The applicable #24 is crystal clear in giving us the option to test with hydrants open or closed, and increases allowable leakage if hydrants are open.
Ok, so its 2-0 that the IFC wording means he witnesses the test, not determines the criteria (absent local amendments). Now that its just a word problem, any AHJs want to agree? If you don't want to agree, one dissenter's enough! (seriously, I come here for all sides). glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ right or wong? Then additional to my first email that's the designer's choice it sounds like. AHJ's don't get to choose the methods if more than one is provided in code or a standard. Read the fine print on this - make sure the standard allows either open or closed in this case. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ right or wong? Allowable leakage in NFPA #24 is calculated on #joints, valves, and if you have dry-barrel hydrants open, you get more allowable leakage. So the allowable leakage is (from memory) 11 gallons in 2 hours with the hydrants closed; 82 gallons with the hydrants open. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ right or wong? Explain what you mean by hydrants closed and open? What exactly was opened and closed. Are you saying there was too much leakage in the system with the hydrant control valves closed? This is the pressure test? 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 [email protected] http://www.ch2m.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: AHJ right or wong? (changed subject from spkr save. BTQW I went to the fire scene, I felt like a proud parent of the system that worked this AM) About to get in pssing contest with local AHJ on UG test per #24. We sprinklered an 833,000 sf ESFR box, didn't do UG loop. Site guy couldn't get test to pass with hydrants closed. We were asked to help, and I suggested testing with hydrants open. We did that and it passed, only 1/3 allowable leakage allowed. However, the local AHJ is refusing to pass it, saying he wants it re-tested with hydrants closed the way it went initially. I'm about to ask him where he sees that in #24; but the following wording "and as approved by the fire code official" in the IFC (see below) might give him a leg to stand on. Can any of you agree or disagree? Would the below require a local amendment be in place? My retainage of >$100k, not to mention the GC's, is hanging in limbo. >From IFC 2006 901.5 Installation acceptance testing. Fire detection and alarm systems, fire-extinguishing systems, fire hydrant systems, fire standpipe systems, fire pump systems, private fire service mains and all other fire protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall be subject to acceptance tests as contained in the installation standards and as approved by the fire code official. The fire code official shall be notified before any required acceptance testing. George Church' Rowe Sprinkler [email protected] 570-837-7647 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
