| Date |
Text |
| 2007-06-28 19:40:32 | RESPONSE TO LETTERS SUBMITTED BY STEVEN FELLER, PE |
| | |
| | LETTER 1: |
| | A) REGARDING THE LETTER RELATED TO REFRIGERANT |
| | QUANTITIES, THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE |
| | ESTIMATED LINE LENGTHS AND THOSE SHOWN ON PLANS. |
| | EXAMPLE 1: RISER 1, 6TH FLOOR HAS AN ESTIMATED LINE |
| | LENGTH OF 70 FT. ON THE 6TH FLOOR THERE IS AN |
| | ADDITIONAL LENGTH (APPROXIMATELY 20 FT.) OF HORIZONTAL |
| | PIPE TO TRAVEL FROM APT A6 TO THE CHASE, WHICH DOES NOT |
| | APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. ALSO ON RISER |
| | 1, HOW IS THERE ONLY 20 FEET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 6TH |
| | FLOOR AND THE 10TH FLOOR? THAT IS ONLY 5 FEET PER |
| | FLOOR. |
| | EXAMPLE 2: RISER 4 ON M2.04 SHOWS 43 FT OF HORIZONTAL |
| | PIPE WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN |
| | THE ESTIMATED LENGTH. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE COOLING LOAD |
| | CALCULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACES 1 AND 2 (ACCOUNTING |
| | FOR 1ST FLOOR AND MEZZANINE LEVELS) SHOWING 5 TONS TO |
| | BE SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE USE OF THIS SPACE. |
| | |
| | B) WHY WERE NO CALCULATIONS GIVEN FOR RISER 2? NO SHAFT |
| | REQUIREMENT IS SHOWN ON THE CHART ON ANY LEVEL AND IT |
| | IS LIKELY TO HAVE A HIGHER QUANTITY OF REFRIGERANT THAN |
| | RISER 4. |
| | |
| | C) PLEASE PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE REFRIGERANT |
| | QUANTITIES USED. THE REFRIGERANT CHARGE QUANTITIES |
| | SHOWN ON THE CALCULATIONS APPEAR TO BE BASED ON THE |
| | CARRIER MODEL 24ABR, WHICH IS THE EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON A |
| | RECENTLY SUBMITTED REVISED EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE. HOWEVER, |
| | THE EQUIPMENT SIZES SHOWN IN THE CALCULATIONS REFLECT |
| | THOSE ON THE PERMIT SET OF PLANS AND NOT THOSE ON THE |
| | REVISED SCHEDULE. PLEASE CLARIFY WHICH INFORMATION IS |
| | TO BE USED TO VERIFY THE CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | PLEASE SEE THE LATEST CARRIER LONG-LINE APPLICATION |
| | GUIDE WHICH STATES THE FACTORY CHARGE IS FOR THE FIRST |
| | 15 FT AND 0.6 OZ SHALL BE ADDED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL |
| | FT. |
| | |
| | NOTE: THE DESIGN OF STARTING THE SHAFT CONSTRUCTION AT |
| | THE FLOOR LEVEL WHERE THE REFRIGERANT QUANTITY EXCEEDS |
| | THE ASHRAE 15 ALLOWABLE LIMIT IS AGREED TO IN CONCEPT, |
| | BUT A MORE ACCURATE DETERMINATION OF WHERE THAT LIMIT |
| | IS TO BE REACHED AT EACH RISER IS NEEDED. |
| | |
| | LETTER 2: |
| | THE USE OF A THROUGH-PENETRATION FIRESTOP SYSTEM AS |
| | STATED IN FBC 712.4.1.2 IS FOUND TO BE THE CORRECT |
| | APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITION WHEN THE REFRIGERANT |
| | CHASE IS NOT ENCLOSED IN A SHAFT. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS |
| | ON M6.02 OF THE PERMIT SET OF PLANS SHOWS TWO POSSIBLE |
| | SYSTEMS, NEITHER OF THEM ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FIELD |
| | CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY WOULD BE EMPLOYED. |
| | |
| | THE FIRST SYSTEM FOR INSULATED PIPE CAN ONLY MEET THE |
| | ANNULAR SPACE LIMITATIONS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL IF THERE |
| | IS A SINGLE INSULATED PIPE IN A SINGLE, CORRECTLY SIZED |
| | FLOOR (OR WALL) OPENING. THE SIZE OF THE PIPE IS |
| | LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 1? WHEN IN MANY CASES THE |
| | INSULATED PIPE WILL BE 1 1/8? OR POSSIBLY LARGER. |
| | PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT 712.4.1.2 REQUIRES THAT THE |
| | THROUGH-PENETRATION FIRESTOP SYSTEM SHALL HAVE AN F AND |
| | T RATING NOT LESS THAN 1 HOUR BUT NOT LESS THAN THE |
| | REQUIRED RATING OF THE FLOOR BEING PENETRATED. |
| | |
| | THE SECOND SYSTEM IS LIMITED IN AREA AND CAN NOT HAVE A |
| | MAXIMUM DIMENSION OVER 24?. IT IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM |
| | OF 3 PIPES, NONE OF WHICH ARE SHOWN TO BE INSULATED. |
| | THIS SYSTEM ALSO DOES NOT MEET THE T RATING AS REQUIRED |
| | BY 712.4.1.2 AS IT STATES THE T RATING AT 0 HOUR. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: |
| | RONALD J REGUEIRO |
| | 561.805.671. |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
