INSP-Final Inspection | 9/22/2005 | 9/23/2005 | 9/23/2005 | A | PASS |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
Fire sprinkler finaled. Insulation has been installed in the existing dormers and the standard heads re-installed.
|
INSP-Final Inspection | 9/19/2005 | 9/20/2005 | 9/21/2005 | A | FAIL |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
Need hydraulic calcs for the dormer areas
|
INSP-Final Inspection | 9/16/2005 | 9/16/2005 | 9/16/2005 | P | FAIL |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
There are still obstructions to the upright sprinkler heads above the ceiling in the existing chapel and I need calculations for the attic heads in the existing dormers.
|
INSP-Final Inspection | 9/14/2005 | 9/15/2005 | 9/15/2005 | P | CANC |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
mike; Phone #: ###-#### Internet Inspection Request from: Cathy Chiles
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 9/12/2005 | 9/12/2005 | 9/12/2005 | P | PART |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
See approved plans for locations of remaining deficiencies. Also still need head wrench, sign on control valve and forward flush
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in | 9/7/2005 | 9/9/2005 | 9/9/2005 | A | CANC |
Forrest France
|
|
|
No time for this inspection today, spoke with Mike from TV to schedule for monday 9/12 per our agreement.
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 8/24/2005 | 8/24/2005 | 8/24/2005 | P | PART |
Forrest France
|
|
|
Dry system 24 hour air test passed with the maximum allowable loss of 1.5 psi, air pressure at 2:00 p.m 8/24/05 was 40.5 psi.
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 8/23/2005 | 8/23/2005 | 8/23/2005 | P | PART |
Forrest France
|
|
|
Begin 24 hour air test of the dry system at 1:55 p.m 8/23/05 at 42psi.
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 8/18/2005 | 8/19/2005 | 8/19/2005 | P | PASS |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
hydro test for overhead passed
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 6/9/2005 | 6/10/2005 | 6/10/2005 | A | PASS |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
Sprinkler piping in new addition is ok to cover.
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in | 6/7/2005 | 6/7/2005 | 6/7/2005 | P | PASS |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
Tenting in new addition is passed. Storage areas and concealed combustible areas still need addressed
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 6/6/2005 | 6/7/2005 | 6/7/2005 | A | PART |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
See city approved plans for locations of deficiencies. Lower system south end not installed yet. Hydro test passed but was only partial test.
|
INSP-Sprinkler Rough-in/Hydro | 6/2/2005 | 6/3/2005 | 6/3/2005 | A | FAIL |
Troy Cobbley
|
|
|
Plans on job site are only have partial approvals. Updated plans are not on site. Could not do hydro because guage only showed 180lbs of pressure. No inspection done.
|
Issue and Print Permit | | | 5/31/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Sprinkler Plan Check | 5/18/2005 | | 5/26/2005 | | PASS |
Bill Alexander
|
|
|
|
Plan assigned to (Bill) | 5/26/2005 | | 5/26/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
PLANS/APPL TAKEN TO FRONT DESK | | | 5/26/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Permit Ready to Issue | | | 5/26/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Telephone call | | | 5/26/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
lft message with message company ###-#### that permit and fees are ready to be picked up
|
Plan resubmittals received | | | 5/18/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Issue permit | | | 5/16/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Permit Ready to Issue | | | 5/13/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Inspection Record Card- Fire | 5/13/2005 | | 5/13/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Telephone call | | | 5/13/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
called left message for gerald permit is ready and fees
|
Plan assigned to (Bill) | 4/29/2005 | | 5/12/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Sprinkler Plan Check | 4/29/2005 | | 5/12/2005 | | PART |
Bill Alexander
|
|
|
1. Manufacturer data submittals are missing. No data submittals provided on the Reliable Model "F3QR", Q.R., SSP, D.P., 5.6 K-factor, R5714 sprinklers, of which 13 are addressed as being installed in this facility.
2. Manufacturer data submittals are missing. No data submittals provided on an air compressor/supply and regulating appurtenance. Where a dry pipe system is supplied by an automatic air compressor system and any device or apparatus used for automatic maintenance of air pressure shall be of a type specifically listed for such service. If more than one is listed in the documents, identify the exact related one incorporating. (BMC 7-01-50-901.2, NFPA 13-7.2.6.6.1)
3. It was found that a dry pendent (possibly more which were addressed) is installed on a drop nipple (see following reference location). Limitations are included in product installation instructions for potential accumulation of scale and sediment building up at the sprinkler when installed on a drop nipple. This installation practice is not accepted since corrosion/sediment would fall into the drop nipple piping and affect the required flow/pressure of the dry pendant sprinkler operation.
4. The designer incorporating the wrong purpose, usage and installation design of a "Return Bend". The purpose of return bends, (covered under 8.14.18.1 through 8.14.18.4) is to prevent collection of scale and sediment from normal scale and sediment from corrosion in being pushed into the drop nipples, which developed from normal environmental moisture trapped in dry piping that, can plug or affect normal sprinkler operation flows/pressures. Return bends shall not be taken off the bottom of branch lines or mains. Also "Armovers" on any kind of riser nipple is not a "Return Bend", but would be considered a "Swing Joint", if exceeding some degree of pipe length, (the higher possibility of accumulated scale/sediment build up). This AHJ will allow the use of return bends to be within the limit of 2'-0" length (the standard requirement for a hanger). Any length of piping exceeding that length (measured center to center) will require a return bend on the down elbow to the pendent head! Remember, pendent sprinklers installed on return bends only permitted where both the sprinklers and the return bends are located in a heated area. (Reference NFPA 13- 8.14.18)
5. Foyer A101 (plan FP-2, Lower Reflected Ceiling detail) will require head adjustment to allow for fire sprinkler coverage of all walls. Red-lined on plan.
6. The Existing Sanctuary Lower Level piping designed are proving a density of .10 over 225 ft/2 per head, yet the actual PIPE spacing input in the calculations is averaging 140 ft/2? The conflicting input procedure does not provide accurate friction loss (C-factor and velocities) data in the calculation analysis report and is unacceptable form of calculating for an area/density maximum spacing! This area shall be installed exactly as shown and no spacing allowed exceeding 140-ft/2 allowed for these pendant heads or reverification shall be provided. (NFPA 13-8.5.2.1, 14.4.4.3.3, 14.4.4.5, and 14.1.3 [34]).
7. In this review, construction information is lacking relating to the uprights in this Lower Piping Existing Sanctuary cavity. With lack of construction information, the upright cavity sprinkler coverage will be limited to 130-ft/2 maximum spacing per NFPA 13-8.6.2.2.1(a) or corrected and detailed information shall be provided.
8. Outside control shown on FP-2, but no outside control is shown or provided on the on the riser? Provide corrected plans addressing this BMC 7-01-53, 903.1.3 requirements.
|
PLANS/APPL TAKEN TO FRONT DESK | | | 5/12/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Case Summary | | | 4/29/2005 | | DONE |
|
|
|
|
Application received | | | 4/29/2005 | | |
|
|
|
|