Esfr Sprinklers Essay

You asked the following questions: “ESFR sprinklers were sent to UL laboratories to be tested. The results came back with an abnormal activation time on quite a few sprinklers. None of the sprinklers failed to discharge, but some activated in 13 to 17 seconds where 12 seconds is the normal activation time. At what point should all these heads be replaced? If heads that have been in service for over 20 years are not expected to react like a new one, how much extra time is allowed for them to react before we need to consider replacing all the heads in the warehouse?” In response to your questions we have reviewed NFPA 25, 2011 edition that you indicated as the applicable standard. Our informal interpretation is that sprinklers should be …show more content…
The results of this testing is intended to assist interested parties including the local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) in accessing the operating characteristics of the sprinklers. Please consult the local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) regarding the interpretation of the test results described in the attached Test Summary Table(s).” Apparently, the testing laboratory will not indicate “failure” of the sprinkler that was tested. The guidance in 5.3.1.3 says that 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. A literal interpretation of 5.3.1.3 indicates to replace the sprinklers. The report did not indicate a failure to discharge. The Water-Based Fire Protection Systems Handbook commentary under 5.3.1.1 states, “If the sprinkler fails to operate in the specified amount of time, the sprinkler fails the test and all sprinklers represented by the test sprinkler must be replaced.” The annex material in A.5.3.1.1 creates confusion by referencing sprinklers that have been in service