I haven't looked it up but will. I believe that previous editions mandated schedule #80. That is what we have always done and I believe that it was code driven at some point. If I can find it I will post.
Rod at Rapid -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Shoulder Nipple Schedule 80 is not required or expected. The Table in 13: 22.4.3.1.1 contains the info on 1/2" pipe specifically for what we are talking about and it is in schedule 40. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 6, 2013, at 10:44 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Gentlemen" > > > As another "old-time" (former) Journeyman Sprinklerfitter (apprentice > starting 1974 GRINNELL), we still recognize the conversion of 1/2" upright > outlets using Schedule 80 shoulder nipples w/reverse 1/2"x1" 90 "head el" to > 1" armover and drop nipple - can't cite 13 requirement, but I always assumed > it was to 'beef up' strain on 1/2" nipple with longer armovers...We see them > on occasion during our inspections. > > > > Regards to All/Have a Safe Weekend... > > > > Jerry** > > > [email protected] > > > Jerry D. Watts, SFPE > President & CoFounder > ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd. > Santa Fe/Albuquerque New Mexico > (800) 503.1961 nationwide > > > **New Mexico-Licensed Journeyman Sprinklerfitter #08228 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MPhelps <[email protected]> > To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 8:33 am > Subject: Re: Shoulder Nipple > > > Has anyone considered the trade off presented with the schedule 80 > nipple between added structural strength and actual delivered density? Just > thinkin' > Mark at Aero > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles Thurston [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 01:56 PM > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Shoulder Nipple > > Hello All, > > For some reason we still have about half a box of 1/2" x Close Sch 80 > nipples in the warehouse I ordered a while back. I remember seeing > that somewhere but can't find it in NFPA 13 2010 or 2013. I know I > would not have spent the extra money for them if I did not have to... > > Friday, September 6, 2013, 9:41:27 AM, you wrote: > >> As an "Old Time Fitter" from the early 70's to the 90's before I got >> into design, I was taught to use Sch 80 nipples for the additional >> strength that they had over the standard Sch 40. > >> On 9/6/2013 5:53 AM, Bobby Gillett wrote: >>> Duane, > >>> As I mentioned, I was going off of memory. Not sure where exactly the Sch. > >>> 80 came from, maybe it was an old requirement for seismic areas >>> before the > >>> limitation of 1" diameter nipples was enforced?? May have been a >>> company requirement before that as where I was before was in a >>> "seismic zone"...not quite sure. Anybody else out there ever hear of that? > > > >>> Bobby Gillett >>> *Living Water Fire Protection, LLC* >>> 1160 McKenzie Rd. >>> Cantonment, FL 32533 >>> (850) 937-1850 >>> livingwaterfp.com <http://livingwaterfp.com/> > > >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] < >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> They are using an existing 1/2" outlet (likely an upright) to >>>> supply a relocated sprinkler (likely a pendent)...completely legitimate. > >>>> 8.15.20.4.1 (2013) When pipe schedule systems are revamped, a nipple >>>> not exceeding 4 in. (100 mm) in length shall be permitted to be >>>> installed in the branch line fitting. >>>> 8.15.20.4.2 All piping other than the nipple permitted in 8.15.20.4.1 >>>> and 8.15.20.4.3 shall be a minimum of 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter in >>>> accordance with Figure 8.15.20.4.2. >>>> 8.15.20.4.3 When it is necessary to pipe two new ceiling sprinklers >>>> from an existing outlet in an overhead system, the use of a nipple >>>> not exceeding 4 in. (100 mm) in length and of the same pipe thread >>>> size as the existing outlet shall be permitted, provided that a >>>> hydraulic calculation verifies that the design flow rate will be >>>> achieved in accordance with Figure 8.15.20.4.3. >>>> 8.15.20.4.4 Where an armover is attached to connect to a sprinkler, the >>>> use of pipe nipples less than 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter shall not >>>> be permitted where seismic design is required on the system. > >>>> By the way, where did the sch 80 requirement come from? I have >>>> never been able to locate that in code. > >>>> Duane Johnson, PE >>>> Program Manager >>>> Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research >>>> Services National Institutes of Health >>>> 301-496-0487 > >>>> "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" > > >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bobby Gillett [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:46 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Shoulder Nipple > >>>> Hoping they are requesting sch 80 and they are not in a seismic zone. > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> On Sep 5, 2013, at 9:12 PM, "JSM Fire Pro" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> You’re a third party glancing over a bill of materials for an >>>>> add/relocate day job. You notice one of the line items is calling >>>>> for >>>> several ½” >>>>> shoulder nipples. > > > >>>>> What goes through your mind? > > > >>>>> J. Scott Mitchell, PE > >>>>> B&W Technical Services Pantex > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespr >>>>> inkl >>>>> er.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkler.org _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkler.org > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler.org > > >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6641 - Release Date: >>> 09/05/13 > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > > > > -- > Best regards, > Charles mailto:[email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.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
