"Are there any thoughts or ideas concerning development of a new antifreeze
which doesn't have the flammability issues of propylene glycol or
glycerine?"
Antifreeze has been used in Fire Sprinkler systems since the 1930's
according to one source, I've never verified that but it seems reasonable.
During that time a number of products have been used for different freeze
protection situations in various industries and systems. Most if not all
have never, until last month been tested as a "Spray discharged under
pressure" from a fire sprinkler. I'm sure there will be some scrambling
going on, already, or in the near future with some sort of testing standard
needing to be developed by UL and FM for "Antifreeze solutions use for fire
protection"
"A local fire authority I spoke with yesterday gave options of heat-tracing
(or heat
taping), insulation or a dry system"
Heat tracing an entire system? Very expensive, and not even currently
allowed by NFPA! And for an existing system how do you even expose the pipe
to install the heat tracing? Rip down drywall, painting, plaster and
protection of existing furnishings. This could cost several times what the
original installation cost. And who pays for this? The contractor? NOT ME!
That would just have most contractors closing their doors in an already
depressed economy. The Owner? Oh they'll just love to hear the AHJ's ideas
on how much of their money he's requiring them to spend.
Insulation? 13D 2010 handbook has a nice commentary on insulation in 7.7.
also Fig. A8.3.1(a), (b), (c) and (d) give very nice direction on how to
insulate, it's just unfortunate that the Fire Protection Contractor is very
rarely the insulation contractor, and rarely on the jobsite while the
insulation is being installed. The liquid in our systems is generally
stagnant. The exposure to even a small gap in the insulation can cause a
frozen section of pipe to break. The other problem is if we rely on the
placement of insulation, I'm not talking the spray foam insulation, what
prevents it from being moved in the future?
While TYCO has given us the Dry Residential sprinklers, both HSW and PEND,
the long awaited "Residential Dry" system has yet to become available. ECO
advertizes their Actuated Dry Pipe Valve for residential applications, but I
haven't read the listing, and even so it couldn't be installed on existing
CPVC systems, only steel. Their ad says that "Operating pressures
accommodate metallic and non-metallic piping arrangements" but since air
testing of CPVC is prohibited, I can't see Air Operation being allowed. So
your AHJ has some options for 13 or 13R, 13D will still be very expensive.
"How can it be determined if the R-38 insulation will adequately
protect the piping below if it is revised into a wet-pipe system ?"
Any MPE can give you the heat loss calc, or you can pull out some old Heat
transfer books and do your own.
"TIA's is pretty significant"
Ya think? Sorry I couldn't help myself. There are more "Un-resolved" issues
with these TIA's than it fixes.
1) How many incidences have occurred where life loss was causes solely by
this apparent "Flashing" of the initial anti-freeze discharge? (13D, 13R
and residential 13 were never intended to totally eliminate life loss in
residential occupancies. It's very rare that the life loss is burn related,
usually it's smoke that does it.)
2) How many fire have discharged with anti-freeze and done what was
expected? Controlled or extinguished or simply provided the time to
evacuate? (We've had AF systems for more than 50 years, how many have gone
off? What is their success rate? I've personally have three discharge in the
past 18 years, and all three did what they were supposed to, extinguish or
contain the fire, even beyond the design application. How many more are
there out there that worked when called upon?)
3) Prohibiting something is easy, providing viable alternatives is not! What
alternative is NFPA providing? (13D is supposed to be "Affordable"
protection. If there was an affordable alternative to the AF it probably
would have been the installation of choice for the original installation."
4) Who is on the HOOK for the cost of changing these systems? (I know the
technical answer, "The Owner" of the system. I hope NFPA comes out with some
standard letter to property owners telling them why the system they
installed last year, which they didn't want then, needs to be ripped out and
replaced with another type of system. This will give the NAHB a whole new
set of "It's too expensive! See we told you so!"
5) What is the insurance industries position? (Either thru the contractors
GL or the Owner insurance they are the ones on the hook in the end.)
6) By requesting that the "Committee's" work on further testing and
alternatives, it appears that NFPA "Over Reacted" to a specific situation.
(Like I said, we've had these systems for over 50 years and now in the past
several months it's become imperative to act, before the full range of tests
and solutions is explored?)
I could go on but it's just my personal rant. Some AHJ's are a "wait and
see", there will be some that "I want them all converted NOW!" and some who
will say "I don't care what it costs, do it"
Personally we need more data. We need Insurance input (other than that on
the committee) on cost impact. Will they insure an existing residence with
an AF system? Is there a multiplier they'll use over a Non-AF system. We
need a UL and FM standard on how we test AF systems application, if the 40%
and 50% are allowed.
So much to do
Thom
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
