True unless the dwelling units meet the compartment criteria of 6.6.7.1.3. Then QR can be substituted for residential and then dry can be used. Again think 3 or 4 heads max in the typical hotel/motel room (dwelling unit/compartment).
On 7/4/07, Todd Williams - work <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since there aren't any residential sprinklers listed for use on a dry system, 5.3.2 (2) becomes moot. That was my assumption. At 11:04 AM 7/4/2007, you wrote: >Todd, > >A dry system would not be a reason to cause the system to become 13. >See 13R, 2002, 5.3.2. A dry pipe system is acceptable. It's CPVC that >is not listed for dry system use. 5.3.3 says to install dry pipe >systems in accordance with 13 but not that a dry pipe system makes it >a 13 system. I read this to mean that all rules, including coverage, >are still dictated by 13R but because it is silent on low points, >slope, compressor fill times, etc. that 13 applies in that regard. > >As for anti-freeze glcerin is required in the described suituation >because it's the only acceptable type listed for CPVC. If the system >was not plastic propylene glycol would be acceptable. > >If this is not a stand alone system then anti-freeze in the UG would >be unacceptable. On the other hand if it is fire protection only then >an RPBA/RPDA should be acceptable protection from the public/private >point of attachment which is typically the property line. > >Another comment for Charles. If you put a "RPZ" device in this system >in a vault the vault needs a drain that can handle the maximum >discharge rate of the device and be able to drain run-off that gets >into it. The discharge port of the device cannot be under water. > >On 7/4/07, Todd Williams - work <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Where did these 'requirements' come from? It sounds to me that the >>owner needs to have an Engineer come in and work with him (or her) on >>a system design. >> >>I believe that with the anti-freeze that it could still be a 13R >>system. A dry system would push it to 13. The water company would >>probably have something to say about glycerine (remember, no glycol >>in CPVC) in underground mains. Since the existing system is dry and >>(I assume) a 13, is there going to be an issue decreasing the >>protection level to 13R? The AHJ or Insurance Comapny may weigh in on that. >> >>Without knowing the type and arrangement of the building, It's >>difficult to make any comments about the impact of the soffits. I'm >>not sure I follow Ron's train of thought. >> >>Since you spoke about outside walkways, is part of this system >>outside? If so, then galvanized pipe and fittings plus wax coated >>sprinklers on a dry system would be appropriate. >> >> >>At 09:43 PM 7/3/2007, you wrote: >> >Hello sprinklerforum, >> > >> > I am open to suggestions on this one. >> > >> > We have a customer in a 4 story residential building >> > wanting to replace the entire system due to rusted/leaking pipes in >> > the old system. >> > >> > They are requiring the system to be installed with CPVC piping. >> > >> > They are requiring the ENTIRE system to be filled with >> > Anti-Freeze including the underground. >> > >> > They are wanting to put the DCDA Backflow, Then the Alarm >> > Valve, Then the RPZ Backflow and Expansion Tank into a hotbox outside. >> > >> > To me it looks like the use of Anti-Freeze bumps it to a 13 >> > system instead of 13R. The new piping is to be built into new >> > soffits on the outside of the building walkways. They have a Dry >> > Pipe system now and do not want the leaking problems they have now >> > to recur in a few years like the existing 10 year old system. I am >> > not even bring up the subject of Anti-Freeze recovery/reuse when >> > the system is tested or when the Alarm company does a flow to test >> > the WF switches quarterly. The Main Drain flow test is another subject... >> > >> >-- >> >Best regards, >> >Charles Thurston >> >Coastal Fire >> Protection mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > >> >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >>Todd G. Williams, PE >>Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>Stonington, Connecticut >>860-535-2080 >>www.fpdc.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > >-- >Ron Greenman >at home.... >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut 860-535-2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
-- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
