It appears that both the AHJ and contractor have made mistakes on this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring.
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: > > Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss > prevention analysis? Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and > ask for approved basis of design? > > SL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com > Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California > > Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you > can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they > failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a > 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. > My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the > exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are > required. Am I correct? > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: >> >> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the >> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers. NFPA offers multiple >> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves. Perhaps >> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision. >> >> Steve L. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> firs...@aol.com >> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California >> >> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be >> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family >> Dwellings, 13D. >> >> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to >> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour >> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit. >> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve). >> >> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings >> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off >> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring. >> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement >> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC. >> >> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the >> DCVA would need tampers, correct? >> >> Owen Evans >> >> Sent from my iPad >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler >> .org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
