• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

PIV monitoring

lpiburn

lpiburn

Silver Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
103
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Hello all,

I'm trying to figure out when PIVs are required to be monitored.

The local authority is essentially a volunteer fire department, so I don't have anyone official to ask. From what I understand, a Post Indicator Valve is only required if stipulated by the local AHJ and/or fire department. In this case there is no such requirement, but the contractor installed a PIV anyway. Unfortunately, they forgot to add the monitoring system. Now they are refusing to add it without additional compensation, even though they had submitted monitoring with the system.

Scope of work arguements and legal stuff aside, I'm having dificulty finding where (if at all) it is required for PIVs to be monitored by the alarm system. The closest I could come up with is this:

IFC 903.4:

All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat confusing because it is within section 903 on the sprinkler system itself, not 507 fire protection water supplies. If I am reading this right, all valves controlling water flow to the system all the way out to the main would have to be monitored, even if they are a regular shut-off valve and not a PIV. Can that be correct?

The project is for a small dental clinic. Type B occ. Less than 5000 s.f. so technically neither sprinklers or alarms are required at all. That said, the system is in place (flow is monitored) and we want to make darn sure everything is compliant. Does it make any difference if the PIV is not required by code to begin with? Is it one of those situations where "when provided, ______ shall comply with..."?:confused:

Thanks in advance.

-LP
 
How far away from the building is the piv?

Yes required to be monitored in some manner, if roadway valve no monitoring required

Such as a lock
 
903.4.1 Monitoring. Alarm, supervisory and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved supervising station or, when approved by the fire code official, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location.

Exceptions:

1. Underground key or hub valves in roadway boxes provided by the municipality or public utility are not required to be monitored.

2. Backflow prevention device test valves located in limited area sprinkler system supply piping shall be locked in the open position. In occupancies required to be equipped with a fire alarm system, the backflow preventer valves shall be electrically supervised by a tamper switch installed in accordance with NFPA 72 and separately annunciated.
 
Let find another section

For this job has the ahj adopted the ibc and IFC???
 
We are working with 2009 IBC and IFC. The PIV is only about 15'-20' from the building in a landscaped area just off the access road. The main is off-site but not in a roadway.
 
kind of just a matter if you want it monitored electrically like IFC requires or if you can live with a padlock

The piv is no different than a main valve inside the building required to be monitored

from NFPA 13::::

8.16.1.1* Control Valves.

8.16.1.1.1* General.

8.16.1.1.1.1 Each sprinkler system shall be provided with a listed indicating valve in an accessible location, so located as to control all automatic sources of water supply.

8.16.1.1.1.2 At least one listed indicating valve shall be installed in each source of water supply.

8.16.1.1.1.3 The requirements of 8.16.1.1.1.2 shall not apply to the fire department connection, and there shall be no shutoff valve in the fire department connection.

8.16.1.1.2* Supervision.

8.16.1.1.2.1 Valves on connections to water supplies, sectional control and isolation valves, and other valves in supply pipes to sprinklers and other fixed water-based fire suppression systems shall be supervised by one of the following methods:

(1)

Central station, proprietary, or remote station signaling service

(2)

Local signaling service that will cause the sounding of an audible signal at a constantly attended point

(3)

Valves locked in the correct position

(4)

Valves located within fenced enclosures under the control of the owner, sealed in the open position, and inspected weekly as part of an approved procedure

8.16.1.1.2.2 Floor control valves in high-rise buildings and valves controlling flow to sprinklers in circulating closed loop systems shall comply with 8.16.1.1.2.1(1) or 8.16.1.1.2.1(2).

8.16.1.1.2.3 The requirements of 8.16.1.1.2.1 shall not apply to underground gate valves with roadway boxes.

8.16.1.1.2.4 Where control valves are installed overhead, they shall be positioned so that the indicating feature is visible from the floor below.

8.16.1.1.2.5 A listed backflow prevention assembly shall be permitted to be considered a control valve, provided both control valves are listed for fire protection system use and an additional control valve shall not be required.
 
Not an architect yet (working on it), but I am working for an architectural firm.

I think the key point is 8.16.1.1.2.1 (3) locked open. The valves in the fire riser are electronically monitored, so we are good-to-go there. If the PIV can be locked open and comply with NFPA13 then I think that solves it.

One thing I am still confused about. Valves specifically "with roadway boxes" are exempted. Does that mean the valve box is listed for roadway use, even if it is not installed under a road? Does this cover standard isolation valves? For example (not the case for this project. Just to make the point) a loop fire-line around a campus has gate valves at various locations to allow for repairs to portions of the system. Some valves might occur under a road, some under sidewalks, some in landscaping. Do ALL of these have to be either monitored or locked open?
 
lpiburn said:
Not an architect yet (working on it), but I am working for an architectural firm. I think the key point is 8.16.1.1.2.1 (3) locked open. The valves in the fire riser are electronically monitored, so we are good-to-go there. If the PIV can be locked open and comply with NFPA13 then I think that solves it.

One thing I am still confused about. Valves specifically "with roadway boxes" are exempted. Does that mean the valve box is listed for roadway use, even if it is not installed under a road? Does this cover standard isolation valves? For example (not the case for this project. Just to make the point) a loop fire-line around a campus has gate valves at various locations to allow for repairs to portions of the system. Some valves might occur under a road, some under sidewalks, some in landscaping. Do ALL of these have to be either monitored or locked open?
Click to expand...
Not a civil or utility person but I think it is a common term no matter where you find it.

Idea in my mind you have to have a key to turn the valve off, not as easy as a piv

Technically if the project has to meet IFC than IFC requires electric monitoring
 
Also check with the insurance company we require electronic supervision on all new installs including the PIV and valves in a pit at the street. Closed valves is the number one reason for sprinkler system failure as per NFPA see below and link.

When sprinklers fail to operate, the reason most often given (64% of failures) was shutoff of the system before fire began, as may occur in the course of routine inspection or maintenance. Other leading reasons included manual intervention that defeated the system (17%), lack of maintenance (6%), and inappropriate system for the type of fire (5%). Only 7% of sprinkler failures were attributed to component damage.

See link to report http://www.nfpa.org/research/statistical-reports/fire-protection-systems/us-experience-with-sprinklers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the building is equipped with a fire alarm system, we require them to be monitored also - regardless of distance. We use IFC and IBC (Ohio versions).
 
Thank you everyone for the help. Unfortunately I am confused again.

IFC requires electronic supervision per 903.4. NFPA13 allows for non-electronic supervision such as locking in the open position. Does this mean that the IFC will always supercede NFPA 13 unless there is a local adoption that changes the language? If so, has anyone here seen non-supervised PIVs allowed?

I think part of my confusion is regarding the arrangement of isolation valves in addition to the PIV. All of the requirements we've been discussing so far seem to pertain specifically to the PIV and not other valves in the system. Are there restrictions on where and how many valves are allowed? Is there language that prohibits shutoff valves downstream of the PIV?
 
start first with the building or fire code the project was designed under

yes look to referenced standards

in the end the stricter applies, so in this case IBC/IFC
 
""""I think part of my confusion is regarding the arrangement of isolation valves in addition to the PIV. All of the requirements we've been discussing so far seem to pertain specifically to the PIV and not other valves in the system. Are there restrictions on where and how many valves are allowed? Is there language that prohibits shutoff valves downstream of the PIV? """"

No except in the fire department connection

If you look at a fire pump room there are so many shut offs it is crazy, just have to monitor them
 
lpiburn said:
Thank you everyone for the help. Unfortunately I am confused again. IFC requires electronic supervision per 903.4. NFPA13 allows for non-electronic supervision such as locking in the open position. Does this mean that the IFC will always supercede NFPA 13 unless there is a local adoption that changes the language? If so, has anyone here seen non-supervised PIVs allowed?

I think part of my confusion is regarding the arrangement of isolation valves in addition to the PIV. All of the requirements we've been discussing so far seem to pertain specifically to the PIV and not other valves in the system. Are there restrictions on where and how many valves are allowed? Is there language that prohibits shutoff valves downstream of the PIV?
Click to expand...
Both the IBC and the IFC requires ALL valves with the exception of the curb box valves to be supervised. If the IBC or IFC is adopted at the location then ALL valves Must have electronic supervision. Why?? Because a closed valve with electronic supervision will result in a human response to reduce the chance of the valve being closed, I.e. 64% of sprinkler system failures are because of closed valves.

Does this help?
 
Insurance Engineer said:
Both the IBC and the IFC requires ALL valves with the exception of the curb box valves to be supervised. If the IBC or IFC is adopted at the location then ALL valves Must have electronic supervision. Why?? Because a closed valve with electronic supervision will result in a human response to reduce the chance of the valve being closed
Click to expand...
I definitely agree that it is a good idea. I'm just trying to tie down the "chapter-and-verse" requirement. I am much more familiar with the accessibility/egress/occupancy portions of the codes than I am with plumbing and fire protection. That's part of why I am frequenting this forum in the first place. So far it has been a fantastic resource, so thank you all for bearing with me and for all the help so far.

-LP
 
I thought the reason for using a PIV is so you can see at a glance whether it is open or closed. If it has to be electronically monitored anyway, the visual indication seems redundant.
 
Paul Sweet said:
I thought the reason for using a PIV is so you can see at a glance whether it is open or closed. If it has to be electronically monitored anyway, the visual indication seems redundant.
Click to expand...
Yes you can see that it is closed

As the building burns

I believe, don't have the book, that all valves have to be "indicating" valves but still are required to be monitored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top