Loaded sprinkler heads

[FFP1]

Does anyone know precisely what constitutes a "loaded" sprinkler head based on NFPA 25. NFPA 25 (2011 Edition) indicates the following: 5.2.1.1.4 Any sprinkler shall be replaced that has signs of leakage; is painted, other than by the sprinkler manufacturer, corroded, damaged, or loaded; or is in the improper orientation. The Appendix also states the following: A.5.2.1.1.2(5) In lieu of replacing sprinklers that are loaded with a coating of dust, it is permitted to clean sprinklers with compressed air or by a vacuum provided that the equipment does not touch the sprinkler.

We have inspectors in our area who are claiming building owners must replace sprinklers with dust accumulation. They also list sprinklers with spider webs. There is no way a little dust (or a few spider webs) will prevent OR even delay activation of a sprinkler head.

I eagerly await your responses......

 

[MGXFP]

I've seen sprinklers in manufacturing environments totally caked with industrial grease, dust etc to the point they will not deploy. I only know this because during a fire they did not deploy for having too much grease/grime on the elements! At this point all the sprinklers were replaced and from what I'm told a small fire was extinguished by a new sprinkler head a few years later.

Isn't most of what dust is dead skin cells? That should be quite flammable. It would seem some common sense be in order if people are recommending a vast sum of sprinklers be replaced for a small accumulation of dust.

However I could be wrong.

 

[skdesigner]

Interesting question. I always scanned over this and lumped it in the same category as corroded, i.e some form of build-up.

A quick google netted the following insurance inspection checklist,

http://www.cna.com/vcm_content/CNA/...UL_firesprinklercontrolvalvesecurity_CNA.pdf.

Note that the 8th bullet on the second page refers to "debris-loaded" sprinkler heads, which I think is a better description than merely "loaded".

I'm referencing the 2008 edition of NFPA 25, but A5.2.1.1 States:

The conditions described in this section can have a detrimental effect on the performance of sprinklers by affecting water distribution patterns, insulating thermal elements, delaying operation, or otherwise rendering the sprinkler inoperable or ineffectual. Severely loaded or corroded sprinklers should be rejected as part of the visual inspection. Such sprinklers could be affected in their distribution or other performance characteristics not addressed by routine sample testing. Lightly loaded or corroded sprinklers could be permitted for continued use if samples are selected for testing based on worst-case conditions and the samples successfully pass the tests.

Severely loaded and lightly loaded appear to be up for interpretation. Either way, it seems some kind of action will be necessary.

 

[pipesnpumps]

That sure is a loaded question!!

If it is capable of being cleaned of gross dust, I can't see any reasoning why it would need to be replaced. Dust being ok, but condensed oils/other vapor is totally different of course. I would say any environment that causes buildup like that would need replacement, and also cellophane bags for protection. Change out the bags when dirty.

This sounds like either a pay me to fix it for you situation, or a CYA situation..


Real world knowledge doesn't fall out of the sky on a parachute, but rather is gained in small increments during moments of panic or curiosity.

 

[cdafd]

It is funny
You can

Wax a head

Paper bag a head

Plastic bag a head

And they are still suppose to work

So to me a little dust that will burn should not be a problem

 

[NJ1]

FPPI and Others

I have being in contact with NFPA and have obtained several code interpretations thru the years on this matter so maybe I can help.

NFPA 25 does not specify how much is tooooooo much so therefore you must make a judgement call of how to inform your client of something that another company may overlook just to get the account.
As I have said many, many, many times this industry no longer has credible integrity since companies just want to get the account or keep a client.

As per NFPA (forgot the name of person) paint is paint period.
Load is load period. The main question is: Do you want to take the liability by saying "nahh is fine"

I have another grey area I want to discuss with you guys if requested.