failed, even without a hole though the wall it was too thin to hold the pressure. Why do I care? Because I think we are going to see a lot more stubs in plastic and the '13 clearly allows. Code trumps listings is the way I read it and this new section says nothing about DI. Not unlike using CPVC unprotected in 400 sq.ft. OH rooms (or whatever the details of that are). Yes, the language is a little different but I think the intent was/is the same. As EOR I can certainly exclude but might be harder in our design build work. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Underground Stub-Up It was my understanding that this section was addressing ductile iron pipe since there was some confusion on whether you should be using Sch 40 or Sch 10 carbon steel once above the slab or if it was acceptable to extend the ductile iron pipe above the slab. Plastic above the slab is a disaster waiting to happen. I've seen pictures of plastic stub-ups melting in a fire scenario and rendering the sprinkler system inoperable. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Underground Stub-Up Historically I've always said NO since a pure application of the listing would conflict with having underground pipe installed above ground. But a pure application of terms doesn't necessarily get in the way of actions taken by the technical committee. The same could be said for requiring listed back flow preventers since they are classified (an unacceptable category for all other listed devices). Since this is a common practice, the TC addressed stub-ups last cycle by adding the below: 6.3.1.1.1* Underground pipe shall be permitted to extend into the building through the slab or wall not more than 24 in. (0.6 m). Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Jul 10, 2013, at 5:38 AM, Mike Hairfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Got a project that HDPE AWWA C906 pipe and fittings were installed. > > > > The stub-up through the floor is a piece of HDPE AWWA C906 pipe with > > a cap fused on the end and not rodded. > > > > I've never seen this done before, is it acceptable with NFPA #24? > > > > Mike Hairfield > > _______________________________________________ > 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
