Owen: I'll bet most on this forum have seen townhomes protected by 13R in one case and multiple-13D systems in others. I know I have. Many jurisdictions will grant individual meters to row homes - City of San Diego does it as a matter of regular practice. What may or may not have been agreed to here is between the project principals and the municipal agencies that approved the project - planning, building, development services, fire prevention, stormwater, environmental and health, etc., etc. You already know all that. If you want to know what the intent was, contact the AHJ but you can't really say whether a design is conforming or not unless you know what basis of design (right or wrong) was required. If you find that the contractor installed exactly what the AHJ directed them to, then you may have an issue (or a teachable moment) with the AHJ. But continuing to mill this topic whilst fishing for some measure of condemnation isn't really ... productive.
SL -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of firs...@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 12:45 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California Ken, Good questions. Correct, 13D does not require tamper on one and two family dwellings. But what about an Option one 13D system serving a building with 5 town homes? In other words, this is a stand alone 13D system (no domestic service from this line) serving 5 attached town homes. Does the exception from CBC, no tampers require, apply to this building of 5 units? What I meant about saving money was; let's say you have a building that consisted of 10 town houses. According to 13D you can install an Option one, stand alone 13D system and (according CBC) not monitor the control valves on the DCVA that was require by the water company. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Parsley Consulting <parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote: > > Owen, > > What money are you suggesting we save? I'm completely lost here. An NFPA 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not from 13D or the CFC, right? I don't quite understand why you believe this is so in error. > > While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why a system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter. Based on some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were truly individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added thousands of dollars to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands. > > Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow preventer in the first place? No possibility of cross connection from a stand alone 13D system, right? Or was it one of those things the water purveyor mandated? > > *Ken Wagoner, SET > *Parsley Consulting*** > *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 > *Escondido, California 92025 > *****Phone 760-745-6181* > Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** >> On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote: >> 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-firespr >>>>> ink >>>>> ler >>>>> .org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespr >>>>> ink >>>>> ler.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkl >>>> er.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkl >>>> er.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler >>> .org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler.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-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
