Roland, John and Ron, Thank you for your insight. Appreciate you taking the time. Very interesting. It will be very telling to see what the installation task force comes up with.
Rod at Rapid -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 11:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: galvanized piping This does seem to be a transitional time regarding the use of galvanized pipe. FM still seems to be of the opinion that there is value to using it. NFPA 13 on the other hand is attempting to discourage its use but it's process has landed it in the middle of an interesting procedural issue. In the 2013 ed, there was a proposal to change the C-value for galvanized pipe to that of black steel. The concern was corrosion. The problem is that it wasn't overall corrosion (the kind that would impact the hydraulic ability of the pipe). The discussion was focused on localized corrosion leading to very early failure of the pipe integrity (pin holes leaks). No information was submitted that supported the reduction of the hydraulic benefit. Although I think it is a good idea to avoid it's use, the technical basis for changing the C-value is missing. Although I pride myself on not being one of those engineers, this is an occasion where the pocket protector wearing, that's not techni cal correct personality has emerged. The decision on not allowing or discouraging the use of galvanized pipe is suppose t be made by the Installation TC, not the Discharge TC. Public input's for the 2016 were submitted that moved to return the C-value and not allow INTERNALLY galvanized pipe for dry/preaction systems. The PI on c-vale was rejected based on no data submitted to support the change. The other PI's were also rejected with a statement of: The use of galvanized pipe still has value in the design of certain sprinkler systems when properly pitched and drained. By banning galvanized pipe from systems it may impacted trim pipe for dry systems and the use of galvanized piping in exterior environments. SO it has value, the trim pipe could be exempted , and the exterior setting is a externally coated issue. There is an Installation task group working on this issue so some change is expected (most likely something in the annex indicating concern about it's use). In playing Don Quixote, a comment was submitted on the c-value with the same data provided in 2013 but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Apr 8, 2014, at 8:25 AM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > > A general question. Do you still believe that galvanized piping should be > used for most dry systems / dry standpipes? The makers of idod pipe say yes. > The makers of nitrogen generators say no. I had always thought that it was > better and that in GENERAL galvanized would last longer. Over the last few > years it seems like the tide has changed and I have read studies that come to > different conclusions. I understand there are many variables but thank you > for your thoughts. > > Rod at Rapid > _______________________________________________ > 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
