Garth, You originally asked if this arrangement was code compliant or not. There were some qualified yeas but mostly a lot of "it depends." I doubt if anyone on the forum thinks it's a good arrangement but we all have different reads on whether it's a legal arrangement. That said I'll reiterate that the call here is by someone higher on the decision ladder than you. But a precarious spot for you though since if all goes well it doesn't matter but if all does not go well you then become at least a target high on the potential liability ladder. If this were my job I wouldn't be questioning the forum members I'd be writing a letter to the architect describing the arrangement, stating my concerns, proposing my alternatives, and asking for a decision, yea or nay on the original arrangement and on the alternative, or for another arrangement. I'd want this reply in writing. To the AHJ I'd merely write saying I had concerns and whether or not he has accepted the current layout. I'd also want this answer in writing. I would by now have done my due diligence by bringing a might have been overlooked (from MY point of view) deficiency to the attention of the powers that be and allowed them to decide. I might later end up having to defend myself in a liability issue but I bet I'd have a couple of really big bullets to bring to the gunfight when I have documentation that I thought the arrangement to be bogus but the two biggest guns in town said it was OK.
On 9/13/07, Garth W. Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig - The underground vales are not supervised, the location of some are > not even known. Yes, the underground is ductile, not sure if the lead-ins > are ductile or copper as the individual risers are 2". I agree the > underground set-up is typical. Plans show each floor of each system, a > single set of calculation results has been provided for the entire project. > I do not know the type of alarm system but can not imagine it not notifying > a central station. Neither do I know if an alarm from one of the individual > risers causes an alarm in all of the structures. > > I have just never run into a site where control valves are not present and > accessible or where there are no checks between the fdc and the hydrant. > All ten of these building parts will be out-of-service if there is a fire, > freeze-up or accidental discharge in any of the individual structures....at > least until the underground valve is located, a t-wrench found, and the > valve closed or the individual riser is disconnected and plugged. > > Garth > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:41 AM > Subject: RE: what makes a "building" > > > This doesn't sound like anything much different than a site with > multiple buildings served by a private fire main. However there are a > few things that don't sound like they are what we would consider good > engineering practice and maybe even to the point of not being compliant > but again, without seeing it first hand or having more info that's hard > to tell. > > It's not uncommon to come into an industrial park or campus and bring > the underground into a building or pit, enter the backflow then out to > the rest of the buildings on the site. Is the underground piping > ductile with run-ins into the buildings? I'd question the buried gate > valves in the roadway boxes, they are probably not monitored or secured, > but that wasn't stated specifically. The shot-gun type riser assembly > with no check valve or control valve isn't that uncommon either, but > again not necessarily best practice but a cheap installation, probably > how the installer got the job in the first place. > > The problems I can see is that the control valve in the yard (when able > to be found) could be closed and no one would know it. So that's not > code compliant, (no supervision), hopefully the flow switch is actually > connected to an NFPA 72 compliant fire alarm system which reports to > some sort of monitoring service? > > The fact that there are FDC's on each "riser" yet no check valve makes > no sense. On private loops often there is a single FDC tied into the > loop on the private side of the fire main at or near the Backflow > location and near a municipal hydrant. When that's the case there are > often no FDC's at the individual buildings. I've seen this > configuration accepted by various jurisdictions and Underwriters. > > What a concoction of a sprinkler system. Were there any riser placards, > proof of any hydraulic calcs? Any inspection tags or reports? > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group > Mechanical Department > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.lg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
