Why no fire sprinklers ?

[Ted Wright]

Why is it the case that as an industry we concentrate so much on smoke extraction in large buildings when really all building over a specific sizes say 10,000 sqr feet should be fire sprinkler protected.

The americans protect all their building with sprinklers ! It saves thousands of lives and yet at home large distribution centres are not forced to have them. The fire offices force smoke extraction units on us and yet these are only needed in case of a major fire. Sprinklers should if designed correctly be the prevention. Prevention in the case that the fire is contained and doesn't spread.

People who install sprinklers in buildings have reduced insurance, if only by a few percent if must be an incentive.

Why are fire sprinkler systems always looked on as the poor cousin ?

[kurnal]

Let us hope that the recent tragic events in Warwickshire will give new impetus to  the installation of sprinklers. In a number of local authority areas sprinklers and/or ventilation are mandatory in all storage buildings over 7000m2 but these are fairly few and far between, the  intention of the local acts being to eliminate the risk of flashover.

The new ADB Published in April as you know made the maximum compartment size for storage buildings 20000 m2. But sprinklers are also a bit of a management problem too. In so many sprinklered buildings the management do not have the necessary expertise/ committment to keep the fire loading in accordance with the sprinkler performance. I make much of my living by monitoring/nagging at several regular customers over this.

I think the Industry has a few issues that make life difficult too. The retail industry is wholly dependent on plastic totes but some of the rules for using these are very draconian. I had one insurance company who required a warehouse of car exhaust systems install foam induction because they kept all the nuts bolts and steel brackets in plastic bins. Whilst I could persuade some clients to go with roof sprinklers, many are very worried about in racjk sprinklers and the water supply demands and narrow parameters for ESFR make these prohibitive except in new build.

[Ted Wright]

I take your point on ESFR and Control Mode Sprinkler protection, the issues is and will always be the case the BRE have failed to do actual test on ESFR and in my view proper tests on Control Mode.

Categorisation of goods is what is breaking clients hearts. An increase in categorisation can cause a large design upgrade. However clever design by sprinkler companies can eliminate a huge amount of expense on customer but there is a failure in the industry to have "interested" rather than money driven designers.

Three clients of mine have had fire within their premises in 2006. They were back in business within a week. Nobody injured, and the fire was in control before fire attendants arrived. It really has proven to me that sprinkler protection is the way forward.

In terms of servicing and testing, client of mine have indicated that the rebate on their insurance more than covers their maintenance costs.

I really really feel the BS5306 and EN12845 standards really do not help the industry.
FM Globals attitude to compromise, testing and certification is way ahead. When an FM system is designed cost and client are taken into consideration, LPC (BRE) only care about rule and specifications. Insurance companies and inspectors only think of the bottom line. I have worked with FM and they listen to your case and talk. They are definite in their thinking and they have tests to prove. This is the model that should be looked at.

I have not read the ADB ?? Or heard of it, I do not think it applies in Ireland.

[kurnal]

Sorry tedward28 I had not noticed your location. No Approved Document B only applies to England, Wales and I think Northern Ireland?

[Chris Houston]

The insurance discount could be as much as 65%

America is keener on sprinklers due to some incidents in America where life was lost and the legislation that followed these losses.

We don't tend to legislate for this because UK legislation is primarily based with the life safety of the occupants and generally the occupants do not die in industrial fires (I note the tragic circumstances of the recent fire).

Can you please expand upon your comment "Insurance companies and inspectors only think of the bottom line." I'm not sure what you mean, or even if this is a criticism of insurance companies/inspectors.

[John Webb]

I quite agree with you about sprinklers being effective - in some of the particular tests I ran at BRE I saw fires of 5MW+ being controlled in a couple of minutes by 4 heads running at the design flowrate, and the final extinguishment by the fire service using less than 400 litres from the appliance tank. I've also visited some industrial fires where sprinklers were very effective and others where they were not installed. Guess who was still in business!

Prior to privatisation in 1997 (which is when I left) BRE had done much work on both sprinklers and smoke venting, not only for shopping malls and other atria, but also in connection with warehouses (tests run in Ghent) and interaction of sprinklers with smoke vents. Also work on sprinklers for life safety particularly in department stores and the like.
We didn't do work on ESFR in my time because nobody asked us to or was willing to pay us to do so, including the government of the day. LPC ran some large-scale tests in our facility at Cardington (LPC and BRE only joined up about 2001) on sprinklered stacks but I do not know if these tests included ESFR.

I also have observed plastic tote-bins alight and then sprinklered quite successfully - the plastic is quickly put out by sprinkler spray and rapidly solidifies when dampened. I, like kurnal, do not understand why some people seem to think foam is necessary in such circumstances.

[wee brian]

America is keener on sprinklers because their code writers all work for sprinkler companies.

The Us has a worse record on fire safety than the UK, dont fall in with all this guff.

Sprinklers are a highly effective measure, but law makers have a duty to impose only those rules that add up.

The Insurance discounts can be high but often they arent. Lots of business do install them because they make good business sense.
In most buildings you should be well away from the hazard before they operate.

[Chris Houston]

law makers have a duty to impose only those rules that add up.

That's a great concept, but the reality is that we have many laws that don't/

In most buildings you should be well away from the hazard before they operate.

Agreed, with regards to the occupants.  Of course fire fighters might have to get closer.  And of course, there are plenty other good reasons to install sprinklers other than life safety of the occupants.

If your insurer doesn't offer a good saving for the provision of sprinklers, it might be time to shop around.