We had one go off about a couple of years ago. I think it was the Grinnell
version of Central's K25. I don't remember much about it, only that after we
called the manufacturer, they had a site visit the next day and within a couple
of days they were out there and replaced all the sprinklers.
Mfr support isn't quite as smooth for Aydin as for us, Jay- he's in Turkey,
with local support being a bit spotty. But Jay is right, the mfr should want
to know why it let loose, and I'd be surprised if the Owner's insurance
carrier (or the installing contractor's carrier) isn't looking to
Had an interesting encounter with an AHJ this week.
He stopped by a jobsite where we're installing CPVC in walls, and found
fault with the nail plates we're using.
I called to follow up on why he didn't like them, and asked for a code
reference. He replied even if it wasn't in the code, he'd
What's the difference in requirements between the IPC, IMC and what you have to
do for sprinklers?
Can't see how he could stretch those codes to cover sprinklers since they are
obviously controlled via IFC and NFPA. I'd say he's grasping for straws.
But it would seem that the requirement for
Not too long ago we had a member discussing how that according to an
AHJ there could was no limited combustibility construction because IFC
only referred to non-combustible construction in chapter something
(not 9) and NFPA 13 wasn't a part of the code but only a referenced
standard. It took an
If I recall, the IPC has been used in the DCVA vs. RPZ debate
At 10:19 AM 4/17/2009, you wrote:
What's the difference in requirements between the IPC, IMC and what
you have to do for sprinklers?
Can't see how he could stretch those codes to cover sprinklers since
they are obviously
If I recall, the IPC has been used in the DCVA vs. RPZ debate
Todd,
In chapter nine of the IBC, the only time the International Plumbing Code is
mentioned is with the requirement for backflow prevention. Which the water
claim jurisdiction over usually anyway.
The scope section of chapter 9
Yeah but that makes sense since they are used in potable water systems and
potable systems connected to sprinklers. That is not unique to sprinklers
specifically.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box
I was only citing that as an instance where IPC requirements are
translated to sprinkler. As far as the code official applying fire
alarm zoning to sprinklers, that was in the RI Code for years.
At 11:01 AM 4/17/2009, you wrote:
If I recall, the IPC has been used in the DCVA vs. RPZ
Let's go back to George's original post. I read something about the shape
or size of the nail plate was not up to the liking of the inspector. As far
as I know there are no nail plate requirements that talk about size and
shape in 13, 13R or 13D. Thus an AHJ might look else where for guidance.
So how were the size of the nail plates George used determined?
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection Specialist
Mechanical Department
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
craig.pr...@ch2m.com
IPC 2006
305.8 Protection against physical damage. In concealed
locations where piping, other than cast-iron or galvanized steel,
is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or
similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest
edge of the member, the pipe shall be
I think you are missing the point.
You have found the references within each Code, but do the Codes apply to
Fire Suppression piping?
Read the SCOPE of each document and you will find that it does NOT include
Fire Suppression piping.
Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member)
Corporate
Yes, that's it in a nutshell, Jeff- none of the others apply. The AHJ should
NOT go to the NRC guidelines for pipe protection to apply to our apt
building.
Also, the UCC section chief at LI in Harrisburg agrees with me, also.
We sized the nail plates by buying em from Caddy.
glc
From: Balson,
Does our family of codes go into this level of detail? If not and I don't
think it does, the authority for the AHJ to use what Thom quoted is IFC
102.7 or IFC 102.8.
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email:
OK, I've got a dumb question - where in the codes/standards/listings are
nail plates even required? I fully agree they're a VERY good idea and
reputable contractors install them, but what code/standard/listing requires
them on sprinkler pipe?
I had a client run into a very similar issue several
Chris,
I respectfully disagree,
IFC 2006 102.7 and 102.8 can only be applied within the overall SCOPE of the
entire IFC document which is limited to Fire Suppression conditions, not
Mechanical, and not Plumbing. The Scope is found in IFC 2006 101.2
Also, according to IFC 2006 102.6 Referenced
If 13D/R or 13 don't apply any direction to nail plates, that means that
they are outside of the scope of 13, 13D or 13R. It doesn't mean they are
not required. George obviously thought the were necessary or he wouldn't
have installed any.
If we can all agree that they are a good idea for cpvc or
Happy Friday All:
Got a question regarding 5-year internal inspection on 13R CPVC systems. I
have a system we installed back in 2003 as an exposed retro fitted system
using CPVC, the local AHJ wants a 5-year inspection on this. Somewhere in
the past I was told this inspection is not required
that's because it doesn't exist YET. It was added to NFPA 25 at the
ROP meeting. Unfortunately the ROP will not be published until June.
Until then the approach to take is that the 5 yr inspection is
predominately looking for evidence of excessive corrosion activity
driven by MIC
But isn't galvanized corrossion resistant? But we still conduct internal
inspection.
--Original Message--
From: Roland Huggins
Sender: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
ReplyTo: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: 5 Year Inspection w/
I realize cpvc is supposed to be corrosion resistant, however 25 or the IFC
does not tie anything back to this section of 13. IFC refers to 25, 25
say's 5-year internal inspections are required without giving a exemption
for type of pipe. For the AHJ's on the forum what would you require?
Jim
Well then we agree we disagree, not a problem. Would be a better world if
every agreed with me (mwahahahaha) but it would also be boring, lol.
Right or wrong I did something similar once as an AHJ and for my life can't
recall the specifics. I did win in that in the end the issue was resolved
Would not 5-year inspections also be intended to uncover instances of
calcium carbonate build up or foreign obstructions? In my youth I can
recall many instances where a pulled sprinkler would reveal solid blockage
in the reducing coupling. I also recall finding everything from rocks and
rags to
Calling the manufacturer (in our case, in Turkey is the local
representative) is definitely one of the items.
However mfr is just one part of the issue. There might be several other
factors. We are in an independent (consultant) position, to be equal to all
the parties. In fact, that was the
Because persons may disagree about cause.
Contractor may blame mfgr and vice versa.
In many cases, people are the cause for sprinkler activation and don't want to
take responsibility.
We are it often in service work, from people hanging clothes hangers on
sprinklers in motel rooms to hitting
Have you guys used these before?
I looked at a very old former spice factory being turned into condos.
It's thick concrete, about 12' between floors, three stories.
Looks like a pretty clear 13R design but I'm wondering about hanging the
plastic.
They're dropping ceilings to 8' and 9', all wood
27 matches
Mail list logo
