I don't think you have to CHECK (emphasis not shouting) for leaks. IF you see them that is a loss.
25.2.1.1 ....and shall maintain that pressure without loss for 2 hours. So I read the requirement is hold pressure. Holding pressure is defined in: 25.2.1.7 Loss (my words loss of pressure) shall be determined by a drop in gauge pressure or visual leakage. Leakage came about because fitters would argue they passed because the leak was so small the gauge didn't move (or they used the stuck gauge). For some reason I don't think this was in the early '90's editions because that's when I was the AHJ and I had this discussion more than once. I would have said see 25.2.1.7 (or whatever section it was back then) and call me when you fix the leak. I'd look it up but I don't have old versions handy. If it was in code I wouldn't have had to explain many times the fundamental fact you are not holding pressure if anything is leaking at any rate. Maybe after 2 hours you are at 0.001 psi loss but that's still a loss of pressure not permitted. Because I can't measure the loss with a 300 psi gauge doesn't mean it wasn't losing pressure. No I didn't have a gauge to that accuracy and temperature fluctuations are more than 0.001 probably. If it's leaking even a small leak there will be water stains in the tile or sheet rock. Is it possible a leak could be so small it doesn't wet anything in 2 hrs, probably. But let's go back to the purpose of the test. It's not really there for small issues, it's will it catastrophically come apart. A weeper at a thread isn't going to fail the system (for a long time anyway). Weepers even if missed are going to be caught by the owner at some point and will be repaired under warranty. If exposed piping were required the standard it should/would come out and say it not say one thing in x.1 and hide exposed pipe in x.7. I don't for a second think that is what they meant. Of course I was wrong when I got out of bed this morning so it stands to reason I'd could be wrong again. Is it better to do a hydro with the piping exposed, for my money no doubt, job schedule doesn't always make this easy. As an AHJ it's up to the contractor, I only need to see one test and I concede plugs on the drops are OK. Missing drops not so much. I'd also like to point out that section 25.2.1.11 is odd in addition to being new. So can I put sidewalls in upright or pendant outlets for testing? Were they trying to say uprights had to be in for testing where uprights were used? That's not what they said. If I plug an upright do I have to remove it after testing? If I put a pendant in an upright outlet can it stay? 25.2.1.11 proves IMHO the intent of the test really is big issues otherwise you'd have to test with heads in. Theoretically, the standard allows all heads to leak at the fitting or cap. There isn't a way to really quantify big leaks from little leaks from a hydro. Chris Cahill, PE* Associate Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com *Registered in: MN Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work For -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:54 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Multiple Hydrostatic Tests Chris - how do you check for visible leaks if you can not see the concealed piping? Sprinklers Save > On Mar 11, 2015, at 5:49 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I agree with IOR. But only one needs to be done when the work is complete. > The confusion may be a false belief the test needs to be done with exposed > pipe. There is no such requirement. > > Chris Cahill > Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > [email protected] > 952-656-3652 Gary Stites wrote: > 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
