Below is specified in Australia National Standards, is worth to consider? On my site, I don’t remove 10% but just a few further heads on each floor.
Water quality tests Function: To demonstrate that the sprinkler system water is clean and free from foreign matter, including sand, sediments and other impurities. Discharge test: Inspect water discharged from at least one of the flushing valves, for foreign matter. Sprinkler head test: Remove at least 10% of the sprinkler heads, at designated locations, and inspect them for foreign matter lodged across the orifices of the heads. Test failure: If foreign matter is observed in quantities likely to impair the functioning of the sprinkler system - drain the system; - open and clean the alarm valve and strainer; and - recharge the system. Regards, Le Vu Phong Mobile: +84 (0) 902 363 525 phong_indochineengineering -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Flushing I suggest an obstruction/flushing test of the system. If ANY debris is found then I think he has cause. The obstruction/flushing test can be done with the heads in place. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 On Jul 29, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm really not suggesting that you do this, but ask him if he'll > require the same procedure for every possibly affected system anytime > the city works on the municipal piping since debris could enter the > pipe (a real problem we see over and over). If that's his intent I'd > bet tar and feathering and a ride out of town on a rail might become a > one-time reinstated social comment made by the citizens to the > government and it's representatives. > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:45 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Keep in mind that NFPA #13 now requires that all removed sprinklers >> be replaced with new so it could really get expensive. >> >> Ron F >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest >> Wilson >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:34 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Flushing >> >> Re: permit XXX >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> Recently your Department requested that my company remove all of the >> sprinklers we installed on this project and inspect for debris inside >> of the piping. >> >> As a licensed contractor we practice due diligence in our installations. >> Our employees on this project have completed an apprenticeship >> program through the state. In this apprenticeship they received >> training on how to handle pipe on the job. >> >> It is standard practice for the fabrication shops to drop ship pipe >> without protective covers to the job site. Our employees are trained >> to inspect the interior of the piping for any obstructions and to >> remove debris prior to installation. >> >> If you like I am more than willing to meet with you and discuss our >> quality control standards. >> >> I respectfully request that you rescind your Departments request to >> have all sprinklers removed and reinstalled,which would result in >> unreasonable expense to the system owner and our company. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 29, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Mike Hairfield <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Have a project where the building official has an on-site inspector, >>> he has made a statement that there is a potential that debris might >>> have entered the piping since the fabricator did not install >>> protective >> plugs on the weld-o-lets and caps on the ends of the piping. >>> >>> He is demanding that all of the sprinkler heads be removed and >>> inspected for damage, the pipes be flushed/cleaned prior to >> re-installation of the heads. >>> >>> How does one go about changing his mind without stepping on his toes? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mike Hairfield >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kl >>> er.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
