Sprinkler Head Inside Drywall

[BrickerME]

Hi There,

First time poster here... I checked through your forums and didn't see much related to this problem.

I recently took a walk through of a space under construction (A residence in NYC) and noticed that rather than removing the sprinkler heads that we had asked them to, the contractor had simply buried them inside of drywall.

The heads were originally there to provide a fire rating for some exposed columns, which in the renovation were given two layers of drywall to cover them. The heads are outside of these layers of drywall but inside of another that's to become a closet wall.

I've attached a picture of one of the offending heads (this happens multiple times in the apartment, with the same general idea).

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...7-4819-9d79-9798536ffc3b&file=SPHEADKELLY.jpg

Besides being terrible engineering practice, is there an actual code violation involved here?

If it were just up to me I'd have them remove the heads properly, however the architect wants the project completed ASAP because the client is in a rush to get their home back. (go figure).

Any and all advice is appreciated.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

At a minimum I would pull the heads and plug the fittings. Might take a couple hours.

 

[BrickerME]

As of right now thats what's going to happen... thanks for the response

 

[NJ1]

If the sprinkler head is 4" near any of the walls it becomes an obstruction to spray patterns violation. If you would like some technical advice or expert opinion on site you are more than welcome to contact me at any time.

You most find the most cost effective way to avoid having to plug all these heads. If is not violating any spray pattern codes I would just leave them in there as draining the systems could be costly. Let me know

 

[pipesnpumps]

NJ1, did you look at the picture? I agree with SD2 (as usual).

Non-combustible concealed space - not required to be sprinklered. Safer to remove the head, as I am near certain (without even looking) there is probably something in NFPA 13 that says you can't install heads behind walls..

 

[NJ1]

I agree with you as well in part pipesnpumps.
It is better removing the heads however this is NYC. Remember I am in NJ and I am familiar with sprinkler systems in NY.
There is nothing in NFPA 13 that says you cant have sprinklers behind walls however if the sprinkler head is closer than 4" to any wall then is an obstruction and most be removed or relocated. As far as removing the heads I agree with you but my friend working in NYC specially draining a sprinkler system is a nightmare. If any city official such as fire inspectors, fire officials, water department, EPA, etc sees that sprinkler systems is being drained they will mess with you asking for permits, certificate of fitness, etc.
Better leave the heads there if no spray pattern obstruction is being done.

 

[cdafd]

Have to check specific wording but you have to have access to check and change out the head

Also possible leaks in the future????

 

[stookeyfpe]

Their is more to this than meets the eye and the story. Something is below that horizontal assembly. I suspect it may be an area of the Residential occupancy.

 

[chevy4x4trucks]

cdafd - I don't think you'll find something in NFPA 13 that requires access to inspect / change the head. Sprinkler heads are installed in combustible concealed spaces all the time that have no "easy" means of access to the heads once the drywall is installed. On a typical residential building with open web wood joists between floors we install coins or CC1 sprinklers that once the ceiling is drywalled you won't ever see or access those heads again unless the building is remodeled.

I am throwing in with NJ1, it's not against code to conceal the heads and if you don't want to spend at what would be at least a few hundred dollars to have them pulled then just leave them.

Best practice would be to take them out and avoid any future headaches that may be caused by leaving them, but the code wouldn't dictate it.

One thing to check in NFPA is wording on having intermediate temperature heads in a concealed space, I can't recall if that was any concealed space, or a combustibel concealed space. If it is any concealed space then you need to change the head and at that point you might as well remove the piping.

 

[cdafd]

You are correct if in concealed space to access for inspection required

Must have been thinking about sprinklers in duct work

 

[cdafd]

That is suppose to be NO access is required

 

[byrnesf]

This does not appear to be a code violation, but I would consider ignoring situations like this a violation of Best Practice and at the very least poor customer service. A few hundred dollars removing the unnecessary piping and heads could save thousands in water damage down the road.

 

[ContractorDave]

It's not a violation if the sprinkler head is not required by code to cover something. As it is, it is merely a plug ... and a stupendous example of poor workmanship if it get's left like that.

Regards
Dave

 

[b1ueshift]

I'd agree with Chevy4x4. They should be quite safe from impacts concealed in the cavity like that. These threaded joints seem to be quite reliable once they are installed.

The only concern is that it could get warm in a wall cavity if there is some heat like some wiring with a high current draw or a recessed control panel or something. Concealed sprinklers normally have a higher temperature rating?

It's true NFPA says a sprinkler shouldn't be within 4" of a wall, but the rules for obstruction don't seem to apply to concealed spaces - it's too hard to get the sprinkers away from ducts.

 

[ContractorDave]

B1ueshift: Except the intent does not appear to be to cover this space, but rather to abandon it there. Therefore NFPA coverage or obstruction rules simply don't apply. I still call it pretty ify practice leaving it that way instead of capping it off properly.

Regards
Dave