Fire Sprinkler Systems W
Antifreeze in Wet By George Rudolph
hen it comes to antifreeze for fire sprinkler sys- tems, the past twelve months have been a period of anticipation and uncertainty for engineers,
manufacturers and contractors alike. Following a temporary ban on the use of antifreeze, coupled with proposed legisla- tion mandating fire sprinklers in new residential construc- tion, there was plenty to talk about in the industry. As I write this article, there have been two fatal fires in the last 24 hours in my community, resulting in the loss of three lives. While the results of these tragic incidents cannot be reversed, they reinforce the critical role which fire sprinkler systems play in protecting lives. Following a well-publicized fire incident involving a fire
sprinkler system with a very high concentration of antifreeze, the NFPA began independent testing to determine the risk of combustion posed by antifreeze in residential fire sprinkler systems. The testing centered on the two most common types of antifreeze used in wet systems, glycerine and propylene glycol. Other solutions are less frequently used and are now prohibited, due to toxicity concerns. While antifreeze has been used in fire sprinkler systems for decades, the testing established safe levels which, under fire conditions, do not contribute to an increase in heat or fire intensity, but rather perform similar to water. In March, the NFPA issued a new set of TIAs (Tentative
Interim Amendments) which establish new approaches to the use of antifreeze in both new and existing residential occupancies, as well as in non-residential occupancies. These TIAs also introduce new requirements for the testing, maintaining and tagging of such systems. I have received hundreds of calls and emails regarding the use of antifreeze, and it is apparent that there is a broad range of understand- ing of the issue amongst fellow industry colleagues. So let’s take a look at the specifics and identify the changes which will affect design and maintenance going forward.
Maximum allowable concentrations Effective March 21, 2011, NFPA limits the use of
antifreeze in wet fire sprinkler systems to either glycerine or glycol. Ethylene glycol and other antifreeze fluids that are toxic are no longer permitted. In the past, field mixing was permitted to desirable freeze protection levels; however, the new standards limit solutions to factory pre-mixes only (no concentrates allowed), with a maximum concentration by
Page 50/Plumbing Engineer
volume of 38% propylene glycol or 48% glycerine in new systems. (It should be noted that existing systems are allowed a concentration of up to 40% propylene glycol or 50% glycerine). For the vast majority of the United States, these concentrations provide sufficient freeze protection lev- els. However, contractors in regions subjected to extended periods of sub-zero temperatures will need to consider addi- tional freeze protection methods in conjunction with antifreeze. Limiting the use of antifreeze to factory pre-mix solutions
will eliminate the inconsistencies found with field mixing techniques. Glycerine is a particularly difficult solution to mix in the field, as it begins to thicken in concentrate when temperatures drop to just 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Field mix- ing methods employed in the past ranged from manual agi- tation to mixing with a wooden paddle to simply pouring concentrate into a system and adding water. Usually, the end result was a piping system with varying degrees of antifreeze concentration. There is no viable field mixing method that provides a consistent and homogenous formu- lation like that of a factory pre-mixed solution.
Testing and maintenance: changes and challenges With new guidelines having been established, the next
few months will see an enormous increase in system testing and fluid replacement. Where antifreeze concentrations exceed allowable limits by volume, these systems will need to be drained and a new lower concentration of antifreeze introduced into the system. Adding concentrate to an exist- ing system is no longer an option. As a result, accuracy in testing methods becomes increasingly critical. There are many testing instruments available for use; however, testing accuracy varies greatly depending upon both the type of device and the antifreeze used. Propylene glycol concentration can be tested with a sim-
ple analog refractometer, which will display a freeze tem- perature on a graph that is visible through a viewfinder. Based on the freeze point, interpolation from a chart (usual- ly provided on the manufacturer’s product label) will yield the concentration level. Propylene glycol concentrations of 38% generally offer freeze protection levels of 0 to -5 degrees Fahrenheit. Glycerine is more of a testing challenge, in that tradition- al analog refractometers are not suitable testing instruments.
May 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72