Jun 17 2016

Sprinklers in Electrical Closets?

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 12:00 am
Share

Q: Does an electrical closet under 144 square inches need a sprinkler head?

A: The answer depends on your facility occupancy type and the requirements associated with that. If your facility is a hospital and the area in question was constructed prior to 1991, and there has not been any major renovation in the area, and the Construction Type does not require sprinklers, then there is no Life Safety Code condition that would require sprinklers in a small closet. However, if the Construction Type requires sprinklers (see 19.1.6.2 of the 2000 LSC) then sprinklers would have to be installed. If you conducted renovation in the area of the small closet since 1991, then sprinklers would have to be installed.

If your facility is a long-term care/nursing home facility, then the closet would have to be sprinklered. CMS has issued a memo that requires all nursing homes to be 100% protected with sprinklers, and a 12 inch x 12 inch closet would be included in this requirement to be protected with sprinklers.

If your facility is an ambulatory health care occupancy or a business occupancy, then sprinklers are not mandatory.

Also, please check with your state and local authorities to see if they have specific requirements for sprinklers.

Tags:


Feb 03 2016

Strange Observations – Part 3

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 12:00 am
Share

Architectural Design Blocking Sprinkler Web 2Continuing in a series of strange things that I have seen while consulting at hospitals….

This picture shows an architectural design that was mounted from the ceiling to give the hospital nursing unit a more aesthetic look. It probably was installed before the sprinkler heads as it had that “1970’s” look, and the sprinkler heads appears to be of a more recent vintage.

But if that is the case, wouldn’t the sprinkler installer realize that the placement of his sprinkler head was impaired by the architectural design?

 

Tags:


Jan 08 2015

Shower Curtains

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 6:00 am
Share

imagesTOY08WZHFor bathrooms and shower rooms that are protected with automatic sprinklers, do the shower curtains require the same open mesh at the top as privacy curtains used in patients rooms? This was a question that I was recently asked, and my feeble mind immediately thought why would the NFPA codes and standards require sprinkler protection in a shower? What’s going to burn in there?

But a review of NFPA 13 (1999 edition) shows there are no exceptions for sprinkler protection in showers when the building is required to be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. (There is for small bathrooms in dwelling units, but that does not apply healthcare occupancies.) And I asked an associate of mine who knows more about sprinkler installations than I, who said showers can be a place that could be used to start a fire so there is a need to provide protection (who would have thought?).

Then I remembered there was an exception concerning shower curtains and after I looked that up, I realized that exception only applied to the requirement found in section 19.7.5.1 of the 2000 Life Safety Code that curtains needing to be flame resistant. So, that didn’t apply. So, after reviewing NFPA 13, I found that the answer would be… it depends. The shower curtains may need the ½ inch open mesh at the top 18 inches of the curtain if the top of the curtain is too close to the sprinkler head.

According to NFPA 13 (1999 edition), there are no exceptions for sprinkler protection in showers, so that means the showers need to have sprinkler protection. This can be achieved by having sprinklers mounted directly inside the showers, or it can be achieved by having sprinklers mounted on the outside of the showers and count on the spray pattern to cover the area of the shower. If the curtain does not have the open mesh at the top, then the top edge of the curtain needs to be a certain vertical distance below and a certain horizontal distance away from the sprinkler head, in accordance with Table 5-6.5.2.3.

So it is possible that if the top of the shower curtains are mounted far enough below the sprinkler and far enough away from the sprinkler, then the open mesh at the top of the curtain is not required. But if not, then the curtains would need to have the open mesh, as stipulated in the Appendix (Annex) section A-5-6.5.2.3.

 

Tags: ,


Oct 30 2014

Cellophane Bags on Sprinklers

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 6:00 am
Share

imagesZ6JZWAQ6I was conducting a mock survey at a hospital and during the building tour I came to their maintenance shop. They had a spray paint booth and in the booth was a sprinkler head.  Over the sprinkler head was what looked like a plastic bag. I said you can’t cover up the sprinkler heads with plastic bags like that, even in a spray booth. The hospital facility manager told me he received permission from their state agency that it was permissible to cover the sprinkler heads to keep paint overspray from covering the heads.

I knew the state agency people so I called them and asked if they in fact said that. It turns out they did, and they referenced NFPA 25 (1998 edition) section 2-4.1.5, which says:

Sprinklers protecting spray coating areas shall be protected against overspray residue. Sprinklers subject to overspray accumulation shall be protected using plastic bags having a maximum thickness of 0.003 inches (0.076 mm) or shall be protected with small paper bags. Coverings shall be replaced when deposits or residue accumulate.”

Hmm… That just didn’t seem right to me. Plastic bags wrapped around the sprinkler heads? I understand that you do not want paint overspray on the sprinkler head, but plastic? NFPA 25 says you cannot have any foreign material on sprinkler heads, and now the same standard says you can in spray booths? Well, I had to let it go since the NFPA standard permits it.

Fast forward to the 2011 edition of NFPA 25. The technical committee at NFPA addressed this issue and they changed the standard… a little. Now, section 5.4.1.7.1 says sprinklers subject to overspray accumulations shall be protected using cellophane bags having a thickness of 0.003 inches or less, or thin paper bags. Now NFPA 25 no longer says plastic bags, but says cellophane bags or thin paper bags must be used when protecting sprinklers from overspray. According to the commentary in the NFPA 25 handbook, here is the reason why:

“Testing has shown that lightweight cellophane or paper bags will not adversely affect the operation of the sprinkler. Sprinklers protected by the lightweight cellophane or paper bags may require more frequent inspection than the annual inspection outlined in 5.2.1.1.2 to prevent excessive buildup on the bags. Depending on the use of the spray coating area, the inspection and subsequent replacement of the bags may need to be done daily. In prior editions, NFPA 25 allowed the use of a plastic bag, but this was changed due to concerns about the potential for a plastic bag to shrink prior to sprinkler activation and disrupt the discharge pattern.”

So… My suspicions were partly justified. A plastic bag on a sprinkler head would melt and disrupt the spray pattern of the sprinkler. I thought it could delay the sprinkler head from operating, especially if it coated the thermal sensing bulb (or solder) and act as an insulator. Anyway, once the new 2012 LSC is adopted, then it will reference the 2011 edition of NFPA 25, and the covers to protect the sprinklers from overspray due to a spray paint booth must be cellophane or paper. And, they need to be changed frequently, perhaps as much as daily, depending on the use of the spray booth.

Today, I would just recommend the hospital remove the spray booth all-together, from their building. It doesn’t seem that the risk of failure to change out the bags once they are accumulated with paint, is worth the advantage of having a spray paint booth.

 

 

Tags:


Oct 02 2014

Private Fire Service Mains

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 6:00 am
Share

imagesS9VJZMEONFPA 25 (1998 edition), section 4-3.1 has a requirement listed to test the Private Fire Service Mains once every 5 years. The standard says the test must be performed on exposed fire service mains and underground fire service mains. The handbook that accompanies the NFPA 25 standard explains this water-flow test on the private fire service mains applies to only private exposed and underground fire service mains that are outside the facility, such as piping to a private fire hydrant. The piping inside the facility is covered under a different section of the NFPA 25 standard.

The Annex section A-4-3.1 of NFPA 25 says this flow test can be performed through yard fire hydrants; a fire department connection (once the check-valve is removed); and other connections. Typically, the test is conducted at a fire hydrant that is connected to the private fire service mains due to it accessibility. The test must be able to measure flow in gallons per minute (GPM), and the results are measured against the original acceptance data. The key thing to understand at your facility is whether or not you own the fire hydrants that are close to your building, or if they are owned by the city or municipality. Surprisingly, many facility managers simply do not know. If they are privately owned, then you need to conduct the 5-year private fire service main flow test.

Nat all surveyors are asking to see this documentation during a survey, but it is becoming a more frequent request. Remember: The 2000 Life Safety Code, section 9.7.5 requires compliance with the entire NFPA 25, so everything in the standard must be followed as long as you have the equipment.

Not all accreditation organizations are consistent in reviewing this documentation, but as time progresses, you will see more and more surveyors ask to review this test report. This 5-year private fire service main water-flow test should not be confused with the annual water-flow of the private fire hydrants and the 5-year internal inspection of sprinkler piping.

Tags: , ,


Aug 05 2014

Research for an Article

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 6:00 am
Share

imagesJCU1DVQ4I would like to do some research for an article that I want to write about and I am addressing this appeal to those of you who have an active role in a facilities management department (or related department) in a hospital.

I am interested in learning what surveyors are looking for and finding in respect to sprinkler inspection, testing and maintenance at your facility. As you know, NFPA 25 is the primary document for inspection, testing and maintenance for water-based sprinkler systems and it appears that not all of the accreditation organizations (AO) are enforcing it the same way. Many of you are Joint Commission accredited and some of you are HFAP or DNV accredited. It would be interesting to learn if there are differences between the AOs, and if there are, what those differences may be. Also, if you recently had a CMS validation survey performed by a state agency, I would be interested in learning what they identified as well.

There is a form that you can use as a comparison tool that identifies what NFPA 25 (1998 edition) actually requires for inspection, testing and maintenance of water-based sprinkler systems. This tool is located under the “Tool” heading, and then search under the “Life Safety Document Review Session” heading. It would be interesting to find out if there is anything on the form that the surveyors decided not to ask to see documentation of compliance. Feel free to use it as a tool comparing it with your AO / state agency survey experience.

So, if you are interested in participating, please respond back to me at:   info@keyeslifesafety.com   with your comments on what the surveyors/inspectors identified on your survey deficiency report as well as what they stated unofficially, in regards to inspection, testing and maintenance of your water-based fire protection system. I will keep your comments anonymous in the article unless you grant me permission to quote you.

If possible, I would like your reply by August 18, 2014.

Thank you…..

Tags: ,


May 22 2014

Sprinkler Riser Main Drain Tests

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 5:00 am
Share

sprinkler_class2pg8pic1[1]NFPA 25 (1998 edition) section 9-2.6 says main drain tests are to be conducted annually at each sprinkler system riser to determine if there has been a change in the water supply, piping or control valves. The original purpose for main drains on sprinkler risers is to drain water from the overhead piping after the system is shut off.

 But the added value of the main drains is to perform the test to determine whether there is a major reduction in water-flow to the system, such as might be caused by the an obstruction from a dropped gate on a valve, a partially closed valve, a check valve stuck on its seat, or a foreign object like a rock or a tool left in the pipe from a recent service.

 The Annex section of 9-2.6 does allow standpipe risers to have their main drain tests performed at the low point drain where the water enters the building, but that option is not permitted for the sprinkler system risers.

 A large drop in the full pressure of the main drain test when compared to previous tests normally indicates a dangerously reduced water supply. After closing the main drain test valve, a slow return to normal static pressure is confirmation of the suspicion of a major obstruction, and is just cause to investigate why the water supply is reduced. A main drain test is considered satisfactory when the pressures and time to restore to static pressure are nearly the same as previous main drain tests.

Please remember that sprinkler riser main drain tests are performed at the sprinkler riser – not at the location where the main water supply enters the building. It is not unusual that the older hospitals are not outfitted with the main drain test valve and pressure gauge on each riser, but that is what NFPA 25 requires. Since each sprinkler riser is supposed to have a main drain test conducted, that means you need to have the same number of main drain test results. Whatever number of risers you have, that’s how many main drain tests you should have documented each year.

 Main drain tests are required annually at each system riser, and downstream of any valve that is shut-off, then re-opened. The main drain tests should be coordinated to be performed just after the annual sprinkler control valve exercise. Here is the procedure to conduct a main drain test:

With the fire pump off, but the jockey pump on:

1.     Record the static pressure.

2.     Open the main drain valve slowly.

3.     After the pressure gauge has stabilized, record the residual pressure.

4.     Slowly close the main drain valve.

5.     Record the time it takes to return the residual pressure back to static pressure.

 This main drain test should provide the following findings on the test sheet:

  • Static pressure
  • Residual pressure
  • Time to restore back to static pressure

These findings should be compared to previous main drain test findings to determine if they were consistent. If they are not consistent with previous main drain tests, then an investigation should be conducted to determine if there is an obstruction in the sprinkler water supply.

Tags: , ,


Sep 05 2013

Changes with Sprinkler Testing When the New 2012 LSC is Adopted

Category: Blog,Life Safety Code UpdateBKeyes @ 5:00 am
Share

There will be significant changes for facility managers to deal with when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finally adopts the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code. This excerpt from a new upcoming book by Brad Keyes and published by HCPro, titled “Preparing for the New Life Safety Code” discusses changes involving the life safety equipment.

Sprinkler_-_Quick_Response_Type_Sprinkler[1]According to the Life Safety Code, automatic sprinkler systems are required to be installed in agreement with NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinklers. But NFPA 13 does not address how the sprinkler systems should be inspected, tested or maintained- just installed. Prior to 1992, NFPA attempted to identify the proper requirements for the inspection, testing and maintenance of the automatic sprinkler system in various publications, but at that time a decision was made to combine all the different NFPA standards on sprinkler inspection, testing and maintenance into one.  Thusly, NFPA 25 Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems was born, which set standards for all sprinkler systems in all types of occupancies. NFPA 25 applies to hospitals, nursing homes, ambulatory care occupancies, business occupancies and all other types of facilities, regardless whether patients are treated in the building or not. Now, there may be a question whether or not NFPA 25 is enforced by authorities at all locations, but the standard does apply to all.

The 2012 edition of the LSC references the 2011 edition of NFPA 25. The changes with NFPA 25 since the 1998 edition (which was referenced by the 2000 edition of the LSC) that are considered significant are:

  • All deficiencies or impairments discovered during the inspection, testing or maintenance process must be corrected or repaired, and performed by qualified individuals
  • The location of shut-off valves must be identified
  • An informational sign must be placed at the system control riser supplying an anti-freeze loop, dry system, preaction system, or auxiliary system control valve. Each sign must indicate the following minimal information:
    • Location of the area served by the system
    • Location of auxiliary drains and low-point drains for dry pipe and preaction systems
    • The presence or location of anti-freeze or other auxiliary systems
    • The presence and location of heat tape
  • Components and systems are permitted to be inspected, tested and maintained under a performance-based program as an alternative means of compliance, subject to the approval of the AHJ
  • Vane and pressure type waterflow switches are permitted to be tested semi-annually, rather than quarterly. Other mechanical type waterflow switches must be tested quarterly
  • A main drain test must be performed quarterly downstream of a backflow preventer in systems were the sole water supply is through a backflow preventer or pressure reducing valve. This is in addition to the annual main drain tests required at each riser.
  • Dry sprinklers that have been in service for 10 years must be replaced, or a representative sample tested
  • All sprinklers that have been in service for 75 years must be replaced, or a representative sample tested
  • Standpipe hose valves (not Fire Department Connections) are required to be inspected quarterly for the following:
    • Ensure hose caps are in place and not damaged
    • Inspect hose threads for damage
    • Ensure valve handle is present and not damaged
    • Inspect gaskets for damage and deterioration
    • Ensure hose valve is not leaking
    • Ensure access to hose valves is not obstructed
  • Standpipe systems with 2½ inch hose valves must have their valves tested annually by opening and closing the valve
  • Standpipe systems with 1½ inch hose valves must have their valves tested every 3 years by opening and closing the valve
  • Standpipe water-flow tests every 5 years are for wet standpipes. Dry standpipes are required to have a hydrostatic pressure test every 5 years
  • Electric motor driven fire pumps are permitted to be tested monthly at no-flow conditions for 10 minutes. Engine driven fire pumps must continue to be tested weekly at no-flow conditions for 30 minutes.

The new requirement to identify the location of all shut-off valves in your sprinkler system may be accomplished many different ways: Plot them on your CAD drawings; Mark the suspended ceiling grids where the valves are located; List them on charts which are posted in conspicuous areas of the facilities department; Or do all three. Since the standard does not define how the valves are to be identified, you get to make that distinction until such time an AHJ interprets it for you.

If you are not already performing these inspections and tests, the new requirement for a quarterly main drain test downstream from the backflow preventer; and the quarterly inspections of the fire hose valves; and the annual (or 3-year) test of the fire hose valves may catch you by surprise. Make sure you begin a routine on these new inspections and tests, as the surveyors and inspectors will be fully aware of the requirements and won’t be bashful asking you for documentation.

Tags: , ,


Apr 04 2013

Why The Life Safety Code?

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 6:00 am
Share

10100[1]Why do we need the Life Safety Code? This is a question that I am frequently asked by individuals who do not understand what all the fuss is about that is placed on compliance with a code when the nation hasn’t had a fatality in a hospital due to fire in a long time. The answer to that question is simple: Without the Life Safety Code, our hospitals would return to a condition where tragic results will occur from fires and other emergencies.

 It wasn’t until 1970 that a national organization adopted the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code and required hospitals to be in compliant with it. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the fore-runner of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) chose the Life Safety Code over other codes and standards because it addresses the building and staff preparedness to cope with fires and emergencies. Prior to HCFA adopting the Life Safety Code, compliance with it was only regulated on a local or state level, and in many situations, compliance with the Life Safety Code was only a recommendation, not a requirement. As a result, there were significant losses of life with fires in hospitals prior to this time period.

 Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

In May, 1929, a fire in a lower level storage area, which contained nitrocellulose X-ray film killed more than 120 people, mainly due to the toxic and explosive gas which was a result of the combustion of the film. There were no sprinklers in the storage area and unsealed openings between the floors allowed the toxic and explosive gas to travel upward.

 Saint Anthony Hospital, Effingham, IL

In April, 1949, at least 74 people died in this 100-bed hospital located in the small rural community in central Illinois. The fire apparently started in the lower level where the laundry chute discharged the soiled linens, and spread upward via the open chute and through the building. The building was constructed with combustible materials, and did not have any smoke compartment barriers, nor any smoke detection or fire suppression systems.

 St. Elizabeth’s Mercy Hospital, Davenport, IA

41 people lost their lives in a 1950 fire in the female psychopathic hospital, caused by a deranged patient. The windows were barred and the doors were locked and staff was unable to quickly evacuate the patients. The building was constructed with combustible materials, and was not protected with sprinklers.

 Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT

In December, 1961, 16 people died as a result of a fire that started in the trash chute at the Hartford Hospital. The building was constructed with non-combustible materials, but had interior finishes which were combustible. When the fire erupted through the chute door on the 9th floor, combustible ceiling tiles, wall coverings and flooring ignited, trapping many patients and staff in dead-end corridors. Sprinklers were present in other areas of the hospital, but not on the 9th floor where all the victims were located.  

 With the requirement starting in 1970, that all hospitals receiving Medicare reimbursement have to comply with the Life Safety Code, deaths in hospitals fires began to diminish, but were not all eliminated all-together.

 SAC-Osage Hospital, Osceola, MO

In December, 1974, 8 patients died as a result of a fire at the SAC-Osage Hospital. 6 patients died of smoke inhalation, and 2 patients died when a supply valve to their oxygen tent was inadvertently shut off. The facility was only 5 years old at the time, and was constructed to federal and state fire prevention codes in affect at the time. The fire was thought to have started from smoking materials igniting combustibles in a patient’s room.

 Hospice of Southeastern Michigan

In December, 1985, a fire that started in a recliner in a patient’s room led to the death of 8 people in this hospice facility. All of the fatalities were in rooms were the doors to these rooms had not been fully closed and latched.  Smoke spread through the bathroom ventilation system from room to room.

 Riverside General Hospital, Riverside, CA

In November, 1986, 5 patients died in the Riverside General Hospital after a fire started in a patient room and spread out into the corridor. According to reports, the patient was smoking in his room and attempted to shut off his oxygen supply, but failed. Evacuation of the patients in the area of fire was not able to be completed due to heavy smoke from the fire.

 Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY

3 patients died in a fire in September, 1993 at the Maimonides Medical Center, in Brooklyn, NY. According to a newspaper article, the fire started in a faulty respirator supplying oxygen to an elderly patient. The article said that hospital engineers had worked on the respirator hours before the fire, after nurses and other workers complained that it was giving electrical shocks. Investigators said that an electrical fault in the machine caused the fire, which was fuled by pure oxygen, and created a blast so fierce that witnesses said it sent a fireball through the 7th floor hospital window.

 Southside Regional Medical Center, Petersburg, VA

On December 31, 1994, a fire that started in a patient’s room in the Southside Regional Medical Center, in Petersburg, VA, resulted in the deaths of 5 patients. The fire apparently was started by smoking materials, which spread to bedding linens and mattress. Smoke spread into the corridor because the door to the room of origin was left open. According to reports, the fire alarm transmission to the fire department was delayed because the connection was taken out of service at the time of the fire. The room and the corridor were not protected with sprinklers.

 Great progress has been made over the years on fire safety in hospitals. In the five-year span between 1980 to 1984, fire departments in the United States responded to an estimated 7,100 hospital fires annually resulting in an average of 5 deaths per year. In a similar time span between 2006 to 2010, US fire departments responded to an average of only 1,400 fires per year that resulted in less than 1 death per year. The significant change in this statistic is attributed to the implementation of smoking bans in hospitals. In 1980 to 1984, 35% of the fires were started by smoking materials, as compared to only 7% of the fires were started by smoking materials during the period 2006 to 2010. During this same time period, 60% of the fires were started by cooking equipment.

 Fires will continue to occur in healthcare facilities, and we need to be prepared for them. While smoking bans have cut down the number of fires started by careless use of smoking materials, it hasn’t eliminated them. Most healthcare professionals will admit that patients are still sneaking cigarettes without the staff’s knowledge. Add in the factor of heat producing devices around high oxygen environments (such as cauterizing pens in surgery), fire will continue to happen.

 During the time period between 1980 to 1984, sprinklers were present in less than half of the reported fires in hospitals, while such fire suppression equipment was noted in 79% of the reported fires during the time period 2006 to 2010. During this same time period, damage from fire was limited to the room of origin in 97% of the reported fires.

 The lesson we have learned is sprinklers save lives. When coupled with early fire detection, and a capable, trained staff on fire response procedures, our hospitals are safer today than they have ever been. But we still average 3.8 fires per day in hospitals in the United States. We need to be prepared and ready to face that situation when it occurs. Without the Life Safety Code, we will have far more tragic results than we have today.

Tags: ,


Oct 11 2012

Why Do We Want to Know Where Our Quick Response Sprinklers are Located?

Category: BlogBKeyes @ 5:00 am
Share

Frequently, I am asked why do healthcare organizations need to know where their quick response (QR) sprinkler heads are located? If you facility is similar to most, then you likely have a mixture of QR sprinkler heads and standard response (SR) sprinkler heads.

When conducting a Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) equivalency request, there is a question in the worksheet that inquires what level of protection does the healthcare facility have in regards to smoke detection. Very few hospitals install smoke detectors in all occupiable spaces. If you look at Safety Parameter #12 (Smoke Detection and Alarm) on the FSES worksheet 4.7.6, the value for ‘None’ is 0, and ‘Corridor Only’ is 2. According to the footnote, those values can be increased to 3 if the zone is protected with QR sprinklers. So, if that entire smoke compartment or zone is protected with QR sprinklers, then you can get extra points, which may prove to be handy.

Another reason to know where your QR sprinklers, is the 20-year maintenance requirement. 20 years after installation, QR sprinklers have to be tested (10% removed and sent to a testing lab) to make sure they are still operable, then they have to be tested every 10 years thereafter. Most organizations find it more cost effective to just remove all the QR sprinklers and replace them with new ones every 20 years. QR sprinklers became very popular in the early 1990’s in the healthcare industry, so many of them may already be beyond their 20-year maintenance requirement.

QR sprinklers and SR sprinklers are not allowed to be installed within the same four walls (room, area, hallway). You cannot ‘mix’ QR with SR sprinklers, because they will not respond the same in the event of a fire. The QR sprinklers may discharge quicker than the SR sprinklers, which may actually prevent the SR sprinklers from actuating at all. Surprisingly, I find this problem frequently. By identifying where the QR heads are located, this will help identify if they are mixed with any SR heads.

The top picture is a pendent QR sprinkler with a glass bulb filled with a secrete liquid. I don’t know if the liquid is actually a trade secrete, but I don’t know what it is, so it is a secrete to me. The diameter of the glass bulb will tell you if it is QR or SR: A QR head will have a 3 mm bulb, while the SR head will have a 5 mm bulb.

But there are QR sprinklers that do not have glass bulbs, like the second picture, which is a concealed head. In situations like this, the letters ‘QR’ will be printed (embossed) on the deflector and if you get close enough to the head you will be able to read the ‘QR’ letters. You can also review the contractors certification test records to see if they identified QR heads were installed, but sometimes the contractors fail to accurately identify what heads were installed, so a visual examination is usually the best method.

Tags:


Next Page »