anti-freeze loop 3

[baccel]

I am working on a commercial shopping center in the las vegas area that was built in 1992. The fire sprinkler system is a wet system with no anti-freeze loop for the exterior heads. Each head is located by a recessed light. Did they have a different requirement for exterior heads in 1992. I cannot believe that the fire inspector would have accepted this is it was not legal in 1992. Does the exterior lighting provide warmth to keep the attic space approximately 24" above 40 degrees. I would appreciate knowledge on this subject. Mike

 

[TravisMack]

Maybe they did a heat study and determined that it would not get cold enough to freeze the piping with the anticipated durations of freezing temperatures in the area.

Here in Phoenix, we run piping exposed outside frequently. Yes, it does drop below 32°F here, but often, not long enough to cause a freeze in the system. The only ones that are really a problem are the guages with 1/4" piping outside. Those will freeze. Not often do the drops or branch lines freeze.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[LCREP]

Can they be dry pendent sprinklers? Look for the weep hole on the cap or on the side of the head or near the slot for the sprinkler wrench. If you have dry pendents a representative sample has to be tested every 10 years as per NFPA 25.

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too

Not ALL Sprinkler Systems Are Created Equal! An Inadequate Sprinkler Design Is JUST As Bad As A Nonsprinklered Building!! When Occupancies Change So Should The Sprinkler System. See NFPA 25, 2002, Edition, Section 4.1.5, 4.1.6 & 4.1.6.1.

 

[baccel]

The heads are not dry pendent and are fed from each tenants unit. We are doing a tenant improvement and the fire inspector noticed this. The building owners have known about heads for some time. There is no insulation in the 24" attic space just the lighting. I cannot believe this made it by inspection when the center was constructed. It seems to me there had to be some reason it passed inspection when it was built in 1992.

 

[LCREP]

"It seems to me there had to be some reason it passed inspection when it was built in 1992. "

Yea who ever did the inspection in 1992 they blew it! I am sure this has never happen in the past and will never happen again...

Now that u found it put in writing what needs to be done to the owner to cover your butt in case it freezes and some insurance company wants you to pay for the water damage years from now.

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too

Not ALL Sprinkler Systems Are Created Equal! An Inadequate Sprinkler Design Is JUST As Bad As A Nonsprinklered Building!! When Occupancies Change So Should The Sprinkler System. See NFPA 25, 2002, Edition, Section 4.1.5, 4.1.6 & 4.1.6.1.

 

[cdafd]

Well you always have the owner that says "piping is protected to 40 F" and what do you do with that, till it freezes.

The only requirement is to protect the pipe to 40 F, 13 does not say you SHALL do it this way.

 

[DonPhillips]

I worked on a project (as the owner's representative) in the central valley south of Fresno, CA around the same time and the loading dock and exterior soffit heads were all wet pipe. Being an Ohio boy, I did not think this was kosher, but I understood at the time it was allowed per the code (per our Ohio architect and the local mechanical engineer). The argument we heard from the contractor was, not only are they permitted, but the recurrence interval for freezing (enough) temperatures was like 10 to 15 years - and even then, the heads did not always freeze in every instance in every building. Most building owners prefered to save the few bucks upfront and take the chance the heads would not freeze.

Well, I argued that I doubted all these building owners were actively making that decision - more like that is what they got. We ended up paying a change order to make them dry heads.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[baccel]

Protecting heads against freezing seems like a pretty basic code. I still do not believe that an inspector or fire sprinkler designer would have missed this. The shopping center is a two story structure with approximately 60,000 sq. ft. of tenant space. It was built after the MGM fire and I am told that Las Vegas is #1 in the nation in life safety after the MGM fire. I still cannot believe that a inspector would have missed this. The attic space where the heads are located is only 24" with metal halide lighting within 12" of the heads. The lighting is on all night and actually heats up the attic space. I have been in this space at night and it is actually warmer at night with the lighting on than during the day. Mike

 

[cdafd]

Once again it may not be a miss.

If someone proved it should maintain the heat or the owner said he would provide heat or accept that the pipe will not freeze, than IT MEETS CODE.

NFPA 13 does not require how pipe will be protected it gives various ways to do it.

 

[FFP1]

I am a little concerned about one specific comment. I think there is a trend or common thought process in our industry which should change.

When a water based fire protection system is exposed to freezing temperatures, the system components should be protected to prevent ice plugs as well as broken pipes and/or damaged sprinkler heads. The fact that the system piping or sprinkler heads are not damaged during cold weather, does not mean everything is OK. If the system piping has ice plugs, it is impaired and will not function as designed during a true fire emergency. I would bet there are thousands of systems in America which have ice plugs every year........many do not burst, but would probably not operate during a fire incident on a cold winter night.

Building owners (and insurance companies for that matter) have a false sense of security and have no idea that the systems are impaired.

By the way.......if you know the system does not meet NFPA code (lack of reliable heat source to maintain 40F), I suggest that you discuss the issue with your customer and make sure you notify the building owner in writing to make sure they are fully aware of the potential consequences.

 

[Bhhowie]

A temperature monitoring recording session through the cold months can tell you if you have an issue, if i understand the problem it is an enclosed space. That being the case it might not get below 40 in there run a study before you spend more time/money.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Being in South Georgia I see this a lot.

Being from the northern great lakes region I know what minus zero temperatures can do and I know broken sprinklers can do millions of dollars in damages.

I am constantly amazed the risks sprinkler contractors will take to "save" a customer $2000 by not installing an anti-freeze or dry system in certain areas but around here "it never gets cold enough to freeze".

I got news for them. Valdosta, Georgia the highest recorded temperature was 108°F in 1927. On average, the coolest month is January. The lowest recorded temperature was 2°F in 1899.

You get 2 degrees for 12 hours and you will have severe troubles. Sure, hasn't happened since 1899 but it has happened and the good book doesn't tell me it won't come next January.

We get 2 degrees around here and I'll have enough repair work to keep me busy for the next year.

For Las Vegas the lowest recorded temperature was 0°F in 1963. At zero it is going to freeze and while that zero record might not happen for a long time to come as sure as the sun rises you can be sure it will be broken again someday. Maybe next January.

I wouldn't want to do it unless I got a PE to give me a letter, signed and sealed, stating he did a heat study and it wouldn't freeze. I don't think any of you PE's the frequent here would give such a letter so why should I take the risk?

Completed operations insurance for sprinkler companies is high to begin with, it's getting harder to obtain and if you ask any of them their biggest loss is water damage resulting from "improperly installed sprinklers".

I don't get it. Why take the risk when there isn't anything in it for you but work on a stinking job worth only a few thousand to begin with?

To the defense of inspector's and fire officials I don't think it should be their call as to what kind of system you install. They don't perform heat studies, precious few are professional engineers and non of them have the experience installing companies and layout technicians have.

There's a project down here the installation company took a bet their pipe would never freeze. It might not but the lowest recorded temperature was 30 below freezing in 1985. I'm just watching because IF it ever does freeze it's going to cause millions and millions in damages. In one area they have three original oil paintings that are valued over $2 million. Someone would probably notice the black spatter of rusty sprinkler water.....

Sorry I got carried away but it is important our industry stop taking unnecessary risks. You got enough of them without asking for more.

 

[DonPhillips]

I agree with you, SD2. Unforetunately, owners get a little too focused on the lowest bidder and hire companies that will either not install the protection and save some money or charge such a large change the owner decides to take the chance.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Don,

But it isn't the owner that's taking the chance. The sprinkler contractor will be paraded as the "expert", by simple virtue of having obtained a state license which says he is qualified to install sprinklers, by the plaintiffs attorney.

The property owner may be the savviest fella on planet earth understanding everything should the sprinkler contractor present him with an opportunity to save a buck. Upon suffering a financial loss the owners IQ will drop by 80 points moving him into the moron class. The "experts" of the sprinkler company will be shown to have taken unfair advantage of the ignorance of an average Joe. Plaintiff will call in a FPE as an expert witness which will spell trouble for the sprinkler company "expert".

 

[DonPhillips]

That is one scenario. Most that I have been aware of seldom get to court, the owner pays for the repair, and does not think of going back to the installer for reimbursement. Often, the current building management has no clue who installed the system and just chalks it up to one of those things you pay for when operating a building.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com