• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Coating on exterior sprinkler head

I

Inspector 102

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
357
Location
N/E Indiana
The local fire inspector has asked me about a wax type coating on an exterior sprinkler head at a local nursing home. It appears the coating is there for weather protection. The installation is probably 30 years old and the State Fire MArshall wants the head changed out. Can anyone offer some information on what was an acceptacle weather protection requirements from this old of an installation. Thanks.
 
did not know it was required

just check the heads annualy and change IF needed

seems like if it was wax coated from the factory it should be legal??????????

ask the kind inspector to give you a section of nfpa 13 that is requireing it to be replaced
 
If the sprinkler is 30 years old it needs to be replaced. The current guideline is 10 years - changed from 15. It's 2-3 times past its effective life.

The wax isn't the issue.
 
Gene -

Is the timelimit based on the exterior location. I thought that 50 years was a the standard for replacing heads. I will look into NFPA 13, but if you could shoot me the refrence section, it would cut down on the time it takes me to find it. Thanks
 
Actually, I jumped the gun.

The requirement is in 5.3.1.1.1 of NFPA 25. Yes, replacement is every 50 years. However, testing is every 10 years. If the exterior sprinklers (which are 30 years old) have not been pulled and tested then it is likely that they need to be. And, if pulling a sprinkler to test it, the sprinkler replacement is needed (probably without wax).

But, 5.3.1.1.1.5 requires dry sprinklers to be replaced every 10 years.

So, have any of the exterior sprinklers with the wax coating been testing in the past 10 years? If so, and the tests show that the sprinklers are still within parameters, leave them alone. If they haven't been tested, then pull and test. But if it's a dry sprinkler, pull and replace.
 
Gene,

Isn't the 10 year testing for quick response sprinklers. I will have to look it up in NFPA 25 but I thought older standard heads were good for 50 years and then replacement or testing beyond that.
 
Replacement without testing varies on the type. Dry type requires replacement or testing at 10 years (5.1.1.1.5). So if it's exterior, it's likely a dry pendant or dry sprinkler system.

All sprinklers will be moving to the 10 year test cycle.

There's going to be a change in the next edition as well to address o-ring type sprinkler replacement based on research by UL. In that research they validated the 10 year test cycle.
 
25 does not specificaly seem to address wax heads

from 13::

6.2.6 Special Coatings.

6.2.6.1* Corrosion Resistant.

6.2.6.1.1 Listed corrosion-resistant sprinklers shall be installed in locations where chemicals, moisture, or other corrosive vapors sufficient to cause corrosion of such devices exist.

6.2.6.1.2* Unless the requirements of 6.2.6.1.3 are met, corrosion-resistant coatings shall be applied only by the manufacturer of the sprinkler and in accordance with the requirements of 6.2.6.1.3.

6.2.6.1.3 Any damage to the protective coating occurring at the time of installation shall be repaired at once using only the coating of the manufacturer of the sprinkler in the approved manner so that no part of the sprinkler will be exposed after installation has been completed.

are they dry heads or wet heads???

5.3 Testing.

5.3.1* Sprinklers.

5.3.1.1* Where required by this section, sample sprinklers shall be submitted to a recognized testing laboratory acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction for field service testing.

5.3.1.1.1 Where sprinklers have been in service for 50 years, they shall be replaced or representative samples from one or more sample areas shall be tested. Test procedures shall be repeated at 10-year intervals.

5.3.1.1.1.1 Sprinklers manufactured prior to 1920 shall be replaced.

5.3.1.1.1.2 Sprinklers manufactured using fast-response elements that have been in service for 20 years shall be replaced, or representative samples shall be tested. They shall be retested at 10-year intervals.

5.3.1.1.1.3* Representative samples of solder-type sprinklers with a temperature classification of extra high 325°F (163°C) or greater that are exposed to semicontinuous to continuous maximum allowable ambient temperature conditions shall be tested at 5-year intervals.

5.3.1.1.1.4 Where sprinklers have been in service for 75 years, they shall be replaced or representative samples from one or more sample areas shall be submitted to a recognized testing laboratory acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction for field service testing. Test procedures shall be repeated at 5-year intervals.

5.3.1.1.1.5* Dry sprinklers that have been in service for 10 years shall be replaced, or representative samples shall be tested. They shall be retested at 10-year intervals.

5.3.1.1.2* Where sprinklers are subjected to harsh environments, including corrosive atmospheres and corrosive water supplies, on a 5-year basis, sprinklers shall either be replaced or representative sprinkler samples shall be tested.

5.3.1.1.3 Where historical data indicate, longer intervals between testing shall be permitted.

5.3.1.2* A representative sample of sprinklers for testing per 5.3.1.1.1 shall consist of a minimum of not less than four sprinklers or 1 percent of the number of sprinklers per individual sprinkler sample, whichever is greater.

5.3.1.3 Where one sprinkler within a representative sample fails to meet the test requirement, all sprinklers within the area represented by that sample shall be replaced.

5.3.1.3.1 Manufacturers shall be permitted to make modifications to their own sprinklers in the field with listed devices that restore the original performance as intended by the listing, where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
 
I would tend to agree with Geneo and it's most logically a dry pendant on a dry system or anti-freeze loop and the wax coating is for corrosion protection in accordance with code. Need a little more detail to establish opinion since this is basically educated speculation at this point.
 
I do not know about the 10 year replacement on all sprinklers. I do not recall hearing that in NFPA 25 committee meetings. I have had many, well over 500 heads tested over the years at many different locations and occupancies and find few that fail! Except ones that are painted, corroded, loaded etc. Dry pendents are a problem, few pass after 10 years.

I do not think any sprinkler mfgs made a wax coated dry pendent 30 years ago. My guess it is on a antifreeze loop or dry system. I have no problem with the wax coated head. I see many chrome sprinklers that have turned green from the atmosphere. Wax is good! Let is go another 20 years and send one out to UL for testing.
 
""""is for corrosion protection in accordance with code""""

But how many ahj's require corrision protection for heads that are outside???
 
Right, cda!

If these are dry then they should be looked at very carefully since they've been sitting around for 3 times the test cycle.
 
OK FM I will play

just because a head is outside do you require protection??

or, under what circumstances would you require them???
 
We recently changed some leaking pipe in a pool maintainence room. My tech wrote them up for corroeded heads. I thought the heads should be OK, because we changed them about 5 years ago. They were OK, he had just not seen wax coated heads. But I gave him credit for looking at the heads. The only problem w/wax heads is the wax coating is easily damaged if you do not use the right wrench. We have recently changed to polyester coated heads because of the delicacy issue. Besides, white polyester heads are prettier.
 
under what circumstances would you require them???
Click to expand...
In areas where exposed to weather and or high humidity, exposed to industrial processes, or exposed to corrosive water supply. Nothing worse than missing it and coming back three years later and seeing the aqua colored funk:View attachment 151

View attachment 152

View attachment 151

View attachment 152

/monthly_2010_07/572953b8031c2_CBPUWaterTreatmamp10.jpg.bd4d2ba4ad2df958be29a88357deaeb7.jpg

/monthly_2010_07/572953b809092_CBPUWaterTreatmamp10.jpg.dbb0b09e17584d30c8001cb79a01b58f.jpg
 
under what circumstances would you require them???
Click to expand...
In areas where exposed to weather and or high humidity, exposed to industrial processes, or exposed to corrosive water supply. Nothing worse than missing it and coming back three years later and seeing the aqua colored funk: Edit: Had to change names on Pics to protect myself :oops: View attachment 153

View attachment 153

/monthly_2010_07/572953b80c212_CorrodedSprinklamp1.jpg.45c0c2465727b6d879c4d5a07516f48c.jpg
 
FM

sorry you live in a corrosive atmosphere

is this problem more with older heads then ones installed today??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top