Justin, Although I'm aware of some activations that have been attributed to using the incorrect wrench, and multiple tightenings/loosenings of a head, and both just increasing the risk, the big problem is the handling of the removed heads. The protective covers are gone, they are not neatly packed in the box, the likelihood is that they'll be "tossed" into a bucket. It's bad enough when fitters do this during initial install as some do. And though links my be more robust than bulbs if you have bulbs and want to re-install...? Complete drops are OK because, and I'm guessing on the collective opinion of the committee because the head is less likely to be banged around. All speculations from rumor and innuendo on my part. I wasn't in the bedroom when the committee consummated this rule, but the logic is valid.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Justin Reid <[email protected]>wrote: > If damage to a glass bulb head is big enough concern to require the > replacement after removal, what about damage to the head when it is > installed the first time? How frequently are glass bulb heads failing due > to damage or hairline cracks that are not seen by the eye? I tried looking > in John Halls data on system activation when there is no fire but it does > not seem that attributing it to head failure can be singled out from the > information provided. What is the risk comparison of a glass bulb head > going off accidentally compared to a fusible link element head? > > I am wondering because of high challenge areas where accidental head > activation would cause high dollar problems. I have recently specified > fusible link element heads in some of these higher challenge areas (end > point server rooms, high dollar assets below, etc.). These are areas where > it has been determined that a wet system would be appropriate, but that > determination has been made assuming that the sprinkler head itself is > fairly reliable. We can minimize accidental damage to the heads themselves > by going concealed or uprights with guards. > > My gut says that a fusible link head would provide less risk of accidental > discharge. I just don't have any data to back it up. Does anybody have any > experience with accidental head activations? Also, what is the current cost > difference (percentage wise) of a fusible link head to glass bulb? > > Maybe the concern is off base it just seems like a fusible link head would > provide a more reliable system. > > Justin Reid > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 28, 2013, at 3:40 PM, "Matthew J. Willis" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Topic name shift...., > > > > > > Also, if you are removing the head for an "inspection" inside the > fitting, > > you are performing tasks per 25, and must supply a new sprinkler. > > > > R/ > > Matt > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff > Hewitt, > > PE > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:24 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Bedbugs > > > > Check NFPA 13, 2013, 6.2.1.1 > > > > > > Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET | Corporate Engineer NICET #102015 | Water Based > > Layout - Level IV Inspection Testing & Maintenance - Level III > > > > 241 Hughes Lane | St. Charles, MO 63301 Office 636-946-0011 | Fax > > 636-946-5172 Cell 314-574-6989 | www.bistatefire.com > > > > Fire sprinklers save lives. Can you live without them? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > O'Connor > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:44 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Bedbugs > > > > Gentlemen: > > > > Paragraph 6.2.1 (2007 Ed. NFPA-13) states: "Only new sprinklers shall be > > installed." > > This refers to new work. We relocate sprinklers in office environments > all > > the time. Where does it say specifically that if you unscrew and remove > a > > head, you replace it? What about general maintenance such as internal > > inspections, where one head is to be removed for a visual inspection > inside > > the fitting? You infer that the only correct action is replacing every > head > > you ever remove. I say you are reading more into the code than intended. > > If they wanted only new heads for every action, they (the committee) > would > > have said so. > > > > Reference also the 2002 edition of the Automatic Sprinkler Handbook, page > > 106, para 6.1.2.2 where they discuss reconditioned components. "However, > > when sprinklers have been installed in a building on a temporary > basis--for > > example, prior to finish ceiling work--the same sprinklers can be used on > > that job. The same holds true for an existing system that is being > lowered > > to accommodate a new ceiling provided the sprinklers are of the proper > > orientation and the associated hazard has not changed." > > > > The committee has clearly allowed relocated heads to be used. If the > > occupancy has not changed, the original head, as in the case of the > bed-bug > > remediation example, can be reused. Obvious exceptions are if the > head(s) > > are 50 years or older, or of the wrong orifice, temp, thread size etc, > > precluding its applicability as a suitable head for reinstallation. > > > > John O'Connor > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Denhardt > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:19 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Bedbugs > > > > Absolutely > > > > > > John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE > > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > > 5113 Berwyn Road > > College Park, Maryland 20740 > > Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 > > Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 > > FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd - > Work > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:18 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Bedbugs > > > > Aren't you supposed to replace with new heads if the old ones are > unscrewed? > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > www.fpdc.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5638 - Release Date: 02/28/13 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130301/484cb67a/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
