Yet another NFPA #25 question (with photo)

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Other than being the first to do an annual inspection the company I work for nor I had anything to do with this recently completed (last few years) project.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6316/octodome.jpg

Correct me if I am wrong but the only way this could be "right" would be if an FPE signed off on it using the equivalency clause in NFPA #13 but I find it hard to believe any of you FPE's would do it.

Not that it matters but I couldn't tell if the sidewalls were standard or extended coverage.

I looked for a head in the top of Cupola and didn't see one. The top of the cupola has to be at least 12' to 15' above the sidewall heads.

Per NFPA #25 do I write it up or not? How am I to know an FPE didn't sign off on it?

If I understand it correctly my job in inspecting is to assume everything was correctly installed and approved when it was new and my job is limited to inspecting what is there and what is there will operate.

Am most interested in hearing what you FPE's that do inspections, I know there are a couple, would do with this one.

And there is no fix. A clay tile roof sits on top.... I don't have a clue to a fix other than tearing the roof off or lowering the ceiling.

Thanks much.

 

[stookeyfpe]

I would have never accepted this at plan review or during construction inspections. It's clearly a violation of NFPA 13.

One possible "work-around" is possibly modeling a fire but even that makes me uncomfortable because when the hot gas layer spills out of the cupola area and below the soffet, I suspect the ceiling gas velocities will increase, which in turn increases the potential for opening an excessive number of sprinklers.

Am I correct that sprinklers are also not provided along the bottom of the octogonal soffet? This looks like another area where protection is required.

What a mess.

 

[cdafd]

will have to try the home computer cannot get the image to come up,

Usually can open image stuff

 

[sprink131371]

I would red tag it; however I am not in inspections nor plan review. I do have a few years in the field, so maybe I can help with fix. Rip out some sheetrock and run some exposed pipe. That is why God invented paint. Of course you can't tell what is there to tap into until you do take out some sheetrock. With that kind of design, I doubt the as-built drawings will help you much. It could be a good money maker for the service department.

 

[SPKR]

I would write it up as a deficiency to make sure you are covered from a liability standpoint.
Just a thought.......
Maybe the structure is "Historical" and has been exempted.
I have done two Government projects that had areas where the sprinkler protection wasn't per code because of structural preservation reasons.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"Am I correct that sprinklers are also not provided along the bottom of the octogonal soffet? This looks like another area where protection is required."

I didn't see any. I suppose whoever did this figured the "throw" would reach the other side of the room 30 feet or so away.

This is a state owned government building too.

To tell the truth I was a bit stupified when I first saw it.

In my opinion sidwall sprinklers are even more miss-used than ESFR heads are. Just becaue there isn't an easy way doesn't mean it's ok to do it the wrong way. Just my pet peeve.

NICET for inspections has been pushed for almost 10 years now and here is what's in the registry as of April 3, 2009/

Date: 4/3/09
Inspector's Level Level Level
State-----------I---------II-------III-----Total
Georgia------44-------37--------83-------164
Florida------196------178-------38-------412
Texas--------204------309-------32-------545
Total USA--1164-----1244------482------2890

Surprisingly there are only 482 NICET III inspectors in the entire country. Georgia is strongly pushing inspections and since Georgia requires NICET III the state has 83 of the 482 Level III inspectors.

Florida and Texas only require a NICET II and I can not help but wonder who thinks someone with two years experience is capable of inspecting a diesel fire pump, double interlocked preaction system high rise standpipe.

I would guess there are half a million sprinkler systems in Georgia and how they can all be looked at by 83 people is beyond me.

I don't know how other states are but if you have a Level III for inspections there's lots and lots of jobs begging in Georgia.

Georgia requires NICET III which is why we have as many as we do.

I also must say the Georgia Fire Marshals office has come a long way in in standards over the last 10 years. Ten years ago Georgia was Bartertown.

What worries me about all this, inspections in general and not just this job, is the exposure to litigation should something happen. What exactly am I supposed to "write up" and note?

Quick response sprinklers have beena round for nearly 20 years and very, very soon inspections are supposed to include sample testing per NFPA #25 which is the state standard. How on earth do you approach this?

If that isn't bad enough how about the sample testing of dry pendent sprinklers? I looked at one nursing home, 300 dry pendent sprinklers all which appear to have been installed in the 70's. What do you do here?

Layout Technicians, the registry numbers as of April 3, 2009,

Layout Technicians Level Level Level Level
-----------I-------II------III-------IV----Total
Total 1458 985 1751 1054 5248

The ranks of Level IV have swelled by 100 over the past 10 years. Once the economy picks up I see a real shortage in 10 more years.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"Maybe the structure is "Historical" and has been exempted."

I doubt this state owned building is more than six or seven years old. Nothing historical here.

 

[TravisMack]

I would be willing to be this was a "something is better than nothing" situation. I hate these with a passion. It is likely that you have some architect that HAD to have this fancy area and didn't care that the only way to properly protect it is to run 'ugly' sprinkler pipe through there. Since there is no way the architect would allow that, it was likely fought and pushed so that an AHJ at the time would accept it. I only outline this story because I have seen it played out too many times.

I say you write it up noting that it appears the sidewall sprinklers are installed outside of their listing and that further investigation by a qualified company is required. That way, you noted it as a potential defect and left it to the owner to follow up and get it dealt with.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[cdafd]

how wide is the opening???


old typical skylight set up seen a few times, putting the sidewall at the bottom. Never understood it when the sidewall requirements have been there forever.

 

[stookeyfpe]

SD2,

Giving credit where credit is due, you need to thank Dwayne Garrison at GSFM for tightening the rules in Georgia. He understands the importance of properly trained designers and installers.

I sense this is fire protection by MEP. I'll bet $100 that the design was prepared by a mechanical engineer believing that automatic sprinkler systems are no different than HVAC systems. I wish NCEES would tighten up the Construction Specification Institute requirements. It won't happen, but it's a big problem.

My gut tells me a mechanical PE prepared this design and is home tonight snuggled next to his/her significant other, and he/she has long forgotten this design.

I agree about sidewall sprinklers being the second most abused sprinkler out there.

 

[LCREP]

"If that isn't bad enough how about the sample testing of dry pendent sprinklers? I looked at one nursing home, 300 dry pendent sprinklers all which appear to have been installed in the 70's. What do you do here? "


Send a representative sample to UL for testing as per NFPA 25,and when they fail, replace them all.



Regarding the lack of sprinklers in the cupola, from an insurance point of view I would determine the construction, is it combustible? how many do I have like this in the building, etc. what is the fire loading below? is low or none, if it was none combustible construction, only 1 or 2 and no or low fire loading below, I would move on.

BUT from a sprinkler contractor point of view, write it up to cover your company butt, and move on, unlikely they will do anything, BUT just in case something happens u are covered. Got to love lawyers

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

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Only one "skylight".

They call it "The Board Room" with use similar to a conference room. Sometimes they have small (maybe 100 people) banquets hosted there.

Width of skylight is maybe 6 feet.

Non-combustible construction.. steel beams, drywall, metal roof deck with clay tile roof.

From a layout tecnicians point of view I enjoy nothing more than working with a PE or FPE that knows what he is talking about. It's just wonderful, all the liability I shouldn't have in the first place is lifted and a guy with the right credentials can do a lot more talking with the architect or general contractor than I can.

But as good as all that is nothing is worse than working under the direction of a PE that doesn't know more than I forgot over the years.

We've all read the complaints about simple technicans doing engineering and I agree, we shouldn't be, but all to often we are forced to do things we shouldn't because those that should have the responsibility don't.

 

[cdafd]

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6316/octodome.jpg

I am asking how wide is the opening??
in the Cupola ???

say from one sidewall to the opposite sidewall on the other side???

 

[byrnesf]

I agree with stookeyfpe. I would never have accepted this design or lack there of.
Forget the type of sidewall sprinkler, the size of the cupola, the construction type, and the qualifications of the designer. The sidewall sprinkler heads will never activate unless the entire airspace in the cupola exceeds the temperature rating of the heads. There is no way to collect heat at the heads and any heat that would rise to that height would be redistributed away from the heads by the HVAC registers.
If I were conducting the NFPA 25 inspection I would write a definciency regardless of the reason for this layout.
I have had building owners tell me many times "How could this happen? The system was just inspected."

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

I am asking how wide is the opening??
in the Cupola ???

say from one sidewall to the opposite sidewall on the other side???

=========

Sidewalls are about 30' opposite each other.

The cupola is maybe 8' across and at least 8' high.

Also agree everything about this is wrong.

 

[ContractorDave]

If you are doing an inspection to NFPA 25 then it's a deficiency. If there is a sprinkler system in a building, you are inspecting that the system is installed to the relevant codes. Whether or not the building actually requires them, is grandfathered, or has part of the system installed under an equivalency is irrelevant. The owners, AHJ, and other interested parties can hash that out for themselves.

There was a day when an AHJ could look at the big picture and make commonsense decisions. This still holds true in a sense but the provisos and ramifications of litigation are such that it is definitely more in ones own self interest to limit your exposure to equivalencies as much as possible.

Regards
Dave

 

[cdafd]

just trying to fiqure out if it meets a pocket under current 13,

and if you put standard or extended coverage at the bottom of this thing on the horizontal, before it turns up, if it could cover from side to side.

if it is thirty feet across does not seem like that would be possible

is it possible to move the sidewalls higher????

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

I've been studiously studying NFPA #25 and I don't see where this the situation would be an "impairment".

I am not attempting to shirk my duty but my fear is if we take on something that isn't called for by NFPA #25 then we own the problem.

Something told to me by Russ Leavitt

http://www.russleavitt.com/my-fire-sprinkler-story/

has always stuck in my mind.

This isn't hypothetical it actually happened.

The story was while inspecting a factory a inspector noticed a non-sprinkled area in a combustible concealed space above a suspended ceiling. I don't know why he looked when it isn't called for except maybe a ceiling panel was missing or something.

The inspector noted the lack of sprinklers on his report whereupon the owner paid the company to install the sprinklers so the space was properly inspected.

Sometime later the factory had a large loss fire in a similar unsprinklered combustible space in another part of the factory. Appearantly the fire started in this area resulting in millions being lost.

The sprinkler company ended up fighting a large lawsuit. It was the lawyers contention it was obvious the inspector was inspecting above ceilings and the owner immediately added sprinklers in all areas so identified. The contention was the inspector wasn't doing his job because he looked at some areas and not others. If was obvious if the owner had been told he would have provided sprinklers in the space as well.... a real mess.

The sprinkler company won the fight but with juries the way they are you can never tell what would happen. Next time around they could easily lose.

We'd all agree in court even if you win you lose.

Yes, I agree everything about it is all wrong but reading from NFPA #25 Section 5.2.1

5.2.1 Sprinklers.
5.2.1.1* Sprinklers shall be inspected from the floor level annually.
5.2.1.1.1 Sprinklers shall not show signs of leakage; shall be free of corrosion, foreign materials, paint, and physical damage; and shall be installed in the proper orientation (e.g., upright, pendent, or sidewall).
5.2.1.1.2 Any sprinkler shall be replaced that has signs of leakage; is painted, corroded, damaged, or loaded; or in the improper orientation.
5.2.1.1.3 Glass bulb sprinklers shall be replaced if the bulbs have emptied.
5.2.1.1.4* Sprinklers installed in concealed spaces such as above suspended ceilings shall not require inspection.
5.2.1.1.5 Sprinklers installed in areas that are inaccessible for safety considerations due to process operations shall be inspected during each scheduled shutdown.
5.2.1.2* Unacceptable obstructions to spray patterns shall be corrected.

Conducting an inspection exactly as directed by the standard, no more and no less, is the only thing that can save your rear end should something happen.

Looking at 25 I see I am supposed to look for loaded heads, corrosion and blocked spray patterns but nowhere do I see I am supposed to look for non-sprinkled areas or improperly positioned sprinklers at the time of installation.

So I deliberately chose not to write up the situation as an impairment because once I did where would it stop? The facility I inspected had 20,000 sprinkler heads (27 buildings with some multi-story) and if I found 8 heads improperly installed here how come I failed to find all improperly placed/located sprinklers during my inspection?

I want to follow the requirements of NFPA #25 and nothing more/nothing less.

Back to the situation with Russ we were told the best way to have handled the non-sprinklered areas would be to not write it up in the report but note the situation using a separate letter stating "While not a part of NFPA #25 we happened to notice......."

A large number of companies are using inspections to gain daywork on some items not addressed in the standard. I think this could be very dangerous to do.

Then there is the difference in inspectors. If we go in looking I am going to spot a number of "impairments" a standard fitter who became an inspector would never catch.

The more I read 25 the more it appears the committee attempted to provide some protection as long as you stay exactly in the standard.

 

[ContractorDave]

As a business partner who hire's people to do inspections, there HAS to be a qualifier in your report that reads something along the lines of:

"The owner and / or the owners representative understand the responsibility of the operating condition of the sprinkler systems and their components are the property owners. The inspection service provided by the contractor as prescribed herein is limited to performing a visual inspection and / or routine testing, and any investigation or unscheduled testing, modification, maintenance, repair, etc., of the systems or their component parts is not included as part of the inspection. It is understood that all information contained herein is provided to the best knowledge of the party providing such information. Though due diligence in the inspection process is standard procedure, not all deficiencies may have been uncovered during this inspection. The sprinkler systems were left fully functional, with all valves in their normal position, and all devices working unless otherwise noted."

One of the reasons I like this forum is it keeps you on your toes and puts long held presumptions to test. Reading SD's latest post I came to wonder about a few questions we have had in our reports, one of which is a question derived from the AFSA 106A wet sprinkler inspection report: "Sprinklers appear properly oriented", we have had for some time: "Sprinklers appear properly installed and oriented." This would appear to assume more responsibility than is required.

I am at odds now with NFPA 25 and how it appears to be read. There is nothing that asks if sprinkler coverage appears to b extended to all parts of the building, or, are sprinklers installed as per NFPA 13 or manufacturers requirements under their listings.

Given what is asked for in chapters 4 and 5 of the 2008 edition, I am in agreement with SD NOT writing it up, but I don't understand NFPA. Why the limited inspection requirements? Why are we NOT inspecting to ensure an installation is meeting code requirements? Is it because there are too many variables and we don't WANT to have qualifying statements (as above) in inspections? I'm sure if this was the case that owners would have a lot more due diligence in ensuring their inspectors are qualified, and that would be a good thing, but if an inspection firm is reduced to writing letters pointing out code violations over and above those covered in the 25 inspection report to make up for the lack of detail in 25, it's all very suspect.

In fact it appears to be a moral dilemma: as an inspector you are doing work for a company who's interests you serve. You are doing inspections for clients who's interest you also serve. NFPA 25 would appear to put an inspector in quite the quandary; ie., if during an inspection he notices an obvious code violation (let's create an example similar to SD's and say a convalescent home covered by sidewalls that are installed at 26" beneath the ceiling, and let's say for added interest a family member is in there), by 25's requirements it is not an issue. Do you write that letter as an addendum to the report pointing out the problems? What if your employer agrees that, while it's a code issue, it's not an inspection issue and therefore there will be no letter? I wouldn't mind NFPA's input here, because it does seem that, while they are covering their own interests (somewhat understandably), they have left the inspector himself out on a limb.

Regards
Dave

 

[ContractorDave]

Just as a quick extension to my post above, while it is not specifically asked about in our report body, we have always noted two things regarding sprinklers installed in suspended ceilings in the comments section:

1) If escutcheons are missing [ this cause a problem when ceiling spaces are used as air plenum's for example and positive ceiling pressures may cause a draft by the sprinkler head impairing it's operation ], and

2) If ceiling tiles are out or drywall is damaged or cut open and un-repaired [ this allows heat to travel up into the ceiling space and possibly allow a fire to propagate beyond what a sprinkler might be able to control ].

I guess we don't comment on these anymore? We are not obligated to by 25. Are we morally obligated to? Sure we CAN say something and then say we communicated the problem to the owner, but even with documented proof of this, why would anyone put themselves in that position in this day and age?

Regards
Dave