Todd, et al:

It occurred to me that (even stationary) sprinklers are susceptible to damage 
(impact) - even if not 'moved'...We have a few damaged sprinklers in our 
display case, but the very best one (and this is a real eye opener) is an old 
ASCOA pendent that was connected to an approximately four-foot long drop nipple 
- system froze, tee cracked and said drop nipple fell from a distance of about 
fifteen feet elevation. The impact "squashed" the sprinkler about 1/2" but the 
link stayed in place - other than obvious signs of "shrinkage", the sprinkler 
looks okay. That was one tough sprinkler. No, guyz/gals, we would not reuse 
it!! Interesting to look at, though...



Regards-



Jerry


[email protected]
Santa Fe, New Mexico USA






-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. <[email protected]>
To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 9:28 am
Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop


I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is specified 
up-front.  If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, then don't argue, 
because if you win, it is your butt on the line should the head fail.

If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, with no clear 
guidance beyond the 13 standard, then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left 
in drops or sprigs, but not sprinklers removed from the fitting to which they 
were originally attached. But I'd have a really good policy & procedure in 
place 
to ensure those heads are treated like fine china.

Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | 
Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | 
http://www.kfiengineers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] 
On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop

Except for the part 'Only new sprinklers shall be installed' which has been 
around for a long time.  Many would argue you have never been allowed to 
reinstall sprinklers.  Yes, I know there is a lot of don't ask don't tell out 
there.  Current edition provides clarification of the phrase only new 
sprinklers 
shall be installed.  I don't see it as a change.  The interpretation that if 
you 
pull the drop and never touch the sprinkler I'd even argue is a little sketchy. 
The point of the new section is damage can occur when you mess with the head.  
If you lay the drop with a head on a table or throw (carefully) in a bucket in 
my mind you have risked damage.  If asked I'd say even in that case you need a 
new head per the code.

Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
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 Thomas Watt
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop

Im with Greg. I have reinstalled thousands of heads without issue. What is the 
justification for this requirement?


On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Greg McGahan <[email protected]> wrote:
> its ALL ridiculous if you ask me....
> it is a waste of resources
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Brad Casterline
><[email protected]
>wrote:
>
>> There is wording somewhere that supports NOT...
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Todd - Work [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:48 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: removing sprinkler on drop
>>
>> I am working on a project where we have to add heads above an
>> existing ceiling on an existing system. The pendant heads are fed on swing 
joints.
>> My
>> plan is to have them removes the drops (with sprinkler in them)
>> replace
the
>> 1" elbow with a tee and re-install the drops. The question came up
>> about replacing the pendant heads. They were not removed from the
>> pipe but the pipe with head was removed from the system. I never
>> thought about this before and can see arguments on both sides. Replace the 
pendants or not?
>>
>> Todd G Williams, PE
>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>> Stonington, CT
>> www.fpdc.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg McGahan
> Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com>
> 1160 McKenzie Road
> Cantonment, FL 32533
> 850-937-1850
> fax 850-937-1852
> _______________________________________________
> 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

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to