Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
(OP)
Does anyone know of a test that measured the response time of a covered or 'bagged' sprinklerhead in paint booths? I found a 1993 test done in sweden and it was a very comprehensive test that showed the response time to be 2 to 5 times longer than without covering. Even painted heads had a close to normal response time. The paper bags were the worst with up to 5 minutes response time, and the cellophane was still bad with 2 minutes. The uncovered heads went off in 42 seconds.
This next link demonstrates that a sprinkler head will respond in under a minute if uncovered, then they demonstrate what a fire will look like at 2 minutes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXav_iBEZ8
If a covered sprinkler head takes longer than the designed 1 minute or less, then covering them is not a good solution and is very dangerous.
file:///C:/Users/Tom/Downloads/Response_Characteristics_of_Glass_Bulb_Mounted_Sprinkler_Heads_Mounted_In_A_Paint_Spray_Booth.pdf
This next link demonstrates that a sprinkler head will respond in under a minute if uncovered, then they demonstrate what a fire will look like at 2 minutes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXav_iBEZ8
If a covered sprinkler head takes longer than the designed 1 minute or less, then covering them is not a good solution and is very dangerous.
file:///C:/Users/Tom/Downloads/Response_Characteristics_of_Glass_Bulb_Mounted_Sprinkler_Heads_Mounted_In_A_Paint_Spray_Booth.pdf





RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Where did you get the "" If a covered sprinkler head takes longer than the designed 1 minute or less"""??
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
9.4.7 Sprinklers shall be protected against overspray residue, either by location or covering, so that they will operate quickly in event of fire. 9.4.7.1 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be covered only by cellophane bags having a thickness of 0.08 mm (0.003 in.) or less or by thin paper bags. These coverings shall be replaced frequently so that heavy deposits of residue do not accumulate. 9.4.7.2 Sprinklers that have been painted or coated by overspray or residues shall be replaced with new sprinklers.
The reason Im looking for this is to argue that by placing the heads where they will not get paint overspray that we have satisfied code, and covering the heads is not necessary.
Covering the heads in the swedish tests proved to extend the response time of the heads to 2 minutes for cellophane and up to 5 minutes for paper. They tested the air temperature in the bags during the tests and found the air in the bags insulated the head and kept it cool so instead of popping at 155 degrees they had to wait till the bag melted at 350 degrees or the paper burned at 450 degrees. Waiting till that temperature the fire is flashed over and much larger than it needs to be.
They tested with paint on the heads also, in three different thicknesses. The thickest being 1/64 of an inch. One inch is 1000ml. A 64th of that is 15.62 ml. An average car has 4 to 5 mls thickness of total paint and primer. To get 5 mls painters apply 2 full wet coats of primer, 2 full wet coats of color and then 2 full wet coats of clear paint on average. In order to get 15.62 mls, they would have to spray 19 wet coats on the sprinkler head. This doesnt describe 'overspray', this describes painting it over three times the same as a car. And they do define overspray in the nfpa33.
section A.4.7 of the nfpa 33 2016 also talks about location of heads.
Automatic sprinklers in spray areas, including the interior of spray booths and exhaust ducts, should be wet pipe, preaction, or deluge system so that water can be placed on the fire in the shortest possible time. Automatic sprinklers in spray booths and exhaust ducts should be of the lowest practical temperature rating. The delay in application of water with ordinary dry pipe sprinklers can permit a fire to spread so rapidly that final extinguishment is difficult without extensive resulting damage. The location of the sprinklers inside spray booths should be selected with care to avoid heads being placed in the direct path of spray and yet afford protection for the entire booth interior. When sprinklers are in the direct path of spray, even one day's operation can result in deposits on the sprinklers that insulate the fusible link or choke open head orifices to the extent that sprinklers cannot operate efficiently.
The heads in tests done on you tube appear to take 1 minute or less. our sprinkler heads are designated for 155 degrees. Also on firesafesystems.com/faqs they said, " In reality, each sprinkler head has its own heat sensor and each sprinkler will operate only when the temperature reaches between 155 and 165°F. A fire in the garage for example, will activate only the sprinkler(s) in the garage.
FAQs | Fire Safe Systems
firesafesystems.com/faqs/"
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
No paint gets on the heads these days. The EPA now has bodyshops teach proper gun control and to shoot the paint on the car instead of in the air. The booth fan is running and the abient airflow dries the paint so rapidly now the overspray is like dust. The nfpa 33 says the protection from overspray can be from location or covering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXav_iBEZ8&t=...
file:///C:/Users/Tom/Downloads/Response_Characteristics_of_Glass_Bulb_Mounted_Sprinkler_Heads_Mounted_In_A_Paint_Spray_Booth.pdf
this swedish test shows how dangerous it is to limit the head. They find that the trapped air in the bags insulate the head from responding at 155 degrees.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
I don't believe paint booths are designed for unconscious/incapacitated persons occupying them. We should hope if this is a common problem paint booth manufacturers and code officials would address it.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
After 34 years we have no paint on our heads, none. So we have no risk of limiting the water flow.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
What is your goal here? If you are talking about in the US, the booths are going to be designed to NFPA standards. Anyone that does something else has a huge liability risk. If you believe the standards should be changed, then submit a proposal, with documentation to back it up, to the appropriate committee and see if you can get the standards changed.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign.com
"Follow" us at https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/9221...
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Yesterday we conducted our own tests of cover materials. The flaw seems to be that the bag encapsulates so well that any type enclosed bag insulates the head so well that it doesnt let the sensitive part melt. The swedish tests showed the cellophane extends the melt time to 2 to 3 minutes and is at 300 to 350 degrees. The paper bag is worse, it extends to 5 minutes and finally blows apart at 400 degrees.
Our makeshift tests so far of tinsel,cellophane bags with the bottoms cut off and slits cut vertically to make a 'grass skirt' or paintbrush hairs do not insulate and the heads have melted at 155 degrees. So the protection against the paint overspray is the same, the overspray would attach itself to the hairs or plastic strips hanging down over the head but would still be pliable when the water pushes past them. There was no difference in the flow of water. Big improvement in response time. There are many youtube videos out there that demonstrate the huge difference in fire severity as time progresses. The nfpa 33 2016 stresses that first, the goal is 'operate quickly'.
9.4.7 Sprinklers shall be protected against overspray residue, either by location or covering, so that they will operate quickly in event of fire.
The overspray is really not as big a detriment as this all seems. The head with the overspray and no bag operated quickly and effectively. It was only the extremely covered heads, the ones that they coated ridiculously heavy. They were not a real life example of automotive spray booth heads. Especially since the heads are examined by inspectors every year. If a head is located where paint can get on it, it should be protected better. The head with paint on it already should be replaced as the code calls for. To cover every single head is the where the danger comes in. Modifying an engineered head with a makeshift cover isn't a safe response.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
This is funny too. They actually try to sound like they tested other thicknesses of cellophane by stating that the required thickness should be 0.003 inches, but then never give a measurement for the paper. And then to top it all any thickness of paper turns out to be the worst response.
“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.”
This 'testing'. This is what Im looking for. Does anyone know where they did it and where the documentation can be found?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
If the facility trains the employees to not put the heads where they can get paint, and trains them not to spray the paint on the heads. Then trains them to clean the particles of overspray from the accumulated areas near the filters. Then if a head gets paint accidently during maintenance or refurbishing the booth, it gets replaced. Why then would they say the head can be covered to react in a slower response? They require you to protect the area against fire with a wet deluge system, and require that it respond quickly. But then include some foolhardy rube goldberg device. Its like they didnt realy give it much thought.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
As you state Not required
There are numerous types of spray operations and how it is done. Yes possibly covering the sprinklers is not always required.
Do not cover the sprinklers if you do not want to.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
I would advise the following as someone who worked on the insurance side as a loss prevention representative for 36 years.
Get your insurance carrier (not your insurance agent) to sign off on your plan IN WRITING, if your insurance carrier changes, get them to sign off too. Why because they MAY use the NFPA requirement to not pay a claim for property damage, liability, etc. Be prepared to defend yourself to your management when a claim occurs and they are not reimbursed and or OSHA issues a violation to your company and the negative press should you have a fire.
Make sure management has your back, believe me I have been down this road before from the insurance side.Good luck.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
9.4.7 Sprinklers shall be protected against overspray residue, either by location or covering, so that they will operate quickly in event of fire. 9.4.7.1 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be covered only by cellophane bags having a thickness of 0.08 mm (0.003 in.) or less or by thin paper bags. These coverings shall be replaced frequently so that heavy deposits of residue do not accumulate. 9.4.7.2 Sprinklers that have been painted or coated by overspray or residues shall be replaced with new sprinklers.
The code uses the word 'or'. 'Or' means either . Or also means 'in preference of'. So in sentences the word you put before 'or', is preferential, then the next word after 'or' is the second preferred. These people that write these codes are very smart people. They have a commanding grasp of the english language and choose these words carefully. My problem is for some reason I have a Fire Marshal that is substituting words. He says they meant to say and. He says they should be protected both ways.
Then he says the meaning of 'shall be permitted' is 'must be'. he has even gone as far as to say he actually talked to the committee members that wrote nfpa33 2016 and that 'she' concurs with him.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
6.2.6.4.1
No OR in that section
Keep fighting if you want
It has been industry practice for years.
Good luck
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Again, what is your agenda? Are you a worker in these areas that is looking to have the protection changed because you do not feel safe? Are you an engineer in the design of these systems? Are you the owner of this facility?
The standard of practice has been the paper bags or cellophane, and that is indicated in NFPA 13 - The standard for the installation of fire sprinkler systems.
I think you will be hard pressed to find an engineer or contractor that will back moving the sprinklers so you are protecting them from overspray in that manner. Also, do you have enough spacing left to move them? Sprinklers have a given area of protection and max spacing for spray booths (just like any other occupancy has a given criteria).
I have not heard of an epidemic of people being injured in spray booth fires because of the bags in place.
This seems to be a very strong passion of yours. You may want to consider funding full scale fire tests to provide data to back up your requested changes to the standards. If you can provide evidence from full scale fire testing that there is a significant danger with the bag method of protection, then you could get the standards changed. Remember though, these standards are generalized to apply to all spray booth conditions. You may have a unique situation where other protection methods are viable. If you are a fire protection engineer, maybe you could provide the client with a full performance based design for the area.
Best of luck in your endeavors.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign.com
"Follow" us at https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/9221...
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Look at the swedish tests, they were very comprehensive. I attached them.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
The demos are not real life and every fire is not the same
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
There will be differences between the demos and real life also, because the fan will be on feeding the fire with fresh air. It will grow faster and the head will respond faster if its uncovered.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
I think everyone on here is going to say keep the bag protection as that is in the standards. The standards are what we have to live by every day. If we deviate from the standard and , God forbid, there is loss of life and property, then we are fully liable. You appear to have your mind made up on how you want to handle this. You can do whatever you want in your own facility. That is, until you get caught. Then you will have to deal with government entities that have the power to deny your occupancy permit.
So, in your case, I would recommend hiring and FPE to do a performanced based design to determine if you can get what you want. Otherwise, you may have to abide by the decision of the local official. You may find that the cost of all of this is prohibitive, though.
Again, best of luck to you.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign.com
"Follow" us at https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/9221...
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Bag it.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
I am impressed. Thanks for your knowledge and passion.
I feel compelled to say the "test-data" you are searching for is empirical real life data. Yes, blanketing a sprinkler WILL delay it. Painting it will prevent it from opening. Big difference. If you fully involve a car, the little baggy will no longer exist.
I encourage you to think of how many booths are in operation. You will know far better than any of us. Out of the numerous ones I have done, You are an absolute anomaly. The standards are there to recommend the minimum for all of them.
I have also inspected them. Care to guess what was on EVERY sprinkler when I arrived? You got it, paint.
I was called in to takeover an inspection of an assisted living facility. I had written like 84 painted sprinklers. I noticed the little UL tags throughout the facility. The sprinklers were not old enough for testing. I asked the maintenance guy why they were tested. He indicated that a unit had a fire a couple months before and a lady had died. The sprinkler did not operate. To hell with the money. I wonder if the guy that had been doing the inspections all the years previous had any change in his sleeping patterns....
R/
Matt
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
You have a very unique problem with sprinklers with no paint overspray, in the 1000's of booths I have inspected using paint I can not recall one booth that did not have a painted sprinklers. It is great you called NFPA the only problem is if you call back and talk to another person you will get a different answer. NFPA will provide a written response but that usually takes weeks to get. The Hanover Insurance document you included is similar to what we had. The purpose was to explain the need to cover the sprinkler when we encounter the problem. I would have then with me and handed them out when I knew they would have a paint booth, because like I said the ones I encounter had paint on them.
Let us know how this all ends.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
http://www.pyrochem.com/pdfs/monarch/PC98231.pdf
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Did you read the posts on 5/26/27 above yours. LCREP has inspected THOUSANDS and 99.999% had sprinklers with paint on them. The standards are written so as to be applied across a broad range of projects. As stated, you have a very unique situation. It is not going to be covered by any standard. If this is so important to you, then you as the owner, can hire a fire protection engineer. Pay them to do a performance based design of your unique facility. Then, provide the data to the AHJ so you can be granted the ability to do as the FPE you hired has determined is appropriate in your unique situation.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I just wonder why you haven't gone down the route of a performance based design, as the recognized standard methods do not meet with your approval.
I wish you the best of luck in having your FPE get you the results you want.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
www.mfpdesign.com
"Follow" us at https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/9221...
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
This video shows a fire in a small room like a paint booth with no sprinkler head responding, and its flashed over in 2 minutes. So to me that demonstrates how my booth will react, if the heads are covered. Then they show a single head responding and its all over in 45 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXav_iBEZ8&t=...
There is no need really to do a performance based design because Im happy with my old design. The code is written in english so its easy to decipher. 9.4.7 Sprinklers shall be protected against overspray residue, either by location or covering, so that they will operate quickly in event of fire. Normally if you are writing a sentence and you put a word before the word 'or' it means 'in preference of'. So location is best choice, followed by covering as least desired. I got a reply from the NFPA on this and they said they didnt intend to put location as a preference, they say there is no preference between the two. So hence 'either' is allowed, and either does not mean 'and'.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
I think it needs to be addressed because an uncovered head will save someone's life, and the covered/bagged head will delay it long enough to kill someone.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Have you considered using this abundance of energy to have the adopted codes and standards changed based on what you do in your paint booth? None of us here can really help you change the building code.
I can visualize you taking this crusade on the road and educating people from coast to coast with what most of us spend minutes deciding.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Now we keep our humidity at 35 percent so we don't get static.
It's all healed and you can only tell in bright light. We won't be bagging our heads.
Like Ive said Ive know about the bags since 1993. I cant believe they are still even considered. A thin wrap of toilet paper might be a good covering.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Moreover, it looks to me in these tests they didn|t use the right type of bags. In the conclusions I read that "...the covers did not burn off during the test, despite the fact that they were located relatively close to the flames". It looks to me like the bags selected were not the appropriate type or they didn't considered other types of bags although NFPA 33 & the NFPA handbook are cited in the report. In addition, the plastic bags used in the test which resulted in 2 to 5 times increase of activation time, were plastic bags made of polyethylene and not cellophane as NFPA 13 & 33 state. Cellophane is not polyethylene and it does not shrinkwrap on the head which can potentially affect response time. Cellophane tends to burn at lower temperatures than the activation of head and therefore does not affect response time, at least to a negligent level.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
You bring up a good point regarding the air plenum and heads being painted. It does not take much for a filter not fitting properly or not installed in a small area for the paint to be on the sprinkler behind the filter and at the top of the duct. Dry filters were the worst for painted sprinklers. I would always ask, what do the sprinklers look like you can not see, after a blank stare they would say what sprinkler? After explaining the requirements for sprinklers behind the filter and at the top of the ductwork they would have that no one ever asked me that question moment.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
All sprinklers have a thermal lag, so we do not expect the head to go off exactly at the temp noted on the sprinkler. In fact unless the sprinkler is rated as a quick response the lag can be a few seconds to over a minute depending on how hot the fire is and the proximity of the sprinkler to the fire. The sprinklers installed in a paint booth are not by code required to be quick response. The sprinklers in the both are met as property protection not life safety.
I was an instructor at a fire training center and set off 1000's of fires to demonstrate how sprinklers operated. We used a 3 sq. Ft pan filled with 1 gallon of alcohol about 2-3' below the sprinkler. Sometimes the sprinkler would go off in 30 seconds sometimes 1 minute, we actually had fires where the alcohol burned and never set off the sprinkler. We had temperature probes at the ceiling and typically had ceiling temperatures over 200f for a head rated at 155-165f, all heads were standard response. The only time the sprinkler would activate within a few seconds were when we used ESFR heads or residential sprinklers.
My point being a lot of variables in testing with many different outcomes so what you experienced may be different just by changing a few variables.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Right now we just use heat and no flame and the swedish tests are accurate with what we are finding.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
You may want to take a look at FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets 7-27 SPRAY APPLICATION OF IGNITABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS it covers this topic in 31 pages of detail. The FM Data Sheets are free at http://www.fmglobal.com. Factory Mutual is a global property insurance carrier that has an extensive testing and research division. They are leaders in the fire protection field. Many of the NFPA codes are based on the FM test facility as well as UL. FM has been around for well over 100 years.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Look at Fire history in booths for a year and why
You might find fires are very low and happen because the booth is not maintained or some one is doing something they are not suppose to be doing.
There are other items normally required in booths to eliminate ignition factors, make sure they are in place and a fire should not happen.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
A note for quick response sprinklers, it is not always about life safety when it comes to quick response sprinklers. We install this kind of sprinklers due to lack of separation in combustible filter units where fire can spread very fast outside the scrubber. Also, downward air currents through heads starving for heat to rise upwards is a greater concern for standard response sprinklers.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Every booth I have seen with a dry chem system has paint build up on the walls, floor and duct work. And the fusible links have a build-up of paint. We change the links at each service. We also make sure the nozzle covers are in place, on the nozzles. Depending on the installation of the piping, we may blow air through the piping to blow the nozzle cover off the nozzles.
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
RE: Covering paint spray booth sprinkler heads, tested?
Yes we did, most times the covered heads were the least of my problems. I would see things that have a much greater loss potential such as the following:
Control valve to the sprinklers in the booth turned off.
Ventilation system not being used when paining
Open containers of flammable liquid
Lack of bonding and grounding wires when transferring liquids
Non rated electric in the booth or where flammable liquids are being dispensed, if I had $1 for every radio I saw and box fan......
Poor housekeeping
Painting outside of the booth
No sprinklers or any protection in the booth
So yes not everyone is as cautious as you and your operation. You would be amazed at what your competitors are NOT doing.