Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We are considering building a house. We’d like a fire sprinkler >system installed in each room including kitchen, living rooms etc. >The system will be triggered by high temperatures as a result of fire. >The fire is supposed to melt the stopper at 165 degrees. >It just seems to make common sense to me to have one of these systems >installed if the sprinkler only comes on when a room temperature hits >165 degrees. From what I understand, the system cannot be set off by >smoke. Additionally, it will only trigger in the room where the fire >is taking place. >The heads would be eastetically pleasing and recessed. >Estimated costs, $4000 to $9000. >Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences >you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent. >thanx. >Feel free to share responses with the newgroup also.
Thank you all so much for your response. Due to your input, any house I or my family live in SHALL have a sprinkler system installed. This house shall have one. Thanx all. Ade.
Response:
> >Except in confined spaces, Halon is regarded as not the best system. >Good old water still ranks high. The problem is once a computer >starts burning enough to set off a Halon dump, it probably is toast >anyhow. IBM pretty much abandoned the idea on large scale machine >rooms. > in a computer room fire, the machine is usually far cheaper then > the DATA stored on Tape or Disk Media.
Yeah, so? Make backups. That doesn’t change the statement that once it starts burning it’s not recoverable whether you put it out with water or Halon.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Are Halon (or equivilant) systems available for residential usage? These > would eliminate the water damage, and also eliminate any freezing problem. >There are no equivelents to Halon until Duponts patent runs out. Most >of the Halons are very controlled due to ozone depletion concerns. >It was never cheap, but boy was it effective. Back in the Reagan >era when the DOD had a lot of money to burn, we used to have periodic >practice putting out fires with halon hand extinguishers. >Except in confined spaces, Halon is regarded as not the best system. >Good old water still ranks high. The problem is once a computer >starts burning enough to set off a Halon dump, it probably is toast >anyhow. IBM pretty much abandoned the idea on large scale machine >rooms. >Still there’s no subsitute for places like airplane cabins.
in a computer room fire, the machine is usually far cheaper then the DATA stored on Tape or Disk Media. pat
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> writes: > >The system must be engineered, which is not difficult, but must be done … > >the system is NOT just about running a bunch of pipe and installing some > >heads. > Why not? This is not required by code so using the house potable water supply > seems acceptable to me. What would be wrong with running a line from the house > cold water lines to wherever a head is desired? > The pipes would run through the attic, true? Freezing would be an > issue in northern climates. Where I once worked, sprinkler lines > through areas where freezing was likely were kept filled with an > antifreeze mixture. This obviously required isolation from the > drinking water supply. What prevents freezing in residential systems? > Verne
Not necessarily. Sidewall sprinkler heads are available that mount near the top of the wall and spray a horizontal pattern to cover the room. You often see these in hotels, especially where the building has been retrofitted with sprinklers (difficult to run ceiling sprinkler piping when the "ceiling" is the concrete floor of the next floor above). With these, all piping could be run inside of walls, as opposed to being in the attic space. Concerns about water damage can be reduced by having the system monitored by an alarm company. (Not cheap, perhaps, but many homes have burglar alarm systems arranged this way.) If the system goes off, an alarm is transmitted to the alarm company, which in turn notifies the fire department. Also, since sprinkler systems are designed to control, and not necessarily extinguish, fires… prompt notification of the fire department is important to minimize direct damage from the fire. To reply by email, remove the *NO_SPAM* from my email address.
Response:
> The pipes would run through the attic, true? Freezing would be an > issue in northern climates. Where I once worked, sprinkler lines > through areas where freezing was likely were kept filled with an > antifreeze mixture. This obviously required isolation from the > drinking water supply. What prevents freezing in residential systems?
The pipes can be installed in conditioned spaces, you don’t run the rest of your water pipes that way (we’re talking new construction here, retrofit is another story, but there’s a lot of research on using soffits and plastic pipe here). The propylene glycol based antifreezes would be less of a problem (through you still wouldn’t want it in your drinking water), this is the stuff they use to treat RV systems with when stored.
Response:
> Are Halon (or equivilant) systems available for residential usage? These > would eliminate the water damage, and also eliminate any freezing problem.
There are no equivelents to Halon until Duponts patent runs out. Most of the Halons are very controlled due to ozone depletion concerns. It was never cheap, but boy was it effective. Back in the Reagan era when the DOD had a lot of money to burn, we used to have periodic practice putting out fires with halon hand extinguishers. Except in confined spaces, Halon is regarded as not the best system. Good old water still ranks high. The problem is once a computer starts burning enough to set off a Halon dump, it probably is toast anyhow. IBM pretty much abandoned the idea on large scale machine rooms. Still there’s no subsitute for places like airplane cabins.
Response:
> How much damage did the water do? If one is considering > only property damage, and the water ends up ruining the > structure, you haven’t benefitted a lot.
Hardly any. Yes, some soaked merchandise, but water rarely damages the structure with such a short exposure. I can tell you having helped cleanup my grandmothers house after a fire, that the smoke damage was far more pervasive than any remnants of the water used by the firefighters to extinguish the fire. Had she had sprinklers, she’d have not perished in that fire.
Response:
To heck with the water or the smoke damage, the goal is to make it out alive. Homeowners will cover any damage. > How much damage did the water do? If one is considering > only property damage, and the water ends up ruining the > structure, you haven’t benefitted a lot. >Hardly any. Yes, some soaked merchandise, but water rarely >damages the structure with such a short exposure. I can >tell you having helped cleanup my grandmothers house after >a fire, that the smoke damage was far more pervasive than >any remnants of the water used by the firefighters to >extinguish the fire. Had she had sprinklers, she’d have >not perished in that fire.
Matt Eagles may soar, but Turkeys don’t get sucked into jet engines.
Response:
>This same thread started a couple of years ago and a lot of people did >cost/benefit analyses etc. and showed all kind of reasons why they weren’t >worth the cost. None of these people sat in a trailer that was set on >fire. Fires happen very fast. Within seconds a house can be filled with >smoke and you won’t get out. If you’re not home then you luck out and the >insurance covers your loss. But I have stuff in my house that insurance >cannot replace. And even if the insurance could cover everything the >hassle of rebuilding everything is more than I would want to go through. >The cost of the system seems reasonable given this piece of mind >satisfaction. >Just my opinion.
do you have any feel for the cost either on a $/ft2 or a percentage of the construction cost? When we were buying our house we asked about these but were told they were very rare in existing houses and in fact, we never saw an installation in any of the homes we looked at.
Response:
Are Halon (or equivilant) systems available for residential usage? These would eliminate the water damage, and also eliminate any freezing problem. Allan.
Response:
> Are Halon (or equivilant) systems available for residential usage? These > would eliminate the water damage, and also eliminate any freezing problem. > Allan.
Halon was popular 15+ years ago as leaving no mess to clean up. Now, it’s regarded in the same way Freon is, and I don’t know if you can even get it anymore. In some industries, CO2 has taken the place of Halon, but if a CO2 system goes off in the area that you’re in, there’s a good chance it’ll kill you. These systems are a lot more expensive than water systems, anyway
Response:
: Are Halon (or equivilant) systems available for residential usage? These : would eliminate the water damage, and also eliminate any freezing problem. After seeing a halon system go on in a computer room during a fire emergency ops demo (scared the living %^$& out of me) I think I’ll pass… Spiros — at home in Central Indiana www.primenet.com/~strianta
Response:
>do you have any feel for the cost either on a $/ft2 or a percentage of the >construction cost? When we were buying our house we asked about these but were >told they were very rare in existing houses and in fact, we never saw an >installation in any of the homes we looked at.
We’re looking at a fire sprinkler system for a house we’re designing. Major problem with meeting code requirements for a fire sprinkler system is the large and sustained volume of water that’s required by code… difficult to do if your water supply is a well, or for any other reasons There are sprinklers that will work on the usual household waterlines, though they don’t meet the provisions of the NFPA 13D code that’s been adopted verbatim by many local communities. If your building code requires the NFPA 13D provisions for home use, you might want to talk to your building officials, and see if they see the reason for allowing less expensive systems.. However, I’m told that the various fire code agencies are talking about relaxing the volume requirements for *home* systems, mainly because of the expenses involved in meeting current requirements. Yes, the "undersized home sprinklers" may only be, say, 70% as effective in extinguishing a fire. But a 70% better chance of coming out of a fire intact is a whole lot better than not having the "real" system in place because of cost: that’s a 0% better chance of coming out of a fire intact. More information is available in an article: Rist, Curtis. 1998. Fire sprinklers in your home. This Old House # 16 (Jan/Feb 1998), pp. 102-106. As someone who has worked in a burn ward, and as a niece of a firefighter, I’ll gladly forgo fancy kitchen cabinets and countertops in favor of the sprinkler system. And count myself lucky if I never have to use them, and even luckier if I do.
Response:
> writes: >The system must be engineered, which is not difficult, but must be done … >the system is NOT just about running a bunch of pipe and installing some >heads. > Why not? This is not required by code so using the house potable water supply > seems acceptable to me. What would be wrong with running a line from the house > cold water lines to wherever a head is desired?
The pipes would run through the attic, true? Freezing would be an issue in northern climates. Where I once worked, sprinkler lines through areas where freezing was likely were kept filled with an antifreeze mixture. This obviously required isolation from the drinking water supply. What prevents freezing in residential systems? Verne
Response:
>: Are Halon (or equivilant) systems available for residential usage? These >: would eliminate the water damage, and also eliminate any freezing problem. >After seeing a halon system go on in a computer room during a fire >emergency ops demo (scared the living %^$& out of me) I think I’ll >pass… >Spiros >– >at home in Central Indiana www.primenet.com/~strianta
HALON can still cause property damage. pat
Response:
writes: >The system must be engineered, which is not difficult, but must be done … >the system is NOT just about running a bunch of pipe and installing some >heads.
Why not? This is not required by code so using the house potable water supply seems acceptable to me. What would be wrong with running a line from the house cold water lines to wherever a head is desired?
Response:
By the NFPC specification (I believe it’s 13C) the sprinkler system should be connected to the main water entry ahead of the valve controlling the domestic potable water. This is so that the sprinkler can not be turned off without turning off domestic water also. Otherwise the system could be disabled with no warning that it wasn’t functional. The design is for two-head operation so 3/4" pipe is quite sufficient anywhere in a normal size house, engineering is thus very simple if required at all. The design work is mostly in selecting proper heads for spaces and locating them properly. Dan Bolt, Des Moines
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->writes: >The system must be engineered, which is not difficult, but must be done … >the system is NOT just about running a bunch of pipe and installing some >heads. >Why not? This is not required by code so using the house potable water supply >seems acceptable to me. What would be wrong with running a line from the house >cold water lines to wherever a head is desired?
Response:
>Every fire I ever went to in a sprinkled building was >mearly an issue of shutting the sprinklers down and >replacing the head. The fire was gone before it got >a chance to do anything.
How much damage did the water do? If one is considering only property damage, and the water ends up ruining the structure, you haven’t benefitted a lot. Topher Eliot Visit the house maintenance archive at http://www.geocities.com/heartland/7400
Response:
> >Every fire I ever went to in a sprinkled building was >mearly an issue of shutting the sprinklers down and >replacing the head. The fire was gone before it got >a chance to do anything. > How much damage did the water do? If one is considering > only property damage, and the water ends up ruining the > structure, you haven’t benefitted a lot. > Topher Eliot > Visit the house maintenance archive at http://www.geocities.com/heartland/7400
Yes, water can do a lot of damage. A few years ago, when I talked with our insurance agent, he informed me that our insurance carrier does not offer any discounts for a sprinklered residence, because their underwriters determined that the property loss due to water damage from false discharge of water from sprinklers was too high, compared with the property loss due to fires in unsprinklered buildings. The accidental discharge can be attributed to such things as freezing damage in pipes, damaged heads, and other miscellaneous causes. In other words, statistically speaking, as far as insured losses go, a residence is better off without a sprinkler system. With a sprinkler system, your house may have an accidental discharge, get soaked, and add to the company’s accidental discharge statistics. Without a sprinkler system, your house may burn a little or a lot. But statistically, it’s less likely to burn than be soggy. Personally, I’d rather have a house made soggy by clean water than a house made into charcoal. However, there are sprinkler systems that can greatly reduce the chances of accidental discharge. It is possible to install a dry-pipe system that is only charged with water when a fire alarm system trips. The pipes are dry (empty) so they can’t freeze. If the fire alarm system detects a fire, or what it thinks is a fire, it goes off, and the sprinkler system is then charged with water. If at that time, a sprinkler head also detects fire, and its’ element fuses (or rapid response capsule ruptures), water will come out. Thus, two independent systems need to both say that a fire exists before any water can come out anywhere. A lot more hardware than just tapping the incoming water main as it comes into the house. Disadvantage to that system is initial cost, and ongoing maintenance. In addition to the heads and piping, there’s the sprinkler valve which needs to be purchased and installed. Add the fire alarm system (not interconnected smoke detectors, but a full-blown system with control panel and battery backup). As far as ongoing maintenance, in addition to whatever may be required, in terms of periodinc inspection to the sprinker system, there’s the periodic inspections/testing that are required for the fire alarm system (NFPA specifically states that residential fire alarm systems must be periodically tested and certified by a professional — note that interconnected smoke detectors are NOT considered a fire alarm system). If you didn’t have this testing done, depending upon what fine print was in your insurance policy, it’s conceivable that the insurance carrier could deny a claim). For a residential system, the type of piping for a dry pipe system may be more expensive to install than that for a wet pipe system. Traditionally, before residential sprinklers became of interest, sprinkler system piping was black/wrought iron. The NFPA was considering allowing, for some residential applications, piping that was less durable. I don’t know the outcome of that, but if the requirements were relaxed, it’s more likely that they would be relaxed for a wet-pipe system sooner than they would be for a dry pipe system.
Response:
> Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences > you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent.
A friend of mine has them installed in her townhouse. They are really inobtrusive. They look like small disks on the ceiling (which hide the head). As a former firefighter, I recommend the idea highly. Every test states that other than the expense, they are a tremendous idea, which is why they’re required in hotels and just about every other commercial space. Every fire I ever went to in a sprinkled building was mearly an issue of shutting the sprinklers down and replacing the head. The fire was gone before it got a chance to do anything.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > We are considering building a house. We’d like a fire sprinkler > system installed in each room including kitchen, living rooms etc. > The system will be triggered by high temperatures as a result of fire. > The fire is supposed to melt the stopper at 165 degrees. > It just seems to make common sense to me to have one of these systems > installed if the sprinkler only comes on when a room temperature hits > 165 degrees. From what I understand, the system cannot be set off by > smoke. Additionally, it will only trigger in the room where the fire > is taking place. > The heads would be eastetically pleasing and recessed. > Estimated costs, $4000 to $9000. > Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences > you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent. > thanx. > Feel free to share responses with the newgroup also.
A sprinkler system is a good idea. Get as many prices as you can, purechase from an organization that’s experienced (and licensed) in residential sprinkler systems, and with price spreads as large as you stated, find out why such a difference. A sprinkler system is not that involved to design and install (by those knowledgeable and qualified in this area). The system must be engineered, which is not difficult, but must be done … the system is NOT just about running a bunch of pipe and installing some heads. The NFPA has one or more publications covering sprinkler systems, which is quite technical, but, as a potential purchasor of a system, you should consider getting them and seeing what’s involved. Also, if you have any doubts about what can happen in an unchecked fire, try to find a copy of the NFPA’s tape "Countdown to Disaster". Though not about sprinklers per se, after you see that tape, I think you’ll be installing the sprinklers.
Response:
We are considering building a house. We’d like a fire sprinkler system installed in each room including kitchen, living rooms etc. The system will be triggered by high temperatures as a result of fire. The fire is supposed to melt the stopper at 165 degrees. It just seems to make common sense to me to have one of these systems installed if the sprinkler only comes on when a room temperature hits 165 degrees. From what I understand, the system cannot be set off by smoke. Additionally, it will only trigger in the room where the fire is taking place. The heads would be eastetically pleasing and recessed. Estimated costs, $4000 to $9000. Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent. thanx. Feel free to share responses with the newgroup also.
Response:
As a security consultant, I would recommend anyone that can afford such a system to purchase one, I have seen this system at work in simulations, and it is great, it might not put the fire entirely out but will contain it to a small area thus limiting damage, more home duilders should offer this option, having the system put in while the house is under construction will lower the costs greatly. Stephane Laviolette Security Consultant Loss Control specialist (819) 777-1196 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We are considering building a house. We’d like a fire sprinkler > system installed in each room including kitchen, living rooms etc. > The system will be triggered by high temperatures as a result of fire. > The fire is supposed to melt the stopper at 165 degrees. > It just seems to make common sense to me to have one of these systems > installed if the sprinkler only comes on when a room temperature hits > 165 degrees. From what I understand, the system cannot be set off by > smoke. Additionally, it will only trigger in the room where the fire > is taking place. > The heads would be eastetically pleasing and recessed. > Estimated costs, $4000 to $9000. > Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences > you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent. > thanx. > Feel free to share responses with the newgroup also.
Response:
> Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences > you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent.
Scottsdale, Az has required sprinklers in all new homes constructed since about 1992. I’ve heard of no negative comments to date. Mark R13884.at.email.sps.mot.com
Response:
> We are considering building a house. We’d like a fire sprinkler > system installed in each room including kitchen, living rooms etc.
<stuff deleted> > Has any one had one in a home? What are some of the experiences > you’ve had, good, bad or indifferent.
Several years ago I got to participate in a demo of one of these at a state fair. About 5 or 6 of us were picked from the crowd to go into a trailer that was then set on fire. A thin 1/2 wall of Plexiglas was all that was between us and a pile of paper and rags that was set ablaze. The sprinkler came on a fraction of a second or more before the smoke detector. The flames were quite high and it was getting nervously hot. The sprinkler completely doused the fire. I was sold. I was in the process of building a house at the time and tried to get a system installed, but there was only one contractor licensed to install them in NE Connecticut at the time I was building and he was booked for 8 months out. I couldn’t delay that long so I never had them installed. I would personally recommend it and I wish I had them in my house. This same thread started a couple of years ago and a lot of people did cost/benefit analyses etc. and showed all kind of reasons why they weren’t worth the cost. None of these people sat in a trailer that was set on fire. Fires happen very fast. Within seconds a house can be filled with smoke and you won’t get out. If you’re not home then you luck out and the insurance covers your loss. But I have stuff in my house that insurance cannot replace. And even if the insurance could cover everything the hassle of rebuilding everything is more than I would want to go through. The cost of the system seems reasonable given this piece of mind satisfaction. Just my opinion. — Dave Clark Opinions expressed are my own. Any resemblance to other opinions living or dead are purely coincidental.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.