Yes, thank you Steve. I was just trying to get a consensus from the forum on does the CBC exception to tamper monitoring apply to a 13D, option one, stand alone system? Building details being a 5 unit building served by a 2" service with double OS&Y. No domestic water service off this line. Thanks for your input. Owen
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: > > Owen: > > I don't think that I, or anyone else on this forum is going to affirm or > reject the adequacy of a particular condition based on theoreticals, > especially when it's being done in the context of an > after-the-fact-over-the-shoulder inspection, i.e. second guessing. > Again and finally, my best advice is that if you have a question about > something like this, ask the AHJ. You were once one yourself - wouldn't > you appreciate the opportunity to learn from a past mistake or affirm a > decision made previously? > > SL > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of > firs...@aol.com > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 11:05 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California > > No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> >> wrote: >> >> Good points, which also beg the question: Does the 2" meter also feed >> the domestic water? If so, you can take the handles off the >> double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... >> >> Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to >> play the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ. >> >> SL >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> Larry Keeping >> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California >> >> If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the > >> BFP which serves 5 units. >> >> Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit > >> are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own >> individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up >> described as a 13D system. >> >> It looks like a 13R application to me. >> >> Larry Keeping >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> firs...@aol.com >> Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM >> 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-firesprin >>>> k >>>> ler >>>> .org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>>> k >>>> ler.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >>> l >>> er.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >>> l >>> 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-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
