I'd flag it under NFPA 25 '10 - 5.2.1. Plenty in there like foreign materials or in the wrong orientation (because the plate implies it's too far down from the actual ceiling and should be upright based on the BL location, OK, maybe that's weak). You have no idea if it was AHJ approved condition before you got there. If you do as Ron suggested I'd use 5.2.1 as you did a deficient inspection as that section tells you exactly what to look for at the sprinkler, there is foreign material hanging from part of the sprinkler. Don't get me wrong I see where Ron is going for other things that are not mentioned like suspected small pipe size, incorrect density and incorrect spacing.
Not sure I agree with Steve's using of the critical definition generically as a trump card for everything. First, some other section must identify what you are looking for then you'd use the definitions to establish an impairment, critical or non-critical deficiency? Is this a deficiency? Yes under 5.2.1. Is it an impairment, no. Is it a deficiency? Yes but I don't know which level as I don't have details. Short room you are probably in the jet and it won't make a difference. Tall space you may be in the plume and might make a bigger difference. In the end I'd never put my name on it as OK. What did you mean they were accepted? Just because an ahj agreed doesn't mean they were ever acceptable by the code. And many moons ago I'm sure there were plenty of AHJ that said no. I seem to only have come across in places that have limited oversight. I've seen them on system's installed in the last 5 years. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 25 inspection of sprinklers with heat collector plates installed Gregg, I'd make one of those "not part of the inspection" comments, but an area of potential concerne and do the "recommendation of an engineer's review." On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Gregg Key <[email protected]> wrote: > Forum, if you were inspecting a building and found some pendant > sprinklers with the "heat collectors" installed, would you write it up > as a deficiency and why? > > Many moons ago they were accepted but later research proved they did > not work. > > C.Gregg Key, SET > Key Fire Protection Services,Inc > Project Manager > (O) 706-790-3473 > (C) 706-220-8821 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120802/ac39cc84/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
