+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

  1. #1
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    There's a massive dust-up taking place in many states as a result of the ICC (International Code Council) final action hearings which took place in Minneapolis, MN last September. The most hotly contested issues were those of fire sprinklers for 1 and 2 family dwellings (new construction), and multi-family townhouses (also new construction). A two-thirds vote was necessary for passage, and the fire service turned out in masses, and we prevailed.

    FYI, any interested party can testify at hearings, but the ICC voting privilege is reserved for Code Officials and representatives of local govenrment, which includes the fire service, if they have joined the ICC.

    Subsequent to the hearings, the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) cried foul and challenged the legitimacy of the vote, because the fire service "unfairly dominated" the voting process. An ICC appeal board ruled against their complaint. So, the builders have taken their fight to the state level.

    A bit more backstory: not too long ago, there were a handful of code promulgating entities who decided to join forces, pool resources, and offer a full scope of codes for use by any state wishing to adopt them. This action created the ICC, which is accepted by 48 states, plus the District of Columbia. The ICC Codes are revised and issued every three years, and cover residential and commercial construction, fire, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, energy conservation, property maintence, and other issues.

    Back to the issue of fire sprinklers. As noted above, the battle is now on a state level. To see what has been proposed where you live, click the link.

    The claims of homebuilders are numerous and flawed. I sat through seven hours of testimony in Harrisburg, PA yesterday, and heard the same old mistruths told to the UCC (Uniform Construction Code) Advisory Council. Thankfully, that council had the good sense to separate wheat from chaff, and voted to uphold sprinklers in the 2009 ICC, set to become law in the Commonwealth in January 2011.

    In case any of you want to write your legislators regarding an upcoming challenge, this thread exists to give honest answers to any questions regarding how fire sprinklers work, and related queries. I'm going to lead off with some of the most common misstatements and misconceptions, and attempt to factually refute them.

    Do all sprinkler heads activate at once? NO! Thank Hollywood for this myth. The majority of residential fires are contained or extinguished by one operating head. Systems where all heads simultaneously flow do exist, but are reserved for specialized commercial/storage occupancies.

    Smoke detectors are sufficient for occupant protection. NO! In the 35 years I've spent in the fire service, I can't count the number of dwelling fires with missing detectors, or those with dead or removed batteries. Studies have indicated that children, the elderly, persons with hearing deficiencies, disabled persons, and those impaired by prescription or recreational drugs do not respond appropriately to a sounding detector. Further, independent detectors cannot alert sleeping occupants on the second floor of a basement fire. Smoke detectors can suffer from sensitivity drift, which is why the NFPA recommends they be replaced after 10 years. Fire sprinklers don't suffer from any of these problems.

    Sprinklers cost too much. That's a judgement call, and depends on what you feel is "too much". In areas where a sprinkler ordinance exists and economies of scale have taken place, the cost can be as low as $0.38/SF, or can run to the high end at $3.66/SF. They are most costly for rural users without municipal water supply, who will need an "improved well" or domestic storage tank for sprinkler water. For a home of 2000SF in a rural setting, $5K would be average. To put that in perspective, one Mother who spoke in Minneapolis noted that more was spent on flowers for her daughter's funeral than it would have cost to sprinkler the dwelling in which her child died.

    A few other facts for your information: Residential construction today utilizes lightweight building materials, such as a wood-I beam, made up of a web of 3/8" plywood or OSB (Oriented Strand Board) glued between two 2x4s of sawn lumber or engineered lumber. Another choice is the lightweight wood truss, made up of 2x members glued together. These are nice building materials, and perform well until there's a fire. When compared to older full-dimension 2x construction, they ignite more readily, and lose load carrying capacity quickly.

    Our furnishings aren't what Grandpa had. Couches and chairs used to be made of wool, linen, cotton, mohair, and so forth. They were natural fibers. Today's furnishings are synthetic, which is another way of saying long-chain-molecule-petrochemical-derivative. That futon is modified oil. When ignited, it burns like oil. Studies conducted by NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) show a BTU/h production rate by modern furnishings which is significantly higher than what was in Grandpa's house, together with a higher release of toxic smoke.

    NIST and UL (Underwriters Laboratories) both have produced DVDs showing identically furnished rooms, one sprinklered, and one non-sprinklered, which were ignited, where the fire behavior along with room conditions were monitored. Within five minutes, an unsprinklered average living room or bedroom will reach flashover, with simultaneous ignition of all combustible products, toxic smoke at floor level, and air temperature 5' above floor exceeding 800°F. Contrast that scenario with a sprinklered room, where the fire is contained, smoke is mild, and temperature 5' above floor is 110°F.

    Over to you. Ask.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  2. #2
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    960

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    During my four years as a college student living in buildings with ceiling sprinklers, the number of times they went off in response to a fire were far outweighed by the cases of students setting off their sprinklers deliberately as a dumbass prank or accidentally (smacking them while carrying something or hanging clothes from them) and doing thousands of dollars worth of water damage to their room and the rooms below them.

    In these cases the university could usually be sure of getting compensated, but I could imagine landlords being reluctant to install them for this reason. After reading past horror stories of what renters have done simply because they didn't give a damn about anyone else's property (or because they'd had a disagreement with the landlord and then felt justified in doing as much damage as they could), it seems like the potential cost goes far beyond just installation and maintenance. If I were renting out a property, I'd be concerned about how vulnerable these systems were to misuse.
    No cage, thank you. I'm a human being.

  3. #3
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by sublight
    During my four years as a college student living in buildings with ceiling sprinklers, the number of times they went off in response to a fire were far outweighed by the cases of students setting off their sprinklers deliberately as a dumbass prank or accidentally (smacking them while carrying something or hanging clothes from them) and doing thousands of dollars worth of water damage to their room and the rooms below them.

    In these cases the university could usually be sure of getting compensated, but I could imagine landlords being reluctant to install them for this reason. After reading past horror stories of what renters have done simply because they didn't give a damn about anyone else's property (or because they'd had a disagreement with the landlord and then felt justified in doing as much damage as they could), it seems like the potential cost goes far beyond just installation and maintenance. If I were renting out a property, I'd be concerned about how vulnerable these systems were to misuse.
    Your concerns are valid. Two options to address them exist. One is to install recessed sprinkler heads which are flush with the ceiling plane, and the other is to install cages over heads, which is often the choice for industrial and detention/correction facilities.

    Were I a landlord, I'd prefer the risk of some water damage versus total property loss from an uncontrolled fire. Further, I'd up my rent above similar unsprinklered apartments and sell the safety aspect to prospective tenants.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  4. #4
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    149

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    I wouldn't be too sure about getting away with the last idea. Having lived in an apartment completely swamped when a head went off accidentally, I'd pay a premium for the unsprinklered apartment.
    Better is heart than a mighty blade
    For him who shall fiercely fight;
    The brave man well shall fight and win,
    Though dull his blade may be.

  5. #5
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Were I a landlord, I'd prefer the risk of some water damage versus total property loss from an uncontrolled fire. Further, I'd up my rent above similar unsprinklered apartments and sell the safety aspect to prospective tenants.
    I agree with ulfjhorr. It's no wonder the fire department are all for it - they see fires day in day out. But the risk of a house fire affecting a given family/individual is very slim. Were I looking for an apartment, I'd be more concerned about the possibility of accidental (or malicious) activation leading to all my stuff being ruined.

    Sprinkler systems are not often installed in residential properties here in the UK, and I'm pretty sure my halls of residence at uni didn't have one either.
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  6. #6
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    There's really no reason for building codes to require sprinkler systems. Smoke detectors work well enough when they're working, and when they're not working its normally due to the people living there. I'm fine with that.

    Good luck charging more rent because the apartment has 'sprinklers'.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Yeah. In terms of risk vs. reward for me, sprinklers pose a risk of damaging my shit, and the possible reward is minimal, since I am capable of replacing smoke detector batteries.

    To me this seems like the kind of regulation that is burdensome to many with the purpose of protecting a few from themselves.

  8. #8
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    I see the point that others are bringing up about being more at risk from asshattery of fellow tenants.

    The problem I have is that I'm living in a multi-unit building, now. With a significant number of college kids. I don't have to deal with many drunken idiocy events, but there are some. What worries me more than having those idiots damaging my property because they played with the sprinklers is that those idiots could start a fire or allow one to grow to that flashover point that danceswithcats mentions, leading to the whole structure becoming engulfed in relatively quick sequence - in which case my operating smoke detectors may not give me sufficient warning to get out of the building.

    ISTM that for the multi-unit residence the is a pretty strong argument in favor of it - not to protect the idiots from themselves, but to protect the idiots neighbors from them.

    ETA: These are the same idiots, after all, who keep propping open the fire doors in the basement of the building. Either because they can't be assed to open the doors as they pass through them, or because they are afraid that when the door slams shut it might disturb someone. Personally, I'm far more disturbed by the idea of propping open the damned fire doors than any possible amount of slamming from normal traffic. And mine is the apartment closest to one of those doors.

  9. #9
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by ulfhjorr
    I wouldn't be too sure about getting away with the last idea. Having lived in an apartment completely swamped when a head went off accidentally, I'd pay a premium for the unsprinklered apartment.
    Curious-you said accidentally, but what was the final determination? Most sprinkler systems are monitored, such that a water flow alarm would be transmitted as soon as the head opened. Given an average of ten minutes for FD response, somewhere around 150 gallons of water would have been discharged.

    Quite honestly, I've dealt with several homeowners who had to have flooring and drywall torn out because of water heater and toilet supply pipe failures, which dumped a helluva lot more than 150 gallons, but I doubt you'd want an apartment without hot water or a toilet, would you? :wink:
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  10. #10
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by TheFlame
    I agree with ulfjhorr. It's no wonder the fire department are all for it - they see fires day in day out. But the risk of a house fire affecting a given family/individual is very slim. Were I looking for an apartment, I'd be more concerned about the possibility of accidental (or malicious) activation leading to all my stuff being ruined.

    Sprinkler systems are not often installed in residential properties here in the UK, and I'm pretty sure my halls of residence at uni didn't have one either.
    Bolding mine. I don't pretend to know stats from the UK, but the US has the fourth highest death rate from fire in the industrialized world, ~4000 per year according to the United States Fire Administration publication Fire In The US. Of those fire related deaths, approximately 80% occurred in the decedent's home.

    Where do you spend your time? In the US, you're either in school, shopping, at work, or you're home. (Yes, I know that's not 100%, but it covers likely 90% of your day.) School, shopping, and work are very likely sprinklered, in the US. Yet homes, where you spend half or more of your time isn't sprinklered, yet it's statistically proven to be where you're most likely to die from a fire.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  11. #11
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by hatesfreedom
    There's really no reason for building codes to require sprinkler systems. Smoke detectors work well enough when they're working, and when they're not working its normally due to the people living there. I'm fine with that.

    Good luck charging more rent because the apartment has 'sprinklers'.
    Smoke detectors are fine for alert, ambulatory people. As I stated in the OP, studies have shown that children, the elderly, and those who are physically impaired, either by handicap or substance use do not appropriately respond to them.

    We had two similar incidents in the past year in adjacent municipalities, where one occupancy was sprinklered, and the other wasn't. Both involved bedridden people who smoked. In one case, the lady awakened, called 911, and personnel were on scene in approximately 4 minutes, but the room was near flashover. The woman died. In the other, the lady awakened and called 911 as a single sprinkler head activated and extinguished the fire. She's still alive, and suffered no injuries.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  12. #12
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Cut to the chase: who do I have to give money to in order to avoid adding sprinklers to the fire code for single-family detached housing? I am willing to accept the small risk of being burnt to death due to sleeping through a conflagration caused when the whiskey fumes catch a spark from my crack pipe.

  13. #13
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    Yeah. In terms of risk vs. reward for me, sprinklers pose a risk of damaging my shit, and the possible reward is minimal, since I am capable of replacing smoke detector batteries.

    To me this seems like the kind of regulation that is burdensome to many with the purpose of protecting a few from themselves.
    What happens when you're not home? The fire burns until detected and reported by a neighbor, in which case most of your possessions will be destroyed. According to a 10 year study, the average loss in a sprinklered occupancy is $1945, compared to $17067 for a non-sprinklered occupancy- 8.7 times greater loss.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  14. #14
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by OtakuLoki
    ETA: These are the same idiots, after all, who keep propping open the fire doors in the basement of the building. Either because they can't be assed to open the doors as they pass through them, or because they are afraid that when the door slams shut it might disturb someone. Personally, I'm far more disturbed by the idea of propping open the damned fire doors than any possible amount of slamming from normal traffic. And mine is the apartment closest to one of those doors.
    I'd complain to building management about the doors. Leaving them open creates a natural chimney which can intensify a fire. Closers can be adjusted to reduce the amount of noise from closing doors.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  15. #15
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    Cut to the chase: who do I have to give money to in order to avoid adding sprinklers to the fire code for single-family detached housing? I am willing to accept the small risk of being burnt to death due to sleeping through a conflagration caused when the whiskey fumes catch a spark from my crack pipe.
    Contact your state Senator or Representative.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  16. #16
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    Cut to the chase: who do I have to give money to in order to avoid adding sprinklers to the fire code for single-family detached housing? I am willing to accept the small risk of being burnt to death due to sleeping through a conflagration caused when the whiskey fumes catch a spark from my crack pipe.
    Contact your state Senator or Representative.
    My state senator is really hot, she is much better looking than one would expect from a politician.

  17. #17
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    149

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Curious-you said accidentally, but what was the final determination?
    I don't know about any official determination. It was a college-town apartment, and a poorly aimed dart-throw hit the hard backing around the board, and the back half bounced backward, right through the sprinkler, breaking out the glass tube and setting off the sprinkler head and the fire alarm. The FD was there quickly, and one poor girl had to stand under the sprinkler, holding a tarp up to it to run the water down and out the door until it got shut off.
    Better is heart than a mighty blade
    For him who shall fiercely fight;
    The brave man well shall fight and win,
    Though dull his blade may be.

  18. #18
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    149

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    What happens when you're not home? The fire burns until detected and reported by a neighbor, in which case most of your possessions will be destroyed. According to a 10 year study, the average loss in a sprinklered occupancy is $1945, compared to $17067 for a non-sprinklered occupancy- 8.7 times greater loss.
    To me, this sounds like a great reason to use to educate people as to why they may want to consider having sprinklers in their homes. But that's a far cry from a good reason to mandate installing them.
    Better is heart than a mighty blade
    For him who shall fiercely fight;
    The brave man well shall fight and win,
    Though dull his blade may be.

  19. #19
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Smoke detectors are fine for alert, ambulatory people. As I stated in the OP, studies have shown that children, the elderly, and those who are physically impaired, either by handicap or substance use do not appropriately respond to them.

    We had two similar incidents in the past year in adjacent municipalities, where one occupancy was sprinklered, and the other wasn't. Both involved bedridden people who smoked. In one case, the lady awakened, called 911, and personnel were on scene in approximately 4 minutes, but the room was near flashover. The woman died. In the other, the lady awakened and called 911 as a single sprinkler head activated and extinguished the fire. She's still alive, and suffered no injuries.
    Still not a reason to make them mandatory unless you believe America won't survive without an old lady (it will). I think they're fine and sprinklers work well, I just don't see the need to add it to the building codes. Why do we have so many of you pussy reformers these days trying to change every law so nobody can get hurt? Watch our for pools, don't drive drunk, don't smoke indoors, and now you have to pay for sprinklers? to hell with all of you.

  20. #20
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by danceswithcats
    Quite honestly, I've dealt with several homeowners who had to have flooring and drywall torn out because of water heater and toilet supply pipe failures, which dumped a helluva lot more than 150 gallons, but I doubt you'd want an apartment without hot water or a toilet, would you? :wink:
    Sure, but my water heater and toilet supply provide me ample benefits to outweigh the potential drawbacks. A sprinkler system doesn't. You see a lot of fires in a week - I've seen one in 34 years of life, and while there was some small property damage, there was no loss of life. You have a very inflated sense of the actual possibilities of and danger from a house fire. (I may have an underinflated one, as well, I admit.)

    I absolutely agree with ulfhjorr. These sound like great pieces of information for education and persuasion, but that's a far cry from being a good reason to mandate them.
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  21. #21
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Just out of curiosity, WhyNot - do you, or any of the other people who think this measure is too much, have a household fire extinguisher? And if you do have one, when was the last time you inspected it? While the two systems are not equivalent, from the POV of personal safety they both have a goal of providing time for occupants to escape a structure in case of fire. I know I'm always surprised by the otherwise intelligent and forethoughtful people who don't pay any attention to fire safety.

    A little Googling yields this page from yenra cites a Roper ASW survey that reports: nearly 60% of households in the US do not have a fire extinguisher, or don't have one that can be counted on to still work. I can find other references to the survey, but I can't find the survey itself.

    When more than 50% of the population cannot be counted upon to have bare minimum fire safety equipment available, it seems that the arguments for mandating measures get a lot stronger. As for why require it in new build construction? Since such structures already have to be inspected, prior to occupancy, it's going to be simpler to add one more item to check to the list, than to try to mandate fire extinguishers, and then check that, after occupancy.

    An interesting point brought up by another study I found during my Googling is that in Sweden only 5% of the households in flats had fire extinguishers. I grant that transporting those results to the US would be poor practice - cultural difference may well affect the numbers - but if that's even close to the presence in apartment buildings for private fire extinguishers, it lends a lot of support IMNSHO for mandating the installation of sprinklers in multi-residence buildings. The structure class where the most people are at risk, and where individual households are most at risk from poor fire safety practices of their neighbors, also has the worst presence for fire extinguishers? The more I look at it, the more that requiring sprinklers for multi-residence buildings makes sense to me.

    Personally, I'd be willing to concede the arguments against mandating sprinklers for single-family dwellings. Part of that, however is based on the recognition that at $5000 for a system there are regions where that's going to be adding significantly to the cost of the dwelling.

  22. #22
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by OtakuLoki
    Just out of curiosity, WhyNot - do you, or any of the other people who think this measure is too much, have a household fire extinguisher? And if you do have one, when was the last time you inspected it?
    Yes, I do, actually. My landlord provides them in each apartment, attached to the wall in the kitchen. As for the last time I inspected it, that'd be just now :wink:, but before today it was on February 9 or so - my daughter's birthday. I once made a joke about checking the fire extinguisher before lighting Mom's birthday cake, and it became a family joke. Not long after, I realized, "huh, y'know, that's not a bad idea!" So now I sort of playfully check it for every birthday we have in the family.

    Sometimes, I am callous and strange...
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  23. #23
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Hey, if it gets your fire extinguisher checked, and more than annually, I'm all for your version of callous and strange.

  24. #24
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Fire extinguishers are a great idea, but still rely on an alert human being to recognize the danger, and react appropriately in a timely fashion. Sprinklers react appropriately, in a timely fashion, if you're sleeping, if you've just come home with a good buzz, or if nobody is home.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  25. #25
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    One of the reasons I bought where I did was because the local municipality requires sprinklers in all new construction. I had the option of buying the exact same townhouse (floorplan, options, and all) in another community, but it didn't have sprinklers. Personally, I'd rather have the protection in place "just in case" and never need it than not have it.

    But I'm paranoid that way. My security system also monitors for smoke alarm/sprinkler activation. It adds to the monthly cost, but again, I'd rather have it than not.

  26. #26
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    136

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Damn.

    Sorry, cats, didn't mean to kill your thread.

  27. #27
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    You didn't kill it. Several states have thrown out attempts to remove fire sprinklers from the 2009 ICC, including PA. Thankfully, attempts to do so via the UCC Advisory Council were thwarted, and unless a bill in passed by the General Legislature, PA will start building safer homes in 2011.

    I'm happy to get back to gainful employ and stop attending hearings in Harrisburg.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  28. #28
    Stegodon Jaglavak's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    360

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    At one time I was very much against residential sprinkler systems because of water damage concerns. But after working in large multi tenant commercial buildings where our sprinkler systems put out an average of one fire every other year with very little damage, I plan to install sprinklers in any house I own. And having had the opportunity to watch a house burn to the ground including room by room flashovers was a real eye opener too.

    I would be interested in a dry pipe preaction system for better leak and freezing protection though. With this type of system the sprinkler piping is pressurized with air. There's an automatic valve with a pressure sensor back at the water main. When you lose air pressure the water valve opens. I'd have to consider the extra cost but I think it would be worth it for the extra peace of mind

  29. #29
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North of the Manson-Nixon line
    Posts
    609

    Default Re: Fire Sprinklers: Fact and Fiction

    Quote Originally posted by Jaglavak
    At one time I was very much against residential sprinkler systems because of water damage concerns. But after working in large multi tenant commercial buildings where our sprinkler systems put out an average of one fire every other year with very little damage, I plan to install sprinklers in any house I own. And having had the opportunity to watch a house burn to the ground including room by room flashovers was a real eye opener too.

    I would be interested in a dry pipe preaction system for better leak and freezing protection though. With this type of system the sprinkler piping is pressurized with air. There's an automatic valve with a pressure sensor back at the water main. When you lose air pressure the water valve opens. I'd have to consider the extra cost but I think it would be worth it for the extra peace of mind
    Without question, dry pipe preaction is nice. Another alternative is the Viking Firecycle™ system. That design incorporates heat sensors in every sprinklered room, and requires agreement of a fused sprinkler head AND a heat sensor being above setpoint before the main valve will open to release water. Further, if the fused head or heads are able to control the fire and reduce room temperature below setpoint, the water valve shuts, to minimize water damage.

    I was fortunate to work with the sprinkler contractor who installed such a system at a historical property in Bucks County, PA where I was installing the combination burglary/fire alarm system.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts