I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit building with no tampers on double OS&Y. They are claiming 13D exception to tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next installations by calling it a 13D and use that exception.
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: > > So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design. > > SL > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > firs...@aol.com > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California > > 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-firesprink >>> ler >>> .org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >>> ler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >> er.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