Detecting, Preventing and Addressing Sprinkler System Corrosion

Detecting, Preventing and Addressing Sprinkler System Corrosion

Understand how corrosion effects sprinkler system performance
Objectives Understand how corrosion effects sprinkler system performance Find the internal inspection requirements in NFPA Recognize the difference between internal inspections (assessments) and obstruction investigations Take the attendee’s through each bullet point and briefly prepare them for what to expect… Explain that we’ll be referencing the 2017 edition in some places, but that many haven’t yet adopted that edition. We’ll discuss where changes have occurred between editions.

Learn how corrosion occurs and what factors influence it
Objectives Learn how corrosion occurs and what factors influence it Identify common corrosion signs Use the tools in NFPA 25 and best practices used by others to improve the application and enforcement of the standard

Corrosion and Sprinklers
Impact on fire protection Obstructions Reducing water flow Impact on system integrity System lifespan Discuss the various impacts corrosion has on fire protection (water delivery reductions, potential obstruction to sprinklers, etc.). Use data on next 2 slides to highlight the problem – particularly the 18% of cases where not enough water was released caused a sprinkler system not to be effective. Discuss integrity of the system itself. Increased maintenance costs, leaks, dry systems tripping and freezing, compressors wearing out, etc. Per VDS study – lifespan… Wet Systems Failures begin typically at age 15 – 25 years Dependent upon the amount of trapped air Dry / Pre-action systems Failures begin typically at age 5 – 15 years Dependent upont the amount of trapped water Depends on use of galvanized piping

Sprinkler System Success
Public Assembly – 96% Educational – 93% Health Care – 96% Residential – 98% Store / Office – 96% Manufacturing – 93% Storage – 79% All Structures – 95% General info from Dr. Hall’s sprinkler experience in the US studies about how successful sprinklers are. These are the sprinkler system statistical success rates divided into occupancy classifications. Note that the Storage occupancy rate, while significantly lower than others does not dramatically impact the overall success rate. One possible explanation of the lower success rate for storage occupancies is that these occupancies are more likely to be protected by dry pipe sprinkler systems which require greater care and attention, have more working parts that may be subject to failure, and as we saw in previous slides, suffer from corrosion at a higher rate.

Causes of Failure When the system operated, but was ineffective.
When the system failed to operate. National Fire Protection Assoc. Sprinkler Experience in the U.S. Just explain that when sprinklers fail to operate, or operate and are ineffective, there are known causes. Make the connection to which of these are related/potentially related to corrosion (several are). These are the things NFPA 25 is written around. NFPA 25’s rules aren’t “arbitrary”, they are based on historical data and known problem areas.

NFPA 13-A was first adopted in 1939
History of NFPA 25 NFPA 13-A was first adopted in 1939 Written as a “recommended practice” Updated several times and last published in 1987 Sprinklers first used in late 1800’s – not long afterwards (late 1930’s), it was recognized that maintenance was important. NFPA 13-A was written as a companion to NFPA 13 and was just a “recommended practice” (meaning it was NOT mandatory). It contains the word “should” …not “shall” It’s just a guide for owners to help them maintain their sprinkler system.

The risk of corrosion and obstruction was understood early on…
History of NFPA 25 The risk of corrosion and obstruction was understood early on… NFPA 13A – 1987 National Fire Protection Association Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA This section is from the 1987 edition of NFPA 13A but similar language existed in older editions. Read through this paragraph and note how moisture from the air supply in dry systems were identified as problematic. We’ll spend more time on this later, but just touch on it here. Before going into the history of internal inspections specifically, discuss the history of NFPA 25 in general (next few slides).

Several things triggered the development of NFPA 25
History of NFPA 25 Several things triggered the development of NFPA 25 More sprinkler systems… Fast-forward a hundred or so years of sprinkler use, with fire safety professionals realizing we knew how to control the fire problem (fire sprinklers) One of the things that “triggered” the need for a ITM code were simply more sprinkler systems being installed and relied upon for fire protection. Next 2 slides explain how sprinkler use increased. This is the 1st of a series of slides explaining why NFPA 25 was developed. 1- More sprinklers 2- Studies showing sprinkler system problems 3- a need for “comprehensive” ITM of all water-based systems.

Courtesy: firehouse.com
Large Loss Fires Large-loss fires in the 70’s & 80’s prompted discussion about broader use of sprinklers as life-saving devices Just 2 examples of major fires in 70’s and 80’s… Beverly Hills Supper Club outside Cincinnati, OH on the night of May 28, 1977 (Memorial Day Weekend) killed 165 and injured more than 200. It was built outside the city limits and across the Ohio River in Kentucky. No sprinklers (among other major fire code issues like blocked exits, etc.) MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas killed 85 and injured over 650 on November 21, An exception to sprinklers was permitted in the casino and restaurants where the fire started. Fires like these prompted fire safety advocates to call for more sprinkler protection. History had shown the effectiveness of sprinklers, but cost caused owners and developers to oppose them. Courtesy: firehouse.com

Owners and developers were offered code “trade-ups” for sprinklers
Sprinkler Trade-Up’s Owners and developers were offered code “trade-ups” for sprinklers The codes began to offer “trade-off’s” for sprinklers. Like reduction in fire resistive construction, fewer exits, less water supply, etc. But now we have “traded” a lot of built in (passive) fire protection for sprinklers. That is a good trade, the data bears that out. But ensuring their reliability is increasingly important. Ask “which is safer…a building constructed to code that wasn’t designed to have sprinklers, or a fully sprinklered building with an impaired sprinkler system?” The sprinklered building won’t have as much built-in fire resistance and relies on a working sprinkler system.

History of NFPA 25 Several things triggered the development of NFPA 25 More sprinkler systems… Data on sprinkler system performance… The second trigger is data showing us that ITM is needed to help ensure sprinkler system reliability. If we are going to rely on sprinklers as our primary defense against fire, we have to be sure they will work when the time comes.

Study of 368 properties with sprinklers.
CIGNA Study Study of 368 properties with sprinklers. Health Mercantile Hotel Office Warehouse 33% 27% 52% 62% 18% Percentage of properties WITHOUT deficiencies. 59% of all properties surveyed had deficiencies. Talk about this study and ask if they think the data still holds true. CIGNA insurance – an HPR (highly protected risk) insurer – studied several properties in 1990 and found problems with the majorities of sprinkler systems. This data, along with others, helped focus energy on developing a standard that required maintenance of fire protection systems.

History of NFPA 25 Several things triggered the development of NFPA 25 More sprinkler systems… Data on sprinkler system performance… Need for a “comprehensive” ITM standard… Lastly, and not as important as the others, but still a factor, was the need for a comprehensive ITM standard for all water-based fire protection systems. Other technical committee’s were considering and writing ITM documents (20 for fire pumps, 14 for standpipes, etc.) The decision was made to put ITM requirements for all “water-based” systems into one, comprehensive, purely ITM (no design) focused standard…which became NFPA 25.

1st Published as the 1992 Edition Was written as a standard
First Edition of NFPA 25 1st Published as the 1992 Edition Was written as a standard Addressed all water-based systems After all that, the 1st edition of NFPA 25 was released as the 1992 edition. It was written as a standard (i.e. mandatory language) meant to be adopted and enforced by AHJ’s. It brought together ITM requirements for all water-based systems (not just sprinklers). In the next slide we’ll talk about what makes NFPA 25 unique

Each type of system has its own chapter
NFPA 25 Application NFPA 25 is solely focused on wear and tear (design issues are outside the scope) Each type of system has its own chapter Obstructions drove internal inspections Discuss the scope of NFPA 25 being limited to wear and tear of existing systems. No design consideration apply. Give examples… If there are no sprinklers in a room or space (in an otherwise “fully” sprinklered building) is that a violation of NFPA 25? The answer is no, you can’t inspect or test what’s not there. Use the table of contents to show how each system has its own chapter (on the next few slides) The term “obstruction” has been used throughout the history of NFPA 25 and was the driving force behind what has become the typical 5-year internal inspection requirements.

Internal Inspection History
Attempting to identify “obstructions” was always recognized as important Older editions (prior to 2002) only required internal inspection when triggered by certain events As discussed in an earlier slide, obstructions were always a concern. Corrosion and the value of internal inspection wasn’t fully understood for a long time. In the 1992, 1995, & 1998 editions didn’t require routine internal inspections. The only time the inside of the systems was inspected was after an event triggered it. There were a series of triggers listed that included thins like plugged sprinklers and discharge of obstructive materials during flow tests. We’ll go through those triggers later

First reference to a frequency-based internal inspection was in the 2002 ed. Included prescriptive guidance “opening a flushing connection at the end of one main and by removing a sprinkler toward the end of one branch line” This (2002) was the first reference to a separate “frequency-based” (not waiting until triggered by an event) internal inspection requirement. Internal inspections were still lumped together with obstruction investigations, however. All requirements were in the same section. Alternative methods (ultrasonic examination, cameras, etc.) were permitted to satisfy this requirement.

Organization of NFPA 25 Chapters 1-4 Chapters 5-13 Chapters 14 & 15
“Administrative Chapters” Chapters 5-13 “System Chapters” Chapters 14 & 15 “Corrective Chapters” Chapter 16 Special Requirements from Other NFPA Documents (new in 2014 edition) Annexes A-F Describe how NFPA 25 is organized. Briefly describe each category. Discuss the purpose of the annex language and be sure to mention that it is not enforceable, but provides excellent resource info. Chapter 14 is highlighted (red) – it contains the requirements for “internal inspection/assessment of internal condition” Spend time on the history of NFPA 25, how it is referenced in the fire codes, who is responsible, etc.

Internal Inspections & Obstruction Investigations were “split” in 2011 edition Obstruction Investigations Internal Inspections Triggered by Certain Events Every 5 Years Rest of this section will be about chapter 14’s requirements. Beginning with the 2011 edition, it was clarified that 2 separate tasks were required. Still had prescriptive requirements for where internal inspections were to be conducted, but it was clarified that internal inspections were different than obstruction investigations. Internal inspections were to identify problems earlier and potentially stop or prevent them. Obstruction investigations have remained essentially the same. Once one is triggered, there are prescriptive requirements for how to do them. Basically it’s a more thorough internal inspection looking in several places within the system for problems. After that, a “plan” must be developed to deal with the situation. If it gets this far, these are very costly and intrusive events and a big burden on owners and occupants.

Assessment of Internal Condition
Renamed in 2014 edition Concept still the same Prescriptive requirements moved to the annex No changes in 2017 ed. No longer considered an “internal inspection” but rather “assessment of internal condition” Intent is still to try to identify potential problems inside the system. No longer required to comply “by opening a flushing connection at the end of one main and by removing a sprinkler toward the end of one branch line”. Those prescriptive reqt’s were moved to the annex as guidance.

Assessment of Internal Condition
Non-metallic pipe is excluded Alternate systems when multiple wet-pipe systems are present If materials are found, all systems shall be assessed Discuss the specific requirements from 14.2 Non-metallic (CPVC) pipe is excluded from requirements When multiple wet-pipe systems are present, inspecting “alternate systems” is permitted. (animation = odd numbered floors the 1st cycle, even numbereed floors for the 2nd cycle). Example is a multi-story building… As always was required, if anything is discovered during assesment, all floors must be looked at.

Where to look inside the system(s) Alternative methods
Annex Language Annex for internal assessment now incudes guidance formerly (before 2014 edition) required Where to look inside the system(s) Alternative methods SPEND TIME HERE As stated earlier, the “prescriptive” requirements for complying with chapter 14 are no longer in chapter 14. Guidance for how to comply is now in the annex. Open NFPA 25 to chapter 14’s annex and read through some of this guidance. Discuss how using “alternative methods” (ultrasound, cameras, even water sampling) can be used to comply. Discuss the pros and cons of these methods.

“Foreign organic or inorganic material” Sufficient amount
What are we looking for? “Foreign organic or inorganic material” Sufficient amount Only guidance is in D.3.2 Less than ½ cup Scale fragment not large enough to obstruct sprinklers Main point here is to answer the question “what are we looking for?”.

Obstruction Investigations
Triggered by a finding or event Not a “routine” occurrence Switch back to the obstruction investigation…14.3… side of the discussion (as opposed to internal inspections/assessments) Just talk about how these are a big deal and not routine. Note that the flushing program, if needed, has to be done by someone qualified. It’s not just someone untrained opening an inspectors test and calling it done. We’ll talk more about qualifications in a few slides.

These are the 15 “triggers” for an obstruction investigation… Just briefly explain the concept of “triggers” versus frequency-based.

The rest of the 15 “triggers” Many of these deal with corrosion – look at (14) and (15) Spend some time with number 15. Ask if there is a pass/fail for water delivery in NFPA 25 (there’s not)

Intent is to: Look where corrosion is likely Look in each of the main system components If corrosion is found during the assessment, and an obstruction investigation is started, there is guidance in the annex explaining where to look. But the list is not meant to be complete. Uses common sense and look anywhere corrosion is likely.

NFPA 25 requires that “qualified” people do the work
Who Can Perform ITM? NFPA 25 requires that “qualified” people do the work Qualified. A competent and capable person that has met the requirements and training for a given field acceptable to the AHJ. Different from licensed… Just a couple slides to remind the audience about the importance of whoever is doing this work to know what they are doing… Discuss what qualified means and how in-house maintenance people who are qualified can do certain things. Then discuss that licensing is a governmental function. NFPA 25 does not require licensing. Some state laws my limit who can do what or even what makes someone qualified (NICET Level II, etc.)

Qualified vs. Licensed This slide is a spot to discuss the difference between licensing and qualified. Qualified is a code requirement, licensing is a governmental requirement. Discuss the difference and how it applies to their particular region/state.

Obstruction Sources (D.2) MIC Information (D.2.7)
Annex Language Annex D provides guidance for performing obstruction investigations (D.3) Obstruction Sources (D.2) MIC Information (D.2.7) Flushing procedures (D.5) Explain that Annex D is a good resource for stakeholders on the subject of obstruction investigations. If they have NFPA 25 with them, have them take a look or put it on the screen…

Both NFPA 13 and NFPA 25 require that only new sprinklers be used
Removing a Sprinkler Both NFPA 13 and NFPA 25 require that only new sprinklers be used If a sprinkler is removed for any reason, it can’t be reinstalled Quickly explain that anytime a sprinkler is removed (which is typical during this type of investigation), it has to be replaced with a new one.

MIC FM Global reports MIC is responsible for 10-20% of corrosion in fire sprinkler systems. This means 80-90% of corrosion was generalized (oxygen) corrosion. SWITCH GEARS FROM CODE REQUIREMEMTS TO EXPLAINING CORROSION Start with a discussion about MIC and how it’s not as prevalent as once thought. July 2014

Definition of Corrosion
…to wear away gradually usually by chemical action. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Ed. Multiple types in sprinkler systems General corrosion (rust/oxidation) Galvanic MIC Others The definition is from Webster's…discuss how that relates to chapter 3 Discuss how most corrosion in sprinkler systems is not MIC, but much more often just regular old corrosion (rust!) But explain that there my be others, and sometime multiple things going on at once.

Generalized Corrosion Cell (Rust reaction)
Corrosion “Triangle” IRON Generalized Corrosion Cell (Rust reaction) OXYGEN WATER Tie to “fire triangle”. These three must be present for corrosion to occur. Remove one, and the corrosion will go away. Others factors like corrosive water supplies, “hard” water, and temperature variations can effect corrosion as well.

Common Corrosion Causes
Trapped air in wet pipe system Trapped water in dry pipe system Corrosion occurs at the air-water interface. These are two common examples of how that interface commonly happens.

Preventing Trapped Air
Proper installation and filling Air venting 7.1.5 Air Venting. A single air vent with a connection conforming to shall be provided on each wet pipe system utilizing metallic pipe. (See A ) New in 2016 ed. This section is new to the 2016 edition of NFPA 13. NOT APPLICABLE IN NY UNTIL ADOPTED. NY possibly moving to 2018 I-codes in 2019, which will reference the 2016 NFPA 13. Discuss the operation of vents and how they lead to the reduction of trapped air (tie to removing one of the legs of the “triangle”)

Visible corrosion at joints Pin-hole leaks Dry system trips Freeze-ups
Signs of Corrosion Visible corrosion at joints Pin-hole leaks Dry system trips Freeze-ups Increased water delivery times Signs of repairs Stakeholders should remain alert to these signs of corrosion. Finding any of these should trigger a follow-up to confirm that internal inspections have been occurring as required by NFPA 25.

Other documentation is also required
NFPA 25 Documentation ITM reports are the primary source of information about the condition of the system Other documentation is also required Discuss how the ITM report is often the only way to identify compliance with chapter 14 (for AHJ’s), for owners it’s their report about the condition of their system, and for contractors, it’s a historical record…

ITM Reports must contain (per NFPA 25 section 4.3.2):
NFPA 25 Documentation ITM Reports must contain (per NFPA 25 section 4.3.2): The procedure/activity performed The organization that performed the activity The required frequency of the activity The results and date The name and contact info of the qualified contractor or owner, including lead person for the activity Refresher about what NFPA 25 requires on an ITM report. Can talk about electronic records here, 3rd party reporting, what constitutes a report, what needs reporting, etc…

Less frequent events are difficult to track
NFPA 25 Enforcement Less frequent events are difficult to track Failure of the owner to perform does not meet definition of “deficiency” For AHJ’s its important to know that a lack of compliance (i.e. not performing 5-year internal assessments) is hard to track simply by reviewing ITM reports. Discuss the technical committee’s take on failure to perform these tasks not being considered a “deficiency”.

Common tasks that occur at 5-year frequency:
NFPA 25 Enforcement Common tasks that occur at 5-year frequency: Internal inspection of check valves, alarm valves, deluge, preaction valves that can be externally reset without removing faceplate Inspection of strainers, filters and orifices Testing of gauges Testing of hose connection PRV’s Standpipe testing Fire service main flowtesting Seeing these on a ITM report should alert you to the fact that 5-years has transpired since the last “cycle” of 5-year frequency tasks.

Removing oxygen Lined pipe Corrosion monitoring Others?? Prevention
Wrap up with the importance of prevention. Often by the time corrosion is discovered (by the signs discussed earlier) the problem is severe and irreversible. Discuss the options for prevention – replacing oxygen with nitrogen, monitoring to identify problems sooner, etc.

Questions?

Detecting, Preventing and Addressing Sprinkler System Corrosion

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Detecting, Preventing and Addressing Sprinkler System Corrosion"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Detecting, Preventing and Addressing Sprinkler System Corrosion

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Detecting, Preventing and Addressing Sprinkler System Corrosion"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback