| 2016-10-27 15:01:38 | THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY PETER LEDUC, |
| | FIRE MARSHAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS PROVISO: |
| | |
| | THESE PROVISO COMMENTS WILL BE VERIFIED AND CONFIRMED |
| | AT THE TIME OF FIRE INSPECTION. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE |
| | PROVISO COMMENTS WILL RESULT IN A FAILED FIRE |
| | INSPECTION. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1) TEST AT WORKING PRESSURE FOR 2 HRS PER NFPA 13. |
| | |
| | 24.2.1.6 MODIFICATIONS THAT CANNOT BE ISOLATED, SUCH AS |
| | RELOCATED DROPS, SHALL NOT REQUIRE TESTING IN EXCESS OF |
| | SYSTEM WORKING PRESSURE. |
| | |
| | 24.2.1.7 LOSS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A DROP IN GAUGE |
| | PRESSURE OR VISUAL LEAKAGE. |
| | |
| | 24.2.1.8* THE TEST PRESSURE SHALL BE READ FROM A GAUGE |
| | LOCATED AT THE LOW ELEVATION POINT OF THE SYSTEM OR |
| | PORTION BEING TESTED. THE PRESSURES IN PIPING AT HIGHER |
| | ELEVATIONS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE LESS THAN 200 PSI |
| | (13.8 BAR) WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR ELEVATION LOSSES. |
| | SYSTEMS OR PORTIONS OF SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE ISOLATED |
| | SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE TESTED SEPARATELY. |
| | |
| | A.24.2.1.8 AS AN EXAMPLE, IN A SYSTEM THAT HAD PIPING |
| | AT AN ELEVATION THAT WAS 25 FT (7.6 M) HIGHER THAN THE |
| | TEST GAUGE, AN ACCEPTABLE PRESSURE DURING THE |
| | HYDROSTATIC TEST IS 189 PSI (13.03 BAR) AT THE TOP OF |
| | THE SYSTEM DUE TO THE LOSS OF 11 PSI (0.76 BAR) IN |
| | ELEVATION PRESSURE [25 FT ? 0.433 PSI/FT = 11 PSI (0.76 |
| | BAR)]. |
| | |
| | |
| | PETER LEDUC |
| | FIRE MARSHAL |
| | 561-804-4709 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
