Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

CPVC pipe failures 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
MGXFP

MGXFP

Mechanical
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
426
Location
US
All:

I've been contacted by a customer who is concerned about CPVC pipe failure. A note was mentioned about its use or non use in Florida.

Has there been a rash of CPVC failures in the US?

I've searched the interwebs and can only find websites offering expert witnesses regarding plastic failure. I've looked for NFPA or another official resource and can't find anything addressing it. I'm none too sure a problem exists.

Has anyone here experience with CPVC failure not caused as an installation error or aware of any endemic problems with CPVC? We've only used it in its listed capacity and the only problems we've had are from dry joints.

 
Sort by date Sort by votes
just because of freezing, because not heated enough

have not heard any other rumors
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The lack of proper installation of this type of pipe will destroy this industry within five more years. Let explain. I just just recently received a letter from my insurance carrier that stating I no longer will be covered by them because I do CPVC but they no longer support this type of work in their policies.
HELLO! Anybody out there? I have not a claim what so ever in many years and you dropping me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It looks great but that does not convince an insurance carrier just yet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
While others have indicated utility I don't doubt, cpvc and upvc pipes are however very low “fracture toughness” piping materials. While it is obvious that what this means to most folks (i.e. from the standpoint of impacts etc.), this actually means much more. It also means manufacturing flaws or damages of VERY small size (or very short “critical crack length” etc.) can result in propagation of catastrophic splitting failures. From the …Journal article “Fracture from Inherent flaws in Polymers” (in general) excerpt from the mid-second column page 4202 now posted at , “A lower limit on the flaw size for which brittle failure may be expected can thus be calculated from a = ……
For polymers the yield stresses are much lower, …so that a ~260 um. ”
[for us English-type folks I calculate 260 micrometers of course  = 0.000260 m = 0.000260x39.37 in/m = 0.010, or only ten thousandths of an inch]. When such pipes blow up, they can also do so in very sharp edged fragments (aka’ “shrapnel”, I have heard unlike metallic shrapnel harder to see in conventional body or other x-rays), making it not surprising that this a material preferred by some for pipe bombs. There have also been many workers and others standing by hurt and even killed around the world in ignition/explosions of solvent vapors from inside solvent cement pipes etc. (even if their babies have not been “born necked” in the past from breathing the stuff!) When it eventually burns in a fire, there are additionally some quite toxic nasties put off (the site e.g. at explains, “The hydrogen chlorine gas produced from burning PVC, for example, is similar to mustard gas.”)  At the same time, and in fashion non-obvious to many, plastic pipe it is being discovered is reportedly/apparently adversely affected by many common/prevalent environmental effects and agents in the constructed environments that have not historically been a problem, or as big a problem, with stronger pipes (e.g. see  and etc.) The manufacture of pvc piping, pretty much a commodity in at least smaller sizes, is VERY competitive if not cutthroat, with great pressures to use the very lowest cost resins and quickest manufacture etc. (that some are arguing now in current litigation has resulted in quality problems). Adding all this together, I suspect many of these zillions of plastic pipe failure consultants (some of whom it appears have graduated from making the stuff to consulting on its failures – “What a Country”!) that have cropped up not necessarily just be sitting around like the “Maytag repairman”! I have noticed many failure reports from same start out with the obligatory, “This is great pipe taking the world by storm, BUT…(I guess trying to insure future business!) I even noticed that the consultant in the aforementioned reports went further to claim the “contamination” that caused the failures was somehow coming from “metal pipes” – hey, why not blame it on “Bush”!!       

 Otherwise, don’t know about a “rash” of problems specific to cpvc, but with a quick internet search  and a few key words I believe you will probably find quite a few e.g. the following I accessed today:

 From accessed this day with the “fact”, “Many people died of smoke inhalation or from inhaling deadly vapors released from burning PVC pipes.” (I saw a similar fire report from the Kansas City Star a few years ago where fire fighters were affected by the same thing). 

Canada March 1991
The Saskatchewan Ministry of Labor Relations and Workplace Safety at (accessed this day) reports, it appears with regard to plumbers exposure, “There have been some cases of liver and kidney damage. The glues and primers used on PVC pipes contain 20 to 90 percent THF.”

Rio Rancho, New Mexico, November 20, 1993
Per report at , there was a “Multi-casualty incident. During a welding operation at Intel Corporation, flammable fumes in a plastic pipe ignited and exploded; 13 injured.”

Hanford, WA 1995
The report at   relates a 6” pack pipeline explosion due to ignition of vapors residual from installation, “…the entire section of PVC pipe exploded and shrapnel spread throughout a 400-foot by 220-foot building”. While reportedly 40 people were standing under the pipeline when it exploded, only two of these were injured!

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 22, 1997
Per the report at vapors residual from pack liner pipe installation resulted in, “A week later, a welding torch set off an explosion that blew the PVC pipe out of the shaft and strewed PVC shrapnel around the pit, causing multiple leg injuries to one worker. The second worker lost hearing in one ear as a result of the explosion.”

Stanford University, CA October 12, 2004
Per accounts at and report at   four workers suffered “temporary hearing loss” after an explosion, due to “residual vapors” inside from pack pipe installation.

 Daytona Beach, FL Bethune Point WWTP January 11, 2006
Per “Final Report” of disaster from the U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD accessible at stated pack vent etc. piping on a methanol tank separated in an accident and concluded, “The PVC vent pipe was below the man-lift basket. After the flame arrester blew off the vent pipe, burning methanol vapors under pressure would have likely discharged into the basket where two workers were standing. Figure 7 shows the location of the basket relative to the vent pipe. Had the methanol piping and valves been constructed of steel, the system would most likely have remained intact. The mechanic in the crane would likely not have been killed, and the other two workers may have been less severely injured.”

Shanks Ville/Berlin, Pennsylvania ~April 2009
The Daily American newspaper reported an accident involving pvc piping as follows, “Glue vapors ignited by a nearby welder likely caused the explosion that injured four people…” and, “…pieces of pipe lodged into the men causing significant injury.”

 U.S. MSHA Hazard Report July, 2009
Three pipefitters were injured when an explosion of solvent cement pvc piping (apparently vapors from cement ignited). A shard of pvc “penetrated” one workers hard hat, causing a head injury.

Miami, FL September 8, 2009
Per similar account reported at  “One worker reportedly had injuries to his hand, and the other two workers sustained injuries to the lower parts of their bodies. One of the injured workers was transported by Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue to Broward General Medical Center for treatment of his injuries. Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue also transported the other two workers to Imperial Point Medical Center for treatment.”

 
There have probably been a great many more that for obvious reasons have not necessarily been publicized. I have also not included a great many other reports I’ve noticed specific to other sorts of characteristic hazard incidents like permeation and leaching of toxics into potable water (that I suspect may not be your current application).
I hope this helps.
 

 

 

 
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rconner,
I believe you should mention your connection to the iron industry when posting these sorts of things.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not sure if the answer should include the context on how this pipe is used in sprinkler systems
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks everyone who chimed in.

The scope of my search is only fire sprinkler systems and only CPVC pipe failures in the US. There doesn't seem much out there documenting fire sprinkler cases where CPVC has failed other than websites offering expert witnesses i.e. lawyers.

I would gather from the evidence combining steel pipe treated with anti-microbial films with CPVC might not be such a good idea.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
would gather from the evidence combining steel pipe treated with anti-microbial films with CPVC might not be such a good idea.


have to check with the cvpc maker to see if there are nay restrictions
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The first reply of NJ1 is interesting. While failures for many reasons are typically not publicized, it may well be a mistake to assume that problems are not occurring, or for that matter that all insurers or loss control specialists are oblivious to same. Notice e.g. the websites at and that now specifically single out cpvc pipe for a great many unique, “special requirements” (see all the “Do not(s)…” and specific damage claim(s) etc. mentioned). I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these folks may even have some knowledge of the circumstances of claims they paid out, that have prompted them to get also in this sort of pipe caveat/warning business. Who is going to police all of these prohibitions of things that have traditionally not given problems with legacy materials?

jgailla, all of “these things” I first replied with are not my writings but instead matters of public, and I’m sure in some cases legal, record. These all also appear to be matters involving solvent-cemented/glued ( ) polyvinyl chloride piping systems, if not specifically the cpvc of the OP. While as I suspect you know this forum suggests our quasi anonymity(frankly perhaps one reason for its vibrancy?), I am not hard to find. However, I did not promote “iron pipe” in this thread, nor do I speak for that industry nor my employer. I speak for myself. While attacking or attempting to somehow discredit a messenger as opposed to the message when same may be uncomfortable is indeed a quite old play, I would prefer to keep discussions on a technical basis. In this regard, if I say something inaccurate, please let me know and I will correct, as I do attach a lot of importance to that. As you did suggest a motivation for stronger pipes, I will however take that opportunity to simply ask the question, “Had such stronger pipes and different joining systems been selected for the projects all these references refer to, would all of these unfortunate souls been so injured and/o killed as these references report? It could be some others attach some significant, if not paramount, importance to the aspects of safety and security.

[Incidentally, I have noticed the manufacturer of some steel pipes with some kind of anti-microbial coating has apparently at least preliminarily disputed the claims that their product has caused failures of cpvc pipes at . Disclaimer, I have no knowledge nor interest in such!]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Plastic piping in fire sprinkler systems!!! great God what's happening to common sense. Anyone knows what happens when plastic under pressure and no flow conditionis subjected to high temperatures. If I were the insurance company, I would say forget about coverage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CHIC

Cvpc fire sprinkler systems have been in use over twenty years

About 95% of the time it is behind sheetrock
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Chicopee, the US has been using CPVC for over 20 years in fire protection systems. In comparison to every nation on Earth, the US has done more to advance the installation of sprinkler systems. Australia is 2nd to the US. My point is that if you're in the US and you have exclusively specified steel pipe in Light Hazard or Residential occupancies, your competion thanks you.

The original question was about CPVC failures. It was not about the advocacy of plastic pipe for fire protection service. You do realize the amount of C900 PVC specified for private fire protection mains?

CDA, CPVC is always required to be protected by a thermal barrier, both for the protection of the pipe and the IBC/IMC flame spread and smoke production limits for plastic materials in buildings.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Stookey

Not true it can be run with no sheetrock in a very few instances, but normally a sprinkler head is required to protect the pipe
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Exposed Installations
Listed hangers are required for all exposed installations. Viking
Plastics BlazeMaster® CPVC fire sprinkler products are UL and
C-UL Listed for installation by a qualified installer or contractor
without protection (exposed) with the following restrictions:
• Standard Coverage Sprinklers
These installations shall be below a smooth, flat, horizontal
ceiling construction and require the use of Viking Plastics
approved one-step cement. The use of listed hangers for
thermoplastic sprinkler piping mounted directly to the ceiling
(or wall) is permitted. The resulting clearance between the
pipe and ceiling (or wall) resulting from the use of the listed
hanger is acceptable.
o Light Hazard Pendent Sprinklers
Listed quick response, 170 °F (77 °C) maximum
temperature rated, pendent sprinklers having deflectors
installed within 8 inches (203 mm) from the ceiling. The
maximum distance between sprinklers shall not exceed
15 feet (4.57 m). The piping shall be mounted directly to
the ceiling.
o Light Hazard Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers
Listed quick response, 200 °F (93 °C) maximum
temperature rated, horizontal sidewall sprinklers having
deflectors installed within 12 inches (304 mm) from the
ceiling and within 6 inches (152 mm) from the sidewall.
The maximum distance between sprinklers shall not
exceed 14 feet (4.27 m). The piping shall be mounted
directly to the sidewall.
o Light Hazard Upright Sprinklers
Listed quick response, 155 °F (68 °C) maximum
temperature rated, upright sprinklers having deflectors
installed within 4 inches (101 mm) from the ceiling and a
maximum distance between sprinklers shall not exceed
15 feet (4.57 m). The maximum distance from the ceiling
to the centerline of the main run of pipe shall not to
exceed 7-1/2 inches (190 mm) and the distance from
the centerline of a sprinkler to the closest hanger shall
be 3 inches (76 mm).
- 16 -
• Light Hazard Extended Coverage Sprinklers
These installations shall be below a smooth, flat, horizontal
ceiling construction, are limited to unobstructed construction,
require the use of Schedule 80 fittings for sizes 1-1/2 inches
and greater, and require the use of Viking Plastics approved
one-step solvent cement. For pendent sprinkler installations,
the piping shall be mounted directly to the ceiling. For
horizontal sidewall sprinkler installations, the piping shall be
mounted directly to the sidewall. The use of listed surfacemount
hangers for thermoplastic sprinkler piping mounted
directly to the ceiling (or wall) is permitted. The resulting
clearance between the pipe and ceiling (or wall) resulting from
the use of the listed hanger is acceptable.
o Light Hazard Extended Coverage Pendent
Sprinklers
Listed light hazard, extended coverage, quick response,
155 °F (68 °C) maximum temperature rated, pendent
sprinklers having deflectors installed within 8 inches (203
mm) from the ceiling, a maximum distance between
sprinklers not to exceed 20 feet (6.09 m), and an
application density not less than 0.10 gpm/ft2 (4.08
mm/min).
o Light Hazard Extended Coverage Horizontal
Sidewall Sprinklers
Listed light hazard, extended coverage, quick response,
165 °F (74 °C) maximum temperature rated, horizontal
sidewall sprinklers having deflectors installed within 12
inches (304 mm) from the ceiling and within 6 inches (152
mm) from the sidewall, a maximum distance between
sprinklers not to exceed 18 feet (5.48 m), and an
For Exposed




Light Hazard Extended Coverage Pendent
Sprinklers
Listed light hazard, extended coverage, quick response,
155 °F (68 °C) maximum temperature rated, pendent
sprinklers having deflectors installed within 8 inches (203
mm) from the ceiling, a maximum distance between
sprinklers not to exceed 20 feet (6.09 m), and an
application density not less than 0.10 gpm/ft2 (4.08
mm/min).
o Light Hazard Extended Coverage Horizontal
Sidewall Sprinklers
Listed light hazard, extended coverage, quick response,
165 °F (74 °C) maximum temperature rated, horizontal
sidewall sprinklers having deflectors installed within 12
inches (304 mm) from the ceiling and within 6 inches (152
mm) from the sidewall, a maximum distance between
sprinklers not to exceed 18 feet (5.48 m), and an
For Exposed BlazeMaster® Applications
(Use in unfinished basements, system risers, and mechanical tees and crosses are not included in this table)
Sprinkler
Configuration
Type of
Sprinkler
Spacing
Between
Sprinklers (ft.)
Maximum
Deflector
Distance from
Ceiling (in.)
Maximum
Deflector
Distance from
Sidewall (in.)
Maximum
Sprinkler
Temp.
Rating (°F)
Application
Density
(gpm/sq. ft.)
Additional
Limitations
Extended Coverage Sprinklers
Pendent Light Hazard,
Quick Response
=20 8 n/a 155 0.10
=16 12 6 175 0.10
Horizontal
Sidewall
Light Hazard,
Quick Response
=18 12 6 165 0.10
Light Hazard,
Quick Response
Listed Reliable
Sprinkler (SIN
RA0362)
=24 12 6 155 flow rate of
40 gpm and
maximum
coverage area
of 24' x 14'
Residential Sprinklers
=15 per Sprinkler
Listing
n/a 170 per Sprinkler
Listing
Pendent Residential
=20 8 n/a 155 0.10
=14 per Sprinkler
Listing
per Sprinkler
Listing
200 per Sprinkler
Listing
Horizontal
Sidewall
Residential
=18 12 6 165 0.10
Standard Coverage Sprinklers
Pendent Quick Response =15 8 n/a 170 0.10
Horizontal
Sidewall
Quick Response =14 12 6 200 0.10
Upright Quick Response =15 4
in addition the
distance from
the ceiling to
centerline at
pipe must be a
maximum at
7 1/2 inches
155 0.10 a hanger must
be installed
3 inches from
the centerline
of the sprinkler
head
- 17 -
application density not less than 0.10 gpm/ft2 (4.08
mm/min).
Listed light hazard, extended coverage, quick-response, 175
°F (79 °C) maximum temperature rated, horizontal
sidewall sprinklers having deflectors installed within 12
inches (304 mm) from the ceiling and within 6 inches (152
mm) from the sidewall, a maximum distance between
sprinklers not to exceed 16 feet (4.87 m), and an
application density not less than 0.10 gpm/ft2 (4.08
mm/min).
Listed horizontal sidewall, light hazard, quick response
extended coverage sprinklers, 155 °F (68 °C) maximum
temperature rating, manufactured by Reliable Automatic
Sprinkler Co. Inc., SIN RA0362 having deflectors installed
within 12 inches (30 cm) from the ceiling and within 6
inches (15 cm) from the sidewall and a maximum distance
between sprinklers not to exceed 24 feet (7.31 m) with a
flow not less than 40 gal/min (152 L/min) per sprinkler.
• Residential
These installations shall be below a smooth, flat, horizontal
ceiling construction, are limited to the unobstructed
construction, require the use of Schedule 80 fittings for sizes
1-1/2 inches and greater, and require the use of Viking
Plastics approved one-step solvent cement. For pendent
sprinkler installations, the piping shall be mounted directly to
the ceiling. For horizontal sidewall sprinkler installations, the
piping shall be mounted directly to the sidewall. The use of
listed surface-mount hangers for thermoplastic sprinkler piping
mounted directly to the ceiling (or wall) is permitted. The
resulting clearance between the pipe and ceiling (or wall)
resulting from the use of the listed hanger is acceptable.
o Residential Pendent Sprinklers with maximum
lateral distance between sprinklers < 15 feet (4.57 m)
Listed residential pendent 170 °F (77 °C) maximum
temperature rated sprinklers with deflectors of sprinklers
installed in accordance with their listing and not
exceeding 8 inches (203 mm) from the ceiling. The
demand for the sprinklers shall be the minimum flow rates
indicated in the individual listings.
o Residential Pendent Sprinklers with lateral
distance between sprinklers > 15 feet (4.57 m) but <
20 feet (6.09 m)
Listed residential pendent 155 °F (68 °C) maximum
temperature rated sprinklers with deflectors of sprinklers
installed in accordance with their listing and not
exceeding 8 inches (203 mm) from the ceiling. The
demand for the sprinklers shall be the greater of either the
minimum flow rates indicated in the individual listing or
the calculated flow rate based on delivering a minimum of
- 18 -
0.10 gpm/sq ft over the design area in accordance with
the provisions of NFPA 13 section 8.5.2.1 (2002, 2007,
2010).
o Residential Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers with
maximum lateral distance between sprinklers < 14
feet (4.26 m)
Listed residential horizontal sidewall 200 °F (93 °C)
maximum temperature rated sprinklers with deflectors of
sprinklers located in accordance with their listing. The
demand for the sprinklers shall be the minimum flow rates
indicated in the individual listings.
o Residential Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers with
lateral distance between sprinklers > 14 feet (4.26 m)
but < 18 feet (5.48 m)
Listed residential horizontal sidewall 165 °F (74 °C)
maximum temperature rated sprinklers installed with
deflectors of sprinklers up to 12 inches (304 mm) down
from the ceiling and within 6 inches (152 mm) of the side
wall. The demand for the sprinklers shall be the greater of
either the minimum flow rates indicated in the individual
listing or the calculated flow rate based on delivering a
minimum of 0.10 gpm/sq ft over the design area in
accordance with the provisions of NFPA 13 section
8.5.2.1 (2002, 2007, 2010). The maximum sprinkler area
of coverage shall not exceed 18 feet by 18 feet.
Unfinished Basements
Viking Plastics BlazeMaster® CPVC fire sprinkler products are UL
and C-UL Listed for installation by a qualified installer or
contractor without protection (exposed) in unfinished basements
in accordance with NFPA 13D when subject to the following
additional limitations:
1. The ceiling shall be horizontal and constructed with nominal
2 inch x 10 inch solid wood joists on 16 inch (40.6 cm)
centers.
OR
The ceiling shall be horizontal and constructed with nominal
2 inch x 12 inch solid wood joists on 16 inch (40.6 cm)
centers. When installing Viking Plastics BlazeMaster® CPVC
products in conjunction with 2 inch x 12 inch solid wood
joists, the maximum system working pressure under flowing
conditions shall not exceed 100 psi (690 kPa) and the
maximum system working pressure under static (nonflowing)
conditions shall not exceed 175 psi (1207 kPa).
2. The distance from the floor to the bottom of the solid wood
joists shall be between 7 and 8 feet (2.14 and 2.43 m).
3. Listed residential pendent sprinklers with a maximum
temperature rating of 155°F (68°C) and a minimum K-factor
of 3.0 shall be used for this type of installation. The
maximum sprinkler spacing shall not exceed 12 feet (3.65
m). The system is to be designed based upon the Listed
flows for the sprinkler selected, except that the flow for a
single sprinkler or for multiple sprinklers flowing is to be not
less than 11 gal/min (41.64 liter/min) per sprinkler. The
sprinklers are to be installed with their deflectors a maximum
of 1-3/4 inch (4.4 cm) below the bottom of the solid wood
joists in anticipation of future installation of a finished ceiling.10/1/11
Viking Plastics



and for riser rooms:::


2. Viking Plastics BlazeMaster® CPVC products may be used as
system risers in accordance with NFPA 13D and 13R when
installed without protection (exposed). When installed
exposed, the following limitations shall apply:
(a) The riser shall be installed below a smooth, flat,
horizontal ceiling construction. A Listed residential
pendent sprinkler shall be installed with its deflector at the
distance from the ceiling specified in the sprinkler Listing.
OR
The riser shall be installed below a horizontal unfinished
basement ceiling (in accordance with NFPA 13D)
constructed with nominal 2 inch x 10 inch or nominal 2
inch x 12 inch exposed solid wood joists on 16 inch
(40.6 cm) centers. A Listed residential pendent sprinkler
shall be installed with its deflector a maximum of 1-3/4
inch (4.4 cm) below the bottom of the solid wood joist in
anticipation of future installation of a finished ceiling.
• When installing BlazeMaster® CPVC pipe and
fittings in conjunction with 2 inch x 12 inch solid
wood joists, the maximum system working pressure
under flowing conditions shall not exceed 100 psi
(690 kPa) and the maximum system working
pressure under static (non-flowing) conditions shall
not exceed 175 psi (1207 kPa).
b) A Listed residential pendent sprinkler having a
maximum temperature rating of 155°F (68°C) and a
minimum K-factor of 3.0 shall be installed at a
maximum horizontal distance of 12 inches (30 cm)
from the centerline of the riser. The system shall be
designed based upon the Listed flows for the sprinkler
selected, except that the flow for a single sprinkler or
for multiple sprinklers flowing shall not be less than 11
gal/min (41.64 liter/min) per sprinkler.
c) The riser shall be supported vertically within 2 feet (.6 m)
of the ceiling or bottom of the joist.
d) The minimum riser pipe diameter shall be 1 inch (25 mm)
and the maximum riser diameter shall be 2 inch (50 mm).
Schedule 80 fittings for riser sizes 1-1/2 inch (40 mm)
and larger shall be used.
e) The maximum distance between the wall(s) and the
outside surface of the riser pipe shall be 1-1/2 inch (40
mm).
f) All solvent cement joints shall be made with Viking
Plastics approved one-step solvent cement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It does not matter how anyone feels about this particular posting. Insurance carriers will continue to blame installers on this particular matter.
I constantly see contractors doing the wrong this on a daily basis. By the way. Next time I go to one of my local suppliers I will take pictures and post them here. CPVC shall never be stored outdoors. At least not unprotected. The problem is that contractors instead of filing a complaint against supplier they buy the product and install it as they bought it. HELLO! So who is wrong here.
I am telling you right now. We have two options.
1) Start filing complaints to protect our future
2) Loose general liability insurance once and for all because of others

You choose.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That article doesn't say the fire sprinkler system was constructed with CPVC sprinkler pipe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Designer_82
  • Locked
  • Question Question
NFPA 13R residential system - Exposed CPVC
Replies
2
Views
645
cdafd
cdafd
C
  • Locked
  • Question Question
seamless and welded pipe
Replies
0
Views
774
Cris-w
C
andy_oohhh
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Fire Water Pipe Size & High Flow Building
Replies
6
Views
4K
TravisMack
TravisMack
pop1888
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Pipe fireproofing
Replies
7
Views
697
cdafd
cdafd
arju99
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Fire Hose Cabinet 0r Class II stand pipe system
Replies
0
Views
298
arju99
arju99

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top