Any reason CPVC can not be used on drain, bell and iinspector's test?

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Inspecting a warehouse system I found where the installing contractor was using CPVC downstream the inspector's test valve, downstream the 2" main drain angle valve and on the 3/4" supply from the alarm check valve to water motor gong.

Seemed strange to me but I can't find anything wrong with it. Not the way I do things but is there something I am missing?

 

[MGXFP]

I always thought plastic pipe should only be used when protected by a fire-rated assembly but other than that it seems only to be weird.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

NewtonFP, Yeah, what I think too non of it feeds sprinklers.

The only question I have is how long will the short piece of CPVC and 45 deg elbow on the main drain last exposed to the bright Georgia sunshine? I like giving customers better quality but from a code or standard point of view?

 

[cdafd]

could see using it for everything except the bell piping, since the other two if the pipe fails it does not matter no water lost, were as the bell pipe goes no sound

 

[NJ1]

I have an answer for that question. Fire Protection Contractors are getting cheaper and cheaper when it comes to spending. Since those specific locations are not truly exposed to a fire hazard against the entire piping network, most contractors are looking to save money once the contract is signed. I seen lots of that here in NJ. I dont like it but is truly not a violation.
Whatever!

 

[pipesnpumps]

Both PVC and CPVC should be painted (latex works) if it could potentially be exposed to any sunlight.

re: exposed
In NFPA 13-2007 and later system the CPVC piping can be run exposed, where installed "in accordance with .. listing limitations, including installation instructions." [NFPA 13-2007, section 6.3.6.1]

The piping can be run exposed in light hazard areas with smooth ceilings and QR sprinklers. However, the typical CPVC listing limitations for use in a system riser states:
"CPVC products may be used as system risers in accordance with NFPA 13 light hazard, NFPA 13D, and 13R when installed protected (concealed). The minimum protection shall consist of either one layer of 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) thick gypsum wallboard or 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) thick plywood."

Of course downstream of the test/drain valves wouldn't technically be part of the "system riser" to require concealment. The bell line would require concealment, since it is part of the "waterflow alarm device", one of the two devices required to have a "system riser".
So I would make them change out the bell line.

The piping must also be listed and stamped/marked, so you could also check to make sure the piping is listed. Its probably unrealistic to require listed piping in an open non-pressurized line.

If you must meet FM and are in a seismic design category C or higher building, then you can't use CPVC piping at all.. Again probably just the bell line would be the issue.

 

[KDLLC]

I don't believe there's anything in 13 to prevent CPVC (or other non-CPVC plastic pipe) from being used as drain pipe. If the applicable edition of NFPA 13 is 2007 or older, the same goes for the supply pipe to the water motor gong. However, a change in the 2010 edition (section 6.9.3.3) now requires water motor gong supply pipe to be METALLIC corrosion-resistant.

 

[FFP1]

Let's not confuse readers on this blog........anyone installing or inspecting CPVC plastic pipe needs to read ALL of NFPA 13 Section 6.3.6 AND the applicable appendix text as well as the installation requirements from the various CPVC plastic pipe manufacturers.

NFPA 13 (2007) Section 6.3.6.1 states the following: "Other types of pipe or tube investigated for suitability in automatic sprinkler installations and listed for this service, including but not limited to CPVC and steel, and differing from that provided in Table 6.3.1.1 or Table 6.3.6.1 shall be permitted where installed in accordance with their listing limitations, including installation instructions." ABSOLUTELY nothing about being approved in an "exposed" installation.

Some important excerpts from the Appendix:

-Some listings do provide for the use of exposed piping in conjunction with residential or quick-response sprinklers, but only under specific, limited installation criteria.

-With respect to thermoplastic pipe and fittings, exposure of such piping to elevated temperatures in excess of that for which it has been listed can result in distortion or failure. Accordingly, care must be exercised when locating such systems to ensure that the ambient temperature, including seasonal variations, does not exceed the rated value. The upper service temperature limit of currently listed CPVC sprinkler pipe is 150°F (65.5°C) at 175 psi (12.1 bar). The upper service temperature limit of currently listed polybutylene sprinkler pipe is 120°F (49°C) at 175 psi (12.1 bar).

-Consideration must also be given to the possibility of exposure of the piping to elevated temperatures during a fire. The survival of thermoplastic piping under fire conditions is primarily due to the cooling effect of the discharge from the sprinklers it serves. As this discharge might not occur simultaneously with the rise in ambient temperature and, under some circumstances, can be delayed for periods beyond the tolerance of the piping, protection in the form of a fire-resistant membrane is generally required. Where protection is required, it is described in the listing information for each individual product, and the requirements given must be followed. It is equally important that such protection must be maintained. Removal of, for example, one or more panels in a lay-in ceiling can expose piping in the concealed space to the possibility of failure in the event of a fire. Similarly, the relocation of openings through protective ceilings that expose the pipe to heat, inconsistent with the listing, would place the system in jeopardy. The potential for loss of the protective membrane under earthquake conditions should also be considered.

-While the listings of thermoplastic piping do not prohibit its installation in combustible concealed spaces where the provision of sprinkler protection is not required, and while the statistical record of fire originating in such spaces is low, it should be recognized that the occurrence of a fire in such a space could result in failure of the piping system.

Anyone who reads this (and all of the other pertinent material regarding CPVC piping) and concludes it is OK to install it in an exposed arrangement for a NFPA 13 location is blinded by bias or worse.

Response to the original question: My opinion is that it is pitiful and considered poor engineering design to use CPVC plastic piping for the drain lines when the remainder of the system is steel.........If I were the customer or a consultant for the customer, I would suggest they find a more professional and reputable sprinkler contractor for any future projects AND I would not recommend a contractor who cuts corners such as this........what other corners will a contractor like this cut in an attempt to maximize profit or retain a job as the "lowest bidder". We need to act like professionals and install systems that will function properly over the long haul (50+ years rather than being so focused on a quick profit and hope the system will last for 5-10 years).

 

[NJ1]

Ok lets say that it is a violation. Near my house they just installed a brand new sprinkler system and the exposed end of the main drain they used a CPVC 90 ell instead of cast iron. Would you guys consider that a violation?

 

[FFP1]

NJ1:

I would not consider your example a violation of NFPA requirements, but I would consider this practice to be poor quality and not entirely professional.

 

[NJ1]

Thanks for that opinion because I strongly feel the same way. That will be consider cutting corners.

 

[ChrisConley]

So... NFPA 13 says you can use CPVC pipe, but if you do you're a lousy cost cutting, penny pinching, unprofessional louse?

 

[NJ1]

Wow that was deep but yeah pretty much that.

 

[FFP1]

Chris Conley:

I would not agree with your "over-the-top" reaction for CPVC plastic components located above or behind fire rated barriers and installed in accordance with all of the NFPA 13 requirements as well as ALL of the pipe manufacturers installation guidelines; HOWEVER, I would tend to respond "YES" to your question for sprinkler contractors which use CPVC plastic piping for certain sections of the system in an obvious attempt to maximize profit (i.e. when all of the remaining system piping is steel).

I have already seen WAY too many corners cut in the past 5-7 years in the name of MORE PROFIT for the sprinkler contractor. I find exposed CPVC plastic sprinkler piping in stairwells, mechanical rooms, laundry rooms and even in attic areas (when the sprinkler system is intended to protect the wood frame attic). Most of these problems are at Hotels, Day Care Facilities, Nursing Homes and Schools. Some are supposedly designed to NFPA 13R; but in most instances, these systems were supposedly installed in accordance with NFPA 13......yeah right!

 

[TravisMack]

For attics, if you use the Tyco specially listed attic sprinklers, you are permitted by the listing of pipe/heads to install CPVC in the attic. This is allowed in a 13R or 13 system. What is the issue with using CPVC?

The listings for CPVC have expanded greatly over the years. Please don't take this the wrong way, but is some of your 'dislike' for CPVC just because you may not be familiar with all of the ways it is now listed for installation.

There are places where CPVC is superior to steel. For example, if you have a site where MIC is a problem, it may be beneficial to install CPVC as MIC does not seem to attack CPVC. I have been involved in a project where it was a retrofit over a working office. The field guys had to work the night shift as the employees were not being moved out. The building was a high rise of non combustible construction. Using CPVC, the installation was cleaner and done in less time than it would have been in steel.

I have seen situations where CPVC is installed outside of its listing and this is never a good thing. But, I don't think the use of CPVC in the industry, where it is permitted, is a bad thing.

Lastly, using current technology to maximize profits is not a bad thing. If you are cutting corners to maximize profit, that is a different animal. But, if company A bids an office building with standard coverage heads, and company B bids with Ex Cov sprinklers, you can be pretty sure that company B will get the job.

Have a great weekend everyone. Don't forget to call mom!

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[cdafd]

you have to look at the most current listing for plastic

it can be installed exposed in a stairwell with comditions, and other places exposed with condtions

 

[NJ1]

All arguments are fair are likely to be worth talking about. My question is why would a contractor use steel pipe in the entire building but when it comes to drains and other less likely code relevant locations use CPVC.
In my opinion is poor judgement and unprofessional behavior.
I dont believe that such contractor presented a full stamped set of drawings indicating locations on which they will use CPVC instead of steel.
Is very questionable.

 

[MGXFP]

CPVC costs about the same per foot as steel at least around my part of the country. The installing contractor probably had the pipe and fittings on his truck the day he was out doing the trim and just used it to route the drain. It is always best to assume ignorance over malice.

What Travis described with existing buildings is exactly why I love CPVC for retrofits, especially for say dining room areas of restaurants open during normal business hours.

 

[TravisMack]

The contractor may use CPVC for drains in an otherwise steel building simply for costs concerns. It may be less expensive for them to run drains that way. If the client is aware of what is used, and it is a listed material for the application, then there is no reason that it can't be done.

I have my own biases about how things should be, just as everyone else. But just because we have a bias toward one way, it does not necessarily make other methods of achieving the same thing wrong. Why not use Sch 80 steel pipe for everything. After all, wouldn't sch 80 be better than Sch 10 for the life of the pipe? Where does it end?

I am just going to have to agree to disagree with some on this matter. If a product is used within the listing for the product and is allowed by the prescriptive standards, then I do not see an issue with it.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[FFP1]

There is no doubt and I agree that CPVC piping has several advantages in certain situations. I am not naive enough to state that I know everything there is to know about CPVC, but I am fully aware of most of the requirements regarding CPVC piping (i.e. none of the examples listed above have surprised me).

I must admit that I have developed a slightly negative opinion and I look a little closer during my inspections when I see CPVC piping has been installed to protect a building........I have found way too many problems which were not installed in accordance with all of the applicable requirements. CPCV piping is acceptable as long as it is installed in accordance with all of the applicable requirements.

I have a problem with sprinkler contractors who install painted CPVC sprinkler piping located on the protected side of the dry wall throughout a nursing home (standard response sidewall heads on "exposed" painted CPVC pipe). I also find CPVC in attic areas located above the insulation on a regular basis (piping should be protected against freeze in unheated attics). Exposed CPVC piping is not acceptable using standard sprinklers for NFPA 13 sprinkler systems designed to protect attic spaces when the CPVC piping is located in the attic, but this combination is not uncommon at day care facilities, churches and nursing homes (attic sprinklers are a different story as the well versed Travis Mack pointed out).

The sole reason I even posted a response was to prevent readers of this internet blog from thinking CPVC is widely approved in "exposed" applications.........the circumstances where this is true are VERY limited. I was trying to prompt a few readers to conduct a little in depth research regarding CPVC. My guess would be that nearly all of us would agree on this topic if we were sitting in a room discussing the topic.

I want to appologize if my comments suggested I think the use of CPCV piping suggests a contractor is less than professional.......not true if the system is installed properly.

We all know there are sprinkler contractors with employees who cut corners and come in with the low low bids. I wonder sometimes if the employees know the requirements and they ignore them on purpose or if they are designing/installing systems even though they are not aware of the pertinent requirements. One or the other must be true because there are WAY too many CPVC sprinkler systems out there which were not installed in accordance with the applicable NFPA and CPVC pipe manufacturer's installation requirements.

Over and out.