Talk:Fire sprinkler system

Page move

In order to eliminate confusion with the "Sprinkler Head" article, and to align the definitions of both articles with modern terminology (e.g., NFPA), the title of this article should be changed to "Fire Sprinkler System", and the title of the "Sprinkler Head" article should be changed to "Fire Sprinkler". But as I am new, I don't know how to get this accomplished.Fireproeng 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request a Wikipedia:administrator to move this page from sprinkler system (which can also refer to irrigation), to fire sprinkler (the subject of the article), if there are no major objections. –radiojon 05:58, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

It would seem that between the redirect page and the cross-reference to other sprinkler systems at the bottom of the page, this point is covered. However, it probably works with the redirect from here and the main article under fire sprinklers. I think, however, that a pure disambiguation page wouldn't work, because fire protection is probably a much more common search for "sprinkler" than irrigation. In the US, only lawn irrigators are commonly called sprinklers. Ortolan88 16:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sprinkler System problems

I have seen criticisms of sprinkler systems on several grounds including (a) supposed tendency to go of accidentally or due to sabotage, causing economic damage that isn't quantified. [I observe that agencies charged with saving life aren't generally charged with balancing cost or inconvenience, but a higher agency must as e.g. in the argument that many lives would be saved if cars could not go over 20 mph.] (b) sprinklers represent a danger where there is electrical equipment (i.e. just about everywhere). [I observe that sprinklers originated in the US where the domestic voltage is much less dangerous than in Europe]. I don't know whether these criticisms are valid, but as more moves to compulsory sprinklers in the UK appear, I would like to see some analysis. At any rate, a neutral article should deal with common criticism. I have tried to research this myself on the web, but without any particular conclusions. Notinasnaid 13:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could be, but it sounds like the sort of thing a landlord might say. I'd value human protection higher than property protection. I wrote this article immediately after the terrible Rhode Island rock club fire where more than a hundred people died due to lack of sprinklers. Do the research and improve the article. Ortolan88 16:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed the sorts of things a landlord might say (a good all purpose bogeyman aren't they), but it's also the sort of thing I might say - if faced, for instance with being forced to install sprinklers in a room with thousands of precious books. And there are signs that the UK, and Scotland in particular, is going that way: valuing statistical safety over quality of life and providing insufficient checks and balances to single-issue specialists e.g.[1] . I will see what I can find out. Notinasnaid 17:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just trying to get you turned on to do the research :=) The destructiveness of fire-fighting methods is very little appreciated. For a long time (but no more), the city of Chicago had a private "insurance fire department" that went to big fires and did such things as lay out canvas gutters down the stairs to duct the water poured on by the city firemen out of the building.

In the case of the library -- a very dear topic to me, believe me -- I don't think sprinklers should be installed without also installing some sort of interior "roofs and gutters" to handle the water. Sprinklers are, however, limited to flowing where there is heat, where presumably the books would be in greater danger from fire than from water. They don't just pop on and flood the whole building (which, as above, human firefighters do). And, books, having been wetted (as in the Venetian floods) have a better chance of restoration than books that have been burned.

That said, your point is well taken and the article, which is pretty much pro-sprinkler, could be improved by well founded discussion of the issues you mention. I don't believe the article violates POV restrictions, however, because all that it says about sprinklers is true to the best of my knowledge (and I did do some research).

I've been a landlord, had one good (great) landlord, many indifferent ones, and a couple of really lousy ones. Ortolan88 20:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS -- In talk page layout, if your reply were not indented, that is, left so it was on the same left margin as your original comment, it would be easier to follow the discussion, IMHO. O88

Incorrect section

The section on water mist fire protection systems is just not correct:

If water damage or water volume is of particular concern, a technique called Water Mist Fire Suppression may be an alternative. This technology has been under development for over 50 years. It hasn't entered general use, but is gaining some acceptance on ships and in a few residential applications. Mist suppression systems work by lowering the temperature of a burning area through evaporation rather than "soaking". As such, they may be designed to only slow the spread of a fire and not extinguish it. Some tests, that may or may not be biased, showed the cost of resulting fire and water damage with such a system installed to be dramatically less that conventional sprinkler systems.

Water mist fire protection systems are not just selected where water damage or water volume is a particular concern, although this is one of the features of water mist. It has entered general use and now the major fire giants all have water mist systems... it is fully approved on ships for most areas (accomodation, machinery rooms, galley areas, bilge etc etc), and most new cruise ships are fitted with this system... many thousands of land applications are already protected by water mist systems... lowering the temperature is just one of the mechanisms used in fighting the fire (also local oxygen inerting and radiant heat blocking and to a lesser extent the soaking as well)... they are not designed to slow the spread of the fire, some are designed for suppression and control, some for extinguishment... the biased or not statement is a bit ridiculous! --Watermistfireprotection 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We could use a much expanded section explaining where mist is used, listing some of the main groups and players, existing and emerging standards, and some of the new residential applications -- Amh15 (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

More on same topic

I removed this from the article:

It seems likely that the march towards sprinklers will continue unabated. The debate cannot be won, because the those for and against are measuring different things: on the one hand, saving lives is paramount and property damage is unimportant; on the other hand, fires are rare and property damage is an alarming prospect. Independent research into incidental damage and costs may help to reassure (or confirm the opinions of) the second group, but culturally many countries are moving to a culture where safety 'at any cost' is the priority.

Someone should do the research and put some facts in the article about sprinkler damage. The only ax I have to grind is making this a better encyclopedia. Good information on comparative costs of fire damage and danger versuse sprinkler damage and danger would make for a better article. Unsupported opinions don't. Ortolan88 19:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to leave this out. The article has better balance overall. However, I don't think something should be removed JUST because it about unsupported opinions: I am reporting the existence of two opinions, and the existence of both opinions is, I think, an accepted fact. Apparently my take on political trends is not sufficiently neutral, though I thought that was pretty much accepted fact too...

Fahrenheit/Celsius, gallons/liters and feet/meters

When adding temperature/volum/distance information, please include metric values. Remember, Wikipedia is an international effort! Brutulf 22:43, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I would go along with including a FAQ section it would answer a large number of questions which then could be later expanded if required --Jsm25 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Condensed the article, removed repeated information, etc. I still think it needs more work, possibly a section on either Contraversy and/or Myths. Eg spell out that with sprinkler systems (except Deluge systems) only the sprinkler activated goes off. Possibly quote the failure rate (1 in 16 million or something similar). Also point out the other side of the coin, forkhoists in warehouses have an unexplainable gravitational attraction to sprinkler heads, usually with a very wet result. -- Zaf 06:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone please tell me how the bulb chart can be done better. Before it was in the text and left a large white space, and didn't seem to flow well. I think the best bet would be an image style border/small text caption, but I can't figure how best to do this, or even if it will look ok. Zaf 06:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"whereas a fire appliance takes an average of eight minutes"

A fire "appliance" is a piece of hardware that connects to a hose, e.g. nozzles, gated wyes, and those 45° angle changes coming out of the pump. A fire "apparatus" is a piece of motorized equipment equipped with specialized firefighting equipment.

(My personal preference is to not edit someone else's article. So, when I see errors I note them here for the author to change as he/she sees fit.)

dafydd 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternates

How about some information on new or alternate types of fire sprinklers? Like a "dry fire suppression system" that uses gasses? (something like http://www.e1.greatlakes.com/wfp/product/jsp/fm200_works.jsp ) Or the water wall method that I heard was popular at trade shows here is a good link to some different types of fire suppression systems ( http://www.uos.harvard.edu/ehs/ih_fire_detection.shtml ) and some reasons to use or not use Gas ( http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid80_gci1148917,00.html ) I think it might be good to consider starting a page for Fire Suppression Systems that could link to this page and others that exist like Gaseous fire suppression already Andrew Powell 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Large blank space on page

Could someone fix that space so that the text wraps around the picture? Nwwaew 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wood's metal

I added a to the page that Wood's metal is used as a fusible metal, which is now marked as {{fact}}. Why? Several other Wikipedia articles mention this, and a web search for sprinkler "wood's metal" yields hundreds of hits. Maybe it should be rephrased as fusible metal (often Wood's metal) since also Field's metal seems to be used. Han-Kwang (t) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add a reference. Fireproeng (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dry pipe systems

I would think that the air leaving the system via the activated sprinkler head would add oxygen to the fire causing it to grow even larger. Is this yet another disadvantage to these systems or are they filled not with air but with nitrogen or some other inert gas? --Pascal666 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is more than ample oxygen available to the fire from the surrounding atmosphere, the relatively small amount of air in the piping does not affect the fire at all. Kilmer-san (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

external link

Will an editor view http://firesprinklernews.com and add it to external links? Baldeagle4031 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing a link (as recommended by the external link policy) rather than inserting it to (several) articles as your first edit. However, this site does not seem to be a reputable source: not listed by Alexa as a high traffic site [2], no contact information, and generally little content that looks reliable (with things like sources and dates).

adding firesprinklernews to external links

I'm sure I could do it but I read in the guidelines not to link to your own website let an existing editor do it. Baldeagle4031 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful?

This article from January 12th looks interesting and relevant, but I'm not sure how to work it into our article. It is about a proposal to add a sprinkler requirement to the Minnesota building code, and discusses the relative benefits of sprinklers versus smoke alarms, increasing the cost of housing versus housing affordability, and cost per life saved. GRBerry 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't readily find the article you linked...was it concerning residential sprinklers? The ICC has approved the requirement of residential fire sprinklers for all new one and two family homes and townhouses. Atuuschaaw (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Backup fire pumps

In Boston, I have observed that new fire sprinkler systems in multistory commercial buildings have some kind of major backup pump, usually installed in the basement or a utility space on the ground floor. The backup system consists of a large diesel engine, an array of lead-acid batteries to start it, a fuel oil tank, and an alarm/control system. There are provisions for combustion air intake and diesel exhaust, with ducting to the outside air. I think there are requirements to start and run the engine briefly on some periodic basis, to verify that the system is operable.

Anyway, there does not seem to be much coverage of this aspect of fire sprinkler systems in the article. I would write something, but I'm not yet knowledgeable enough about this, and hope that better-informed editors could add coverage of the topic to the article. Reify-tech (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

The article is very informative and allows an understanding of how the sprinkler system was introduced etc.. also the various types of sprinklers in use. As per the Indian Building Code it is now mandatory for all Malls,Hotels, High Rise buildings and offices, Hospitals etc to install an effective detection system as also an effective suppresion system, like the sprinkler system mentioned. I however would like an additional research to be done to find how many times and why the suppresion system did not work, even when there was a fire. Secondly, in the Wet Type, is there a need to periodically flush the sprinkler system so that it does not clog in case the presurrised water in the pipe is kept, say over a period of one year plus? If yes, how is it done? If not, why not?122.180.1.117 (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC).

I would like to help with adding information in regards to NFPA 13 calculating C sub p

With some help from someone in the industry, I would like to help with the addition of information about calculating C sub p as shown in the building code document NFPA 13 PDF file that I will provide the link to here. The area is described in this pdf on page 13-74 in the section 9.3.5.6.2. As I understand it, Sprinkler projects in California (and perhaps other states using NFPA 13) require an ADJ or government web site to provide the S sub s that is used to enhance the sprinkler system based on Seismic maps and the tables and calculations shown in the PDF File. This link is as follows: https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/13/13-A2006-ROC.pdfEweezeke (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eweezeke: I have read the info in the pdf, but it is a bit over my head. Where in the article do you want to place this info? You can do this yourself, or I can try to help you. A summary needs to be written "plain English" with the above link as a ref. Let me know....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Ok Tribe of Tiger, I will get back to you after I have figured out the wording. Thanks for offering to help. Eweezeke (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Ok, sorry it took so long, I have pasted my best workup of an addition to the page to address "Seismic, OSHPD, and FM" factors which can modify the brace carrying capacity of fire sprinkler pipe and load. Please feel free to modify.

START OF PASTE ------------------------------------

Generally speaking, Earthquake seismic factors are used to determine the required strength of the braces that carry the fire sprinkler system pipe and load. There are certain circumstances, determined by the adopted building code, by which the project is governed, that require the system to meet Seismic standards, and in which case, beside possible design factors, will require the acquisition of a parameter multiplier, used to modify the overall system pipe weight which will in turn modify the required brace load capacity. And in such cases, this parameter, if not provided by the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction), is provided by a Seismic map using the latitude and longitude of the project. There are also some cases where the system pipe weight is modified by a FM factor (Factory Mutual) determined by an insurance company. There is also a case where it is can be modified by a factor provided by OSHPD (office of statewide health planning and development) which applies to health care facilities where special care is needed.

Ref: http://www.scandaliato.com/seismic-design-for-fire-sprinkler-systems-part-1a-the-seismic-shift/

END OF PASTE------------------------------------ Eweezeke (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Eweezeke

Reference number 6 is a broken link

Reference number 6 is a broken link and could possible be replace by the following web url: https://www.canutesoft.com/Information-and-Resources/history-of-fire-sprinkler-systems.htmlEweezeke (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Several broken Links

There are several broken links which I would like to help fix - with someone's permissionEweezeke (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eweezeke:I have fixed the broken links. Ref number 6 now has a link to an archived copy of the ref. Click on "Archived" within the ref and you will,see the original info that was cited. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger:Wow that was quick - good job Tribe of Tiger Eweezeke (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)