As well as the sections Ken referenced, Section 25.2.1.11 from the 2013 edition
is also applicable:
25.2.1.11 When systems are being hydrostatically tested, tests shall
be permitted to be conducted with pendent or horizontal sidewall
sprinklers or plugs installed in fittings. Any plugs shall be replaced with
pendent or horizontal sidewall sprinklers after the test is completed.
The text in the 2010 edition in Section 24.2.1.11 is similar, but not identical.
Larry Keeping
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Parsley Consulting
Sent: March-11-15 4:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Multiple Hydrostatic Tests
Norm,
That's a great reference, except that it doesn't cover the language in 13,
explaining that if the modifications can't be isolated, the system working
pressure is deemed sufficient. This was present in the
2002 edition (16.2.1.6), the 2007 and 2010 (24.2.1.6), and the 2013 (25.2.1.6).
I don't believe that two hydrostatic tests to 50 psi above system working
pressure is ever a good idea.
I would imagine the inspector read the previous paragraph, describing more
than 20 sprinklers being modified, and neglected to read the one I've noted.
*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 3/11/2015 1:31 PM,
Norman Arendt wrote:
> https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2009_15.pdf
>
> from NFA
>
> Norman Arendt, PhD, CFII
> Middleton Fire District Plan Reviewer and Investigator President
> Infragard Madison Alliance
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Stites" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:28:05 PM
> Subject: Multiple Hydrostatic Tests
>
> We have run across an interesting situation at a California Hospital.
> The IOR is suggesting that we will be required to hydro the systems
> twice, once at rough-in for a “performance test” and again near final
> as an “acceptance test”. His logic is that all appurtenances are not
> installed and in place at the time of rough-in which is required by
> the code, thus removing plugs and installing sprinklers in flex drops
> he considers a significant modification or “more than a minor” modification,
> so test twice.
>
>
> Anybody have any interpretations or documents that would refute this?
>
>
> Gary Stites
> *805-769-GMAN*
> RLH <http://www.rlhfp.com>
> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/101832074405776300082/posts?hl=en>
> Mr. Ricky <http://www.mrricky.net>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-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
