"then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or sprigs" Where does this appearance come from? I don't see it in the Code, Annex or Handbook. Quite frankly, that is the only place that counts in descending order of priority.
I agree with Todd there is some judgment and risk tolerance. I'm sure not 'buying' a building loss over what a <$10 device I my current role. When I was a contractor maybe we weren't perfect in this regard. When I was an AHJ if asked - new, and lot of don't ask don't tell. 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 Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:27 AM To: [email protected] 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
