Sounds like it's outside the scope of a simple 13d system. 13d is a combination domestic/fire 1&2 family dwelling not dwellings.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30 > On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
