Mike,
I don't know how it will end up in your part of the world, however
here in California, a new installation of more than 20 sprinklers must
have electric monitoring of any valve controlling that system. Similar
language was in the 2006 IFC, in section 903.4, which read:
903.4 Sprinkler system monitoring and alarms. All valves controlling the
water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels
and temperatures, critical air pressures,
and water-flowswitches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically
supervised.
Exceptions:
1. Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings.
2. Limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers.
3. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13R
where a common supply main is used to supply both domestic water and
the automatic sprinkler system, and a separate shutoff valve for the
automatic sprinkler system is not provided.
4. Jockey pump control valves that are sealed or locked in the open
position.
5. Control valves to commercial kitchen hoods, paint spray booths or
dip tanks that are sealed or locked in the open position.
6. Valves controlling the fuel supply to fire pump engines that are
sealed or locked in the open position.
7. Trim valves to pressure switches in dry, preaction and deluge
sprinkler systems that are sealed or locked in the open position.
This would seem pretty definite that an electronic tamper switch is
required.
Hope that is of some help.
*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 10/23/2014 5:38 AM, Morey, Mike wrote:
We've had an issue come up relating to PIV tampering. We use a state adopted
(Indiana) code that is based almost entirely on IBC/IFC 2006. We've been asked
to tamper PIVs per IBC/IFC. Our site includes a large campus fire main loop
and there is some discussion about whether or not all those valves require
tampering. My contention is that the campus fire main is a private fire
service main and is outside the scope of IBC and the chapter 9 requirement to
tamper all valves, IFC chapter 5 seems to be the correct code to apply and
refers almost exclusively to NFPA 24 for private fire service mains. NFPA
allows locking and periodic checks rather than requiring electronic monitoring
as IBC/IFC chapter 9 does. Is there any succinct way to show the campus loop
is out of the scope of IBC, or is my reasoning incorrect?
Mike Morey, CFPS, SET
Planner Scheduler/Designer
BMWC Constructors, Inc.
1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222
O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111
[email protected]<https://owa.bmwc.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=hEc2LsZXLUqfB3v1fAsIUDtQSkfsw9AIUxDXhx81O08DpGEK3NHRaSbWuncnZEk-mLpe2vYiBJY.&URL=mailto%3amanta%40bmwc.com>
|
www.bmwc.com<https://owa.bmwc.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=hEc2LsZXLUqfB3v1fAsIUDtQSkfsw9AIUxDXhx81O08DpGEK3NHRaSbWuncnZEk-mLpe2vYiBJY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bmwc.com%2f>
_______________________________________________
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
