Specialist Services:

Sprinklers

... a Fire Safety Revolution

Proven efficiency in reducing effects of fire.

Case 1

Benefits of residental sprinklers

Fast response sprinkler heads set at 68 degree C actuate in the early stages of a fire ensuring that the fire is only small (68 degree C heads are used traditionally and are used in the USA in their residential and domestic systems with success). This temperature is intended to be 30 degrees above ambient temperature and provide a buffer to prevent any false actuations. I would prefer to see 57 degree C heads, to ensure a quicker response to a fire - it is generally accepted that there is little difference in response times betwen 68 and 57 degree heads in a fast developing fire - in a slow build up fire there must be a greater differential in response times and the use of 57 degrees C heads could be significant. Also the people who decided that 68 degree was 30 degrees above ambient have never been to Leeds!.
When a sprinkler head actuates the fire is suppressed and held at the steady state;
The smoke is scrubbed by the water spray and the lager smoke particles are removed, creating a more tenable temperature;
The production of toxic fire effluent is reduced;
The smoke is cooled reducing buoyancy and smoke travel;
The fire will not spread from the room of origin;
Evacuation from the room of origin only may be neccessary and
Wall wetting will prevent flash over.

From these benefits many possibilities arise for discussion. The following case histories look at the use of these benefits to provide a risk appropriate solusion that has been difficult to produce using traditional approaches. At the same time it has on most cases been extremely cost effective.

Case 2

A local charity purchased a farmhouse type building to run it as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to house young females who had suffered abuse.

As an HMO it came under Housing Act. The Fire Service were consulted wen Environmental Health prop dosed to serve a notice to correct inadequate means of escape. The problem with the means of escape revolved around having to pass through the head of an accommodation stairway to reach an alternative exit. This meant that if a fire started on ground floor, the heat and smoke would rise up the stairway and prevent anyone passing the head to get to the exit. This would leave people trapped in dead and situation. The obvious solution to the problem was to enclose the head of the stair in fire resisting construction and thereby create a bypass, allowing travel to the alternative exit in fresh air.

The proposal enclose the head of the stair met with a great deal of resistance from the charity, witch was surprising, until it was explained that the residents were young girls who suffered abuse at home, and an essential feature of the accommodation was an open aspect. The dark area and narrow corridor that would have been created would have been a no-go area for the girls and caused them apprehension.

A meeting with the charity directors revealed their concerns and emphasised that they wanted the fire precautions to last as long as possible because it is the charity never to ask anyone to leave. If the girls wish to stay for the rest of their live they are free to do so and it was hoped to ensure they were as safe as possible for as long as posible.

It was suggested that if a residential sprinkler system were fitted, any fire on the ground floor would be suppressed sufficiently to prevent heat and smoke rising up the stair. This would therefore negate the need to enclose the head and maintain the open aspect. The system would be guaranteed for 30 years and its life expectancy estimated to be in excess of 50 years.

The charity was delighted to overcome the problems with one solution and was able to report to their benefactors that they had provided the highest avaible level of fire safety in an extremly cost effective way. What seemed to be an insignificant problem caused great difficulties.

After having the system for 12 months the charity found that all claims were true and were so pleased that they have had a similar home for young men retro-fitted with residential sprinkler-system.

Keeping firefighters from the door for as little as £2500 ex.VAT

Although most fire death and injuries occur in the home, people who live in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are more likely to be involved in fire and show correspondigly higher death and injury rate from fire compared to those who live in other types of residential premises.

Sprinkler systems are designed to raise the alarm in the event of a fire, alert occupants of the premises and to control the spread and escalation of the fire to give additional time for evacuation. This additional time is seen as crucial for some occupants of residential premises, especially for those whose spreed of response is intrinsically difficult because of age, whether young or old, as well as those individuals who are physically and mentally disadvantaged.

To determine whether retro-fitting sprinklers in high-risk HMOs is an investment that is worth makeing for the benefit of community as a whole, a number of factors must be considered to produce final costings that can be used to calculate the cost benefit ratio.

To calculate the total cost of fires it is necessary to include the direct property loss cost. The overall cost of fires in 1993 in England and Wales was estimated of £285 milion of domestic property fires, which equates to £335 milion at 1999 prices. During 1999, there were a total of 60,725 dwelling fires in Englans and Wales of which an estimated 23,674 where in HMOs in England.

Fires, of course, would not be prevented but with sprinkler protection the direct damage would be reduced. The represents the potential overall saving if sprinkler systems were installed.

4.1m people lived in rented accommodation in England with around 1.5m in HMOs. The Residential Sprinkler Association has estimated that the average cost of retrofitting domestic sprinklers is about £1.50 per sqft. This assumes that domestic sprinkler systems are fitted in accordance with DD251. Furthermore, in addition to looking at how much can be saved monetarily, the number of lives saved and injuries prevented should also be considered. If sprinklers save, on average 82% of fire deaths and injuries, this would not suffer serious injury.

The cases where taken from the fire service magazine (www.firemagazine.com)

CASE STUDY - Friars Court, Glasgow

City councils are often faced with difficult situations. This was undoubtedly the case when a city council had a duty to house a person who was well known as a fire setter. The housing department found a suitable one bedroom flat. However, faced with difficulty of knowing they were re housing an arsonist, they were of course concetrated both for his own well being and others in the complex. The answer was to install a domestic sprinkler installation.

Burned flat.

A few days after being re-housed this known fire setter struck again. Fortunately, the residential sprinkler heads retracted immediately, extinguishing the fire and limiting the damage to one curtain and some superficial scorching of the ceiling. Undoubtedly, the sprinkler installation saved the flat from a total burn out and ensured the safety of nearby tenants. Proof indeed that sprinkler systems can protect both life and property!

Facts about Fire Sprinklers:

Sprinkler heads can be completely concealed
Sprinkler systems do not need pumps or tanks if mains pressure is adequate
Sprinklered buildings prevent fire fighter deaths
Sprinklers do not 'false alarm' they will only operate if there is an actual fire
No one in the UK has ever died as a result of a fire in a building with a working sprinkler system
US experience shows than 98% of all fires in sprinklered dwellings are extinguished with only one sprinkler head operating
Only the sprinkler heads in the immediate vicinty of fire actually operate
For a small additional cost on alarm switch can be built-in to the system to call the fire brigade automatically should the sprinklers operate
Maintenance costs of sprinklers are very low - amounting at most to £150 a year
Finally, despite preconceptions, sprinklers are not difficult, unsightly or expensive to install in homes. The cost of protection most homes is between 1% to 3% for a new build, with a system life expectance of more than 30 years this works out at about 70p a day. Amazingly cheap for a system witch could safe your family's lifes!