# Sprinkler alteration



## RJJ (Mar 10, 2010)

Would you approve this?


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 10, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

I looked at a building recently where over 50 sprinklers had been relocated using various lengths of 1/2 inch nipples to start the transition.  Sometimes they increased the pipe back to 1 inch.  Other times they just ran the 1/2 inch to where the sprinkler head was relocated.

Rejected! :evil:


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 10, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

Yea.....I just don't think 13 or ASTM envisioned that


----------



## cda (Mar 10, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

my first answer would be NO.


----------



## RJJ (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

I guess they think I just show up for the coffee! :mrgreen:


----------



## JBI (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

Looks like someone could use an FPE to help them understand why that's a bad idea... (not you RJ, the genius who did the install     )


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

Coffee......I guess that are much nicer in PA


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

I stand corrected.  The condition show is allowed under some conditions if the length of the 1/2 inch nipple is less than 4 inches.

My bad!


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

NFPA 13 (2002) Section 8.14.19.3, Revamping of Sprinker Systems.  I knew the minute I posted my original thoughts that I remember doing just that conditon in the past.  This allowance is for revamping only.  I would not allow a sprinkler contractor install sprinklers in 1/2 inch openings for a core and shell and then use this provision for tenant finish.  The core and shell should use bushings and then the bushings removed when the TI's are done.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

Thanks, accidently clicked the X when trying to edit...ooops.  I didn't look in the 02 so thanks for the info.

EDIT: Now if it's a pipe schedule? New calced system then no.


----------



## cda (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

so what part of the posted picture complies??

8.14.19.3 Revamping of Pipe Schedule Systems.

8.14.19.3.1  When pipe schedule systems are revamped, a nipple not exceeding 4 in. (102 mm) in length shall be permitted to be installed in the branch line fitting.

8.14.19.3.2  All piping other than the nipple permitted in  8.14.19.3.1 and  8.14.19.3.3 shall be a minimum of 1 in. (25.4 mm) in diameter in accordance with  Figure 8.14.19.3.2.

8.14.19.3.3  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. (102 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 8.14.19.3.3.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

The 1/2 inch by no more than 4 inch nipple


----------



## RJJ (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

Yes I agree in part! The nipple would comply! However, I only have one photo and quite a few heads done in this manner. No plan or calculations.

I believe the nipple is permitted if it extends vertical / up 4" then make the off set.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler alteration

The "up" part would be if you are adding return bends.  The 1/2 x 4 drop is allowed to revamp the system.  Normally, you would want to back out the piping to the 1" outlet.  However, given that this pipe is concealed, the revamp provisions would apply.  It does not matter if the 1/2 x 4 option is used once, or for many heads.  The revamp provisions do require hydraulic calculations if the system is calculated.


----------

