Ancient History- spec of sprinkler systems fitted in old cotton mills

[kurnal]

If a cotton mill - say built 100 years ago- was originally fitted with sprinklers, has anybody any idea as to the performance compared to modern systems? Anyone got access to very early copies of the FOC rules please?

[John Webb]

The first patent for an automatic sprinkler system in the UK was filed in 1852 by a William MacBay, curiously from my old home town of Woolwich! This had pipes fitted with small nozzles sealed with gutta percha, lead or other low-melting point metal.
First British automatic sprinkler patented 1864 but no record of it being used.
Parmelee et al in the USA developed systems in the 1870s and were first used in the UK in Edinburgh in 1879.
First FOC Rules 1889, written by one John Wormald.
Grinnell glass valve sprinkler developed 1890 (still used a fusible link as the detecting element).
Glass bulb as the operating link around 1920.
First BSI Code of Practice 1952.
BS 5306 Part 2 first published 1979
BS 5306 Pt 2 1990 includes much material from the FOC Rules + Insurers' extra requirements in LPC Technical Bulletins.

I would suggest you contact LPCB via www.redbooklive.com now they are part of BRE at Garston. I'm sure they, or FPA or the FSC Library probably have all editions of the FOC rules.

The sprinker heads in any installation should be relatively recent, whatever the age of the pipework,  as the heads are supposed to be renewed from time to time - I don't have access these days to a copy of either the BS or LPC TBs so I cannot be specific on this.

[AnthonyB]

To be honest the standard sprinkler head and valve in wet system applications like in mills is little changed since then - advances such as fast response heads exist, but the traditional system technology seems unchanged.

I don't have detailed codes from the old days, but do have manufacturer's literature from the 20's & 60's which is almost identical.

As long as everything is serviced, heads unpainted and degreased/fluffed and perishable parts removed it should be the same in theory & would like to know if there are any major differences.

Rusty pipes might be an issue affecting flow?

[John Webb]

Anthony's comments re rusty sprinkler pipes is pertinant, but more likely I think to be external corrosion and potential leaks therefrom rather than major reduction in flow. Hard water may leave deposits behind which could hinder flow, perhaps?

Modern sprinkler heads might perhaps have more even water distribution and be less likely to malfunction?

[wee brian]

Old sprinkler heads can be a bit unreliable too. The struts can weld themselves together and the bulbs go hard.

[kurnal]

I know the feeling Wee B.
Thanks for your replies so far.
The reason for the question is I have done a risk assessment in some historic cotton mills- 6 storey 120m x 60m  which have been brought into use as warehousing. The sprinklers are still maintained and some floors have new range pipes and heads, others have modernish heads on old pipework.
Now you would have thought that the installers who modernised the system would have done some engineering calcs wouldn't you but there are no records at all.
The systems have been connected to the pumphouse of a purpose built high bay unit so the pumps output is known, but the old pipework is as small as 1 inch towards the tail ends. Not even the insurance company  seem to be interested in  what the performance of the system is likely to be and whether the fire loading is appropriate.

Clearly the first finding of the risk assessment is recommend that they commission a survey of the systems to assess their likely potential, but there is so much else hanging on it, eg extended travel distances, unprotected glazing on  external escape routes that I was hoping to give some indicative guidance on the implications.

So I was hoping someone may know what the standard approach was- whether 100 years ago- it looks that old- they would have worked to the OH1,2,3, high hazard etc  classifications and discharge densities or some other standards.

[AnthonyB]

I'll dig into my archives and see if they classify the systems in any recognised way in the literature, may be a few days though

[patrickhamblin]

Old systems, by which I mean those before the '29th Edition' came into force in 1968, are in my opinion always suspect from a fire protection perspective. The design requirements only took into account the need for certain pressure at the highest sprinkler and ignored flow, so the actual quantity of water out of a head or array of heads was not stated or calculated. In 1968 the UK Sprinkler Rules changed to take into account the various types of commodity being protected, with both flow and pressure being taken into account. The latest Rules are the LPC Rules for Automatic Sprinkler Installations, incorporating BS EN 12845. Under these Rules, the type of commodity (e.g. plastic goods or metal goods) and method of storage (e.g. freestanding or rack) are taken into account when considering flow and pressure requirements.
There would be a need in the location in question for a hydraulic analysis to be carried out by a competent person. This would take into account water supplies, hydraulics (pipe sizes and lengths, bends, deterioration due to age with calcium carbonate, etc, etc) and would demonstrate the actual density available. This could be comapred to that required under present day Sprinkler Rules.
Patrick Hamblin.

[kurnal]

Thanks to you all for your useful advice and for the email Patrick.

[AnthonyB]

Just for those interested, digging out a very old 'Hoffmann' sprinkler catalogue (has steam pumps in it!), systems were mostly designed to the FOC rules (all editions & there has been many) & prior to that the only standard available was the rules of the Associated Fire Insurance Companies of America.

As Patrick says the requirements were rudimentary & the hoffman guide refers to very few requirements, simply all heads should be 8' to 10' apart, ideally have two supplies and be able to maintain a particular pressure.

A Mather & Platt Guide from the late 60's does mention the more recognised classifications.

[kurnal]

Thanks Anthony.

My solution in this case is to recommend a hydraulic aassessment of the system as a first priorty, but in all other respects to carry out the assessment as I would if the sprinklers were not there.

Were the steam pumps provided with dedicated boilers or fed from the factory boilers?

[John Webb]

kurnal,
From visiting a few preserved mills now museums, the steam pumps were usually sited in a separate small pumphouse adjacent to the mill-pond. Steam was fed from the boiler(s) used to supply the mill engine. The boilerhouse was sometimes part of the engine house and sometimes a separate building but close to the engine-house. The latter was part of the main mill building because of the rope drives to the line-shafting driving the machinery on various floors of the mill.

[kurnal]

Hi John
Yes that sounds like the original system installed in this case- I have a photo of the engine rooms that drove the shafts throughout the mill, and the power transmitted through a central shaft running up through all floors of the mill, the most imaginative use is now being made of this shaft for a vertical interchange of multiple conveyor systems for the distribution centre.

The engine rooms were fully tiled and complete with elegant and ornate  internal lampstandards that would have looked at home on the champs elysee  (Pardon spelling) and everything was spotless- makes our hospitals look shabby.

Its a fantastic modern use of an historic building and really what conservation is all about, I just wish they had updated the sprinkler valves and pipework when connecting to the new pump house that has oodles of water potentially squeezing though undersize old pipes.

[AnthonyB]

Sprinkler booster pumps were sold by Hoffmann as a complete dedicated set, boilers and all, as an alternative to pumps fuelled by petrol or electricity which they also offered.