Can I just pipe off the domestic water supply with copper and thread heads for each room about a foot from the ceiling in the wall? Basement is open now and I’d like to add sprinklers by going up through the interior walls. It’s not required in my town, but i haven’t checked re: any requirements for residential installations.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The RealTruck AMP Research Bedsteps give you easy access to your truck-bed storage.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Rich,
It's a little more complicated than just putting up some heads. Flow rate, spaceing, interference zones ect.
Get the NFPA book for more than you want to know.
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?category%5Fname=&pid=13D02&target%5Fpid=13D02&src%5Fpid=&link%5Ftype=search
KK
I couldn't get that link to work.
justin,Google on NFPA 13. Lots of hits.KK
You probably need a larger water meter and service line to the house. Down here it is common to have two water meters: one for the domestic water, and one for lawn irrigation. We don't get charged for the sewer surcharge on the irrigation water. Anyway, maybe you could install a second meter just for the fire sprinkler.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
if it never goes off why does he need another meter. I myself though about running a 3/4 inch line off the main. any type of system is better than none, remember his city does not require it.
You're right on the infrequent use. But I was thinking about getting more water into the house.
If's he's going to do it right, he needs to do a lot of research and/or get an engineer involved. On the other hand, as long as the heads go off at the right temp, it will be far better than nothing.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
I'm not sure, but I believe, for single family residential the system only needs to be designed to run 2 sprinkler heads at the same time. You should check on this though. In commercial applications I think that the design has to be capable of running all of the sprinklers at the same time, thus enormous feeder pipes. I've been adding sprinklers in my house and have designed it to be able to run all of the heads in any one room simultaneously, the biggest room has 5 heads. The purpose of sprinklers is to put out a fire while it is small, in one room before it spreads to other rooms. This would usually mean that only one or 2 would ever run. So, you shouldn't need a huge water supply for a simple home system. I would recommend running separate plumbing with a separate shutoff for the system and then join it with the water main near where it comes into the house. Also it would be wise to install a flow switch in the line to trigger an alarm should a sprinker activate. Just running several short branches off of your existing pipes would not allow a way to shut them off separately from your household water or have a flow alarm.
Um, I kinda hate to say it , but sprinklers are not always so great. One of the prime purposes of sprinklers is to protect people, not structures. Yes , I know I'll catch a lot of flack for that statement.
A sprinkler head going off can cause a tremendous amount of water damage that may or may not be covered by your insurance. I am not aware of any deaths directly caused by a fire in a sprinklered building, but am aware of millions of dollars of water damage.
So think about what your goals are...
When I first read the question I had the thouyght ... do you notify your insurance company and ask for a discouint? What if thay ask for copies of the design calcs or the permit? Or what if they deny coverage for water damage?
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
You are right about lifesaving vs. property saving. I don't think that you are taking into account the whole picture as far as damage though. A house that has sprinkers, in which a fire occurrs, will suffer some water damage, from the one or two heads that activate. But this is not even close to the kind of damage that the fire department will cause getting the much larger fire out. They will use enormous amounts of water. I'm a paramedic in our city fire deparment, and get to see enough to know sprinklers are worth the small risk of accidental damage that they pose. I've seen lots of fire ruined houses that either are a total loss or nearly so due to how fast a fire spreads. I've also had to treat several severely burned people, as well as seen a few fire related deaths. I'm in an area where residential sprinklers are rare, but most of the commercial buildings have them. I don't recall seeing any failed heads causing damage, although I have heard of it. I think it usually is due to freezing temperatures in a wet system though. Anyway, the insurance companies probably have the best statistics, and I think some offer discounts on homes with a working sprinkler system.
In my two year stint as a "fire protection engineer" (my job title), the only discharges from heads that was not the result of fire was from someone accidentally hitting the head and either knocking it off or breaking the release mechanism. All of the accidental discharges I saw were from forklifts in warehouses.
Well all the sprinkys I work with have the sticker on their hard hat "Lawn sprinklers save your grass Fire sprinklers save your a**"
& so true on the water damage.
& now to RICH a 1" water service will usually do in residential.
Yes you can tee off your plumbing if ALL the materials you are using ARE APPROVED for potable water.
I have to add I don't know your local codes & they can vary from the UPC & the UMC
The NFPA is pretty consistant but again local codes vary.
Yes you can tee off your plumbing if ALL the materials you are using ARE APPROVED for potable water
I was required to put in a double check valve (soft disk) on my 1" wet system. I was also required to place my main shut off before the tee to the domestic water supply.
The placement of the shut off means that the domestic water has to remain shut off untill any repairs in the sprinkler system are made. Means I can't iosolate the system and get around to the fix at some later time, thus leaving my building unprotected.
I either fix it, or go poop in the woods :)
As you said, differnt local codes apply.
All of the commercial building I work in are required to have locks on the sprinkler main valves. They are required to be locked open. The systems may have osolation valves for various areas, and they to are locked open.
Dave
Yeah on all my commercial jobs the FP goes through a double check with alarmed valves.
& on all the houses I plumbed with FP in them they were separate systems I provided the double check & the sprinkys ran the FP system.
But I did get called out to a 4 story condo by our sprinkys to fix some lines that were leaking. I thought the only reason they were calling me was the FP system was copper & they don't know how to solder worth crap. LOL
But to my surprise they couldn't find the shut off & after some pokin around we realized that it was part of the plumbing. I called the inspector who just happened to be my code instructor when I was an apprentice. He knew of the building & there is nothing in the UPC that prohibits this. It was an engineered system.
I have never seen one before or after that. But talked with some of my co-workers they have seen a few but pretty rare.
The guy that designed my system was a part owner of a sprinkler company. He even had the design stamped for me, so when the plumbing inspector raised an eyebrow, all I had to do was hand him the prints. Sure made it easier for both of us I am sure.
The one thing that no one has mentioned in a wet system is the top end vent. An air locked head can take a while to bleed off trapped air if it is activated. Long enough for a small fire to get big. A high vent lets the whole system become wet by bleeding the air out of the pipe as the system is charged. Best if they are placed so that the blow out doesn't hit anything. That is some nasty poop that comes out of sprinkler pipes, either steel or copper.
FWIW most state insurance regulatory departments can tell you if residential sprinkler system are covered by companies operating in their state. Some even require premium discounts for minimum residential system. I believe Indian is one state that does.
Dave
When I was building my home I asked my insurance agent about discounts for sprinkler systems. I was told there is no discount and damage from a sprinkler system could exceed fire damage. I have plenty of exits and no sprinklers.
Re: "I asked my insurance agent about discounts for sprinkler systems. I was told there is no discount and damage from a sprinkler system could exceed fire damage."From the couple of industrial plant and two residential sprinkler installations most have simply dropped their fire coverage. Simply put it wasn't seen as being needed. In at least one case the actual damage, an industrial site, the damage caused by a fire in a storage room was below what the deductible on their fire insurance was.In a residential setting a similar dynamic would apply. The danger of water damage is wildly overblown. Sprinklers heads, contrary to what is shown in the movies and TV, don't all go off at once and the actual water flow is not much more than a restricted flow shower head. It breaks down something like this:
If people are around the sprinkler activation triggers a fire alarm. People get out and call the FD. The FD, once the fire is out, turns of the water works. If no one is present the sprinkler runs. OK a couple of hours of 16 gallons per minute is 1920 gallons. Given a 2000 square-foot home that is less than one gallon per square-foot. The floor, assuming all one level and no leaks to drain it away, I have never seen a floor plane which was water tight but it might happen, slightly more than 1.5" deep. A pretty big mess but not a disaster. This assumes it takes two hours for someone to check for fire and shut off the water. An alarm system that alerts the FD when the sprinkler goes off would be assumed to get the FD, or someone else, there at least a bit faster. Figure it takes half an hour and your down to 480 gallons and little more than 3/8" of standing water.On the up side this is chlorinated potable water not the much seen flooring homes in NOLA. Still there is chances of mold, the carpets are either shot or in need of a lot of work and the bottom of the drywall will likely need to be replaced. Still a mess but not a disaster.On the other hand figure what would happen if a fire started and burned for two hours. Smoke damage alone wouldn't be limited to the floor and the bottom few feet. And if the FD arrives there is going to be water damage, not to mention their enthusiastic use of axes and other implements of destruction. Take it from me firemen are not known for their restrained use sharp implements or water. Sprinklers typically use less water, 13 to 18 gallons per minute versus 250 per minute with a fire hose, because it is only used where there is fire, unlike firemen who soak virtually everything, and sprinklers don't tear out walls, ceilings and roofs.Some of the claims that the "damage from a sprinkler system could exceed fire damage." overlook the obvious. Of course the sprinkler damage exceeded the fire damage. The fire was suppressed, not uncommonly extinguished, by the sprinklers. Would you rather have to clean up after a tiny fire that was quickly suppressed and some water damage or no water damage but the house burned to the foundation.Simply put "Property losses are 85% less in residences with fire sprinklers compared to those without sprinklers.The combination of automatic sprinklers and early warning systems in all buildings and residences could reduce overall injuries, loss of life and property damage by at least 50%."From: http://www.sprinklernet.org/sprinklerinfo/
4Lorn1,Your analysis makes sense to me, but the actuaries at the insurance companies don't seem to agree. I asked if their was a discount for sprinkler systems and was also told no.
Edited 10/12/2005 8:01 pm ET by Ken
I'd check with the actual insurance company. IIRC, I get a 10% or better discount at Chubb for having a professionally-installed fire sprinkler system. The discount basically pays for the annual maintenance.For me, the biggest factor though is sleeping well at night, knowing that everyone should be able to get out of the house alive if a fire were to break out. I too prefer fires that are out before the fire department arrives.
I had checked with the insurance company directly, no luck.I like the logic of having them, was just surprised that my company didn't offer a discount.
After losing a home to flooding and seeing the damage water causes I am a bit wary of any accidental water escapes. I was lucky to pull into my basement last week and discover water escaping from the t&p valve on the water tank. It was only a few hundred gallons in a walkout basement. I will probably get a water sensor and autodialer in the event of another leak.
Most every room in my home exits to grade so I don't worry too much about getting out quickly in an emergency. I did consider putting in a residential sprinkler system but felt I needed a financial incentive from my insurance carrier, which they were not offering.
An often-quoted statistic from the sprinkler business is that accidental discharges are 1:16MM. That's good enough for me. Besides, since the system is tied into the alarm and is triggered by a flow switch, I'll hear about a discharge in very, very short order. Ditto for the water sensors in the basement. I wanted actual drains down there but it wasn't until after the foundation was poured that I found a product that obviated the need for a trap primer. Oh well.
There's been a feww comments about the care firefighters use on a burning house. I've fixed up a few burn-outs, all of these homes were declared uninhabitable by the fire marshall. The water damage was minimal. The worst needed three weeks of dessicant dehumidifyers flattening out the flooring.
I don't know about a rural, volunteer fire department, but a professional, city fireman uses just enough water to put the blaze out. Hell, they don't even use an axe on the front door.
You must have those quiche eating, stiff pinky fingered, tea sipping firemen who 'share their feelings' and have a group hug after every event. The firemen around here are enthusiastic southern boys that typically get off on muscular manipulations of tools. They like to see things move. Pounding, chopping and kicking apart anything and everything around the fire is par. And they like water, lots of water. We have more muscular and enthusiastic sorts. These guys are to fires what 'Tool Time' is to construction. Once they are on the job the fire doesn't have a chance. Anything that gets in the way is also at risk. Chainsaws, haligan tools, axes, and pike poles are kept sharp and well used.
We had one around here who was starting fires. Several who were driving the fire truck drunk.--------------
No electrons were harmed in the making of this post.
When I was designing sprinkler systems it was for the largest U.S. industrial and commercial fire insurance company at the time. The stance of the company was basically that no sprinklers, no coverage. Not completely true because other types of fire suppression was required for large electronics installations, flammable liquids, and other chemicals that were not water friendly. The insurance coverage was usually for all risks and probably included loss of business coverage. All warehouses and factories I visited had sprinklers. There was no question in this type of coverage that the risk of water damage was far outweighed by the risk of fire. Of course, the fire suppression systems were professionally engineered, installed (mostly by Grinnell), and maintained and tested by the insurance company on a periodic basis. I definitely plan on having sprinklers in the house that I hope to build in the next couple of years even though I plan on using the most fire resistant building techquies that are feasible.
Re:"We had one around here who was starting fires."Every profession has its dark side.Firemen are the flip side of pyromania. Police tend to be bullies, control freaks and wanna be heroes, the last part they share with firemen. Most have criminal tendencies and the police culture has marked similarities to gang life, right down to street slang and tattoos in many areas. They are the flip side of criminality.Everyone tends to be drawn into areas they have issues in. Psychologists tend to have mental issues and/or histories of mental trauma. For some reason painters tend to be addicts in some way or another. Something about quick easy solutions that cover deeper problems.Given enough stress, and opportunity, the coin can flip. Firemen setting fires, police breaking the laws they are sworn to uphold.
One of the neighboring cities here had a chief arson investigator who was famous nationwide in that field, and it turned out that he was setting fires. Took a long time to finally catch him.
As for painters, mebbe it's the fumes. I know I sure got to like working with shellac. ;-) But that was the old days, latex took all the fun out of painting. ;-)
-- J.S.
couple of quick comments -
no reason to use an ax if the door opens (aka - try before you pry), if the door isn't open, time to grab a haligan
you only use enough water to put out the fire because...... you PUT OUT THE FIRE (charged line weighs close to 100lbs. and is usually running at 150 psi at the pump and 100 psi at the tip - gear adds at least another 70-100 lbs - let's get this done and be done)
guys getting off on doing the El Destructo thing probably don't have to pack up and go off to another one
guys starting fires are usually volunteers who either want to be heros (that's the main way they get caught - first on scene at fire when they really should be "someplace" else) or haven't done many fires (regardless of "Backdraft"......standing up with a kid in a fully involved room, no pack, coat open......)
Most of the time in real rural communities like mine (volunteers) the fire is fully engulfed by the time they get there. When I moved to town and met the building inspector, he said the fire trucks had bumper stickers that read WE'VE NEVER LOST A FOUNDATION YET. <!----><!---->
<!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!---->
> .... water escaping from the t&p valve ....
Could you plumb from the T&P to a point outside the house? That's required by code here in LA. Usually done with 3/4" type M copper. The outlet pipe has to be vertical, aimed downward, and end within 6" of grade.
-- J.S.
John That can cause another problem in areas that freeze.T&P valves are well know for small leakages. Easy for for the droplets to freeze up and form a solid block that then seals the end of the pipe.
It is a long run to plumb it to the exterior. I could plumb it to a bucket with a small pump in it if I had to.
The old t&p valve had a 100# release pressure, and it did not reseat after releasing. The new valve is rated for 150# which is what I thought the old one would have been rated for. I hope the problem is solved, our water pressure can vary quite a bit as we are 125' above the water main and 650' away. When the town flushes the mains and I know about it, I will shut my water off at the curb so all the water does not get sucked out of our pipes.
Re: ..."the actuaries at the insurance companies don't seem to agree."Insurance is a business. Profit is the motive. Selling tales of protection from hard realities while exaggerating the threat, in the name of higher profits, is their method. Insurance companies profit by people not installing sprinklers. Fires are so costly, compelling and traumatic that it spurs high premiums. Sprinklers largely eliminate this need and rob the insurance company of the irrational and emotional aspect. Few other threats offer this sort of emotional impact.Insurance is often good, spreading risk and diffusing losses, but there is always the smell of a scam. Too often the cost of premiums over time far exceed the cost of any loss. If this were not true the insurance companies would not be making money. So far they are one of the most profitable sectors in the business economy.Insurance buyers deal in fear, the policy acting as an emotional sop and security blanket, while insurance sellers deal in statistics, insuring high profits after paying off losses and business expenses. So it goes.In this context install the sprinklers and tell the fire insurance sellers to get bent. Interestingly enough one business buys short term fire insurance coverage for when the sprinklers are being upgraded or repaired. Likely if you go for a water damage policy the cost will be less than the fire insurance premiums.
lots of questions, answers and info here - figured I'd join in and try and clear up some things - note, some things.....NFPA 13 is the standard for installation of sprinkler systems, within NFPA 13 is 13R and 13 D - one is for one & two family homes, the other for residential building up to 4 stories (since I'm at work, I don't have the standard here and I always forget which is which - that's why I have the books) Sprinkler systems are designed for single source ordinary fires - in other words, one fire that started under normal conditions (not arson, no accelerants - like the foam at the Station nightclub fire and most other interior finish materials present in the large fatality fires)Sprinkler systems are designed to control fires in the incipient (beginning) stages and typically use one to three heads - the system may put out the fire, but that's usually done by the responding fire companies.Firefighters do cause a fair amount of damage as part of the job, however, that part of the job is known as checking for extension (nothing worse than a "re-kindle", particularly if the working group has been relieved and the incoming group has to go back and put out "their" fire) - with the invention of thermal imaging cameras, much less damage during overhaulthe comments about the smoke detectors and keeping the house 'clean" is good advice - to add to that, replace any device that's 10 years old or more, check the device once a month, change the battery at least once a year, and (here's the part most people don't know/do), practice what to do if there's a fire in the house - "fall and crawl" out of the house, go to the "family meeting place", use either a cell phone or neighbor's phone to call 911 and notify the local fire department - also, keep a flashlight on the floor next to the bed - you want to be able to see at night and you really, really don't want to stand up into the "super-heated toxic gases and products of combustion" (that's what usually kills people - not the actual fire)domestic sprinkler systems can be run off the domestic water supply but there needs to be some kind of diverter so the sprinkler system get water/pressure first (be pretty sad if flushing the toilet took "priority" over the sprinkler systemif you're going to install a "home/residential" system, you need quick response heads (there's another name for them, but you get the idea)okay - that's it for now - this is way more than I usually post and I know I didn't get to all the things in the other postings but.......
Here's an interesting -- though expensive -- technology. It turns out that with high pressure (like thousands of PSI) you can get water into tiny droplets, which work much better than the bigger drops from a conventional system. So, this can put out fires with much less water damage. It's a substitute for banned substances like Halon.
http://www.hi-fog.com/en/fireprotection/index.htm
-- J.S.
> Insurance is a business. Profit is the motive.
Another factor in the thinking of insurance companies relative to residential sprinkler systems is simply that there are so few of them that it's not worth the effort to figure out how much they help in reducing losses. It would be a niche kind of policy. Perhaps some day one company will decide to start doing business in that niche.
-- J.S.
You make a very good point. I didn't mean to make insurance companies, as a whole, look mean spirited or excessively manipulative. Not to say that some are not but most are simply interested in standard situations and standard policies. Having to spend time money and expertise to figure out the actual risk and exposure that would be taking on in any particular sprinkler installation is not high up on their priority list. Considering they are making lucrative profits with their present methodology and market footing they have little motivation to change to accommodate the odd customer who wishes to buck the trend. Even if it might be better for the customer, saving both property and lives, if they did. Sometimes insurance companies don't make it easy to do the right thing.
Actually, the way it works is this: They're paid to accept risk. But an unknown risk ("known unknown" in Rummyspeak) is a greater risk than a known risk. They're not dodging you, really, but are simply staying out of a piece of the market that isn't their specialty -- that they haven't invested in learning.There are other companies who specialize in these riskier, less well understood risks, but you'd have to pay them a significant premium to do their underwriter evaluation, and it simply isn't worth it for a home policy.Insurance in general is actually a fairly competitive business, and if there is any sizeable market that is underserved, and no major regulatory barriers to entry, competition will do a pretty good job of controlling rates. But just like a one-off window or piece of cabinetry, smaller markets will see higher rates.
--------------
No electrons were harmed in the making of this post.
Actually, home fires are much rarer than most people think. A lot of other hazards (storm damage, robbery, water pipes bursting, etc) are usually more likely. (They just don't get as much press as a good photogenic home fire.)The problem with sprinkler water damage isn't if a fire occurs, it's if a fire doesn't occur, but something sets off the sprinkler, or a pipe bursts. By some accounts this is more likely than a fire.I think it's better to just double up on good quality smoke detectors (with both ionizing and PE detectors), plus eliminate clear "flash fire" hazards (such as the foam that caused that bad club fire out east a few years back) and make sure that required firewalls are intact. This assures that your family will be able to get out of the house in time. The house can be repaired/replaced.
--------------
No electrons were harmed in the making of this post.
as far as tapping into your incoming service line, you can do it IF there is only one valve (ball valve only in calif.) in other words if you shut off the sprinklers you also shut off your house water. no separate valve for sprinklers.
had sprinklers in my old home (required) the word i got from the fire inspector AND the installer were "sprinklers are designed to help get you out alive in the event of fire by HOPEFULLY keeping a wet path in whatever room the fire is in at the time" i called my insurance guy thinking i was gonna get a nice discount...no way! in fact he said he didn't realize that my home was in that sprinkler "zone" at first and now he had to RAISE my rates by $250.00 per year (water damage). went to a couple other ins. companies but it didn't make a difference. but if i capped off the sprinklers or valved them or anything that would impede water flow. my policy would be null and void in the event there was a fire.
good luck,
fm2
"the large print givith, and the small print taketh away" Tom Waits
"those with accurate observation are often called a cynic by those who have not got it" george bernard shaw
Rich,
Something to think about. . . .
Water sitting in a dead end Tee for ten or more years can grow some nasty bacteria. Since this is directly connected to your potable water. . .
If you design it so that all sprinkler pipes feed a faucet somewhere, the water in those pipes will be refreshed each time the faucet is used.
Even if the runs are in parallel, water will still flow thru all pipes as long as both ends of the pipes are connected together.
SamT
Water sitting in a dead end Tee for ten or more years can grow some nasty bacteria. Since this is directly connected to your potable water. . .
That's why my City jurisdictions require a separate fire main connection with a backflow preventer. They also mandate that the system be drained once a year--but there's no uniform way to enforce that.
If you design it so that all sprinkler pipes feed a faucet somewhere, the water in those pipes will be refreshed each time the faucet is used.
That would be an illegal fire system tap for me (no matter how logical). Now, some of that "illegality" is in that the City gives a fire main tap (at least to commercial customers) for only the cost of the tap--no meter. Putting a hose bib, or the landscape system, on there would create situation where they'd want to bill for used water. Could be tricky.
Did we ask OP if he's on muni water? If he's on a well (hmm, even a "town" well system) he may need more capacity than is there. IIRC, a small f.s. head is 135gpm, the standard head is like 175gpm. That's a lot of water volume to provide.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Consider the AquaPEX and AquaSAFE systems. With the right tools and support, you could, conceivably, do this yourself.
I had extreme trouble finding a sprinkler installer that does residential. I finally succeeded, three months after the install, he went out of business.
I believe there is a system designed for homes that uses low-volume spray heads and flexible plastic piping -- ideal for retrofits.
No electrons were harmed in the making of this post.
You're thinking of Wirsbo AquaSAFE, I think.It can be tied into the cold water side of the home, provides multiple flow paths for the water to get to a head, etc. The only downside I can see is that the codes in many parts of the country have to be updated to allow such systems to be installed. Even where kosher, finding a contractor willing to do AquaSAFE may be difficult. Here in MA, I looked for multiple months before finding a residential sprinkler company because most plumbers that used to do it had exited that business due to skyrocketing insurance rates. Apparently, the commercial or multiple-unit dwelling side of the business is much more lucrative, so sprinkler installers simply ignore most single-dwelling installs it seems.
When I looked into it a couple years ago, it was nearly impossible to DIY a 13D system. Though it's easy to figure out from the NFPA booklet, the city wants an engineer's stamp. Vendors won't sell the parts to a non-pro.
-- J.S.
Recently, the market has (finally) moved towards low pressure systems that put fire protection within reach for the average homeowner. Before, the regulators wanted no systems if the could not be "perfect systems" with expensive booster pumps and such.
The latest evidence shows that standard water supply pressure systems are very affective, and there is now a better understanding of how fire actually spreads.
A big concern is stagnant water in the fire lines and disease.
You would want fire lines to be isolated from your potable water supply with proper backflow prevention.
There is some complexity to designing fire systems. If you are serious about taking this on, it is going to take some research to get it right.
After seeing all your responses, I have concluded that this is not a DIY job. As with virtually everything I do around my house, I can never do as good as a professional who has made a career of doing that particular task. I can live with a not so perfect paint job, tile job or cabinet installation that I did myself. (As long as my wife doesn't notice the flaws.) But I have to put a sprinkler system in the same category as an electric panel upgrade: I may understand how it works a bit more than the average bear, but that's a far cry from designing and installing it properly.
As far as whether they cause more damage or improve life safety, I am firmly convinced that sprinkler systems save lives and property. Here in Chicago, if you watch the local morning news every day, you will see a bad fire about once every ten days or so. I would think that when the fire department aims two or three 4 inch fire hoses into the house for an hour or so this is causing more water damage than one head discharging for the same period of time. The fires involving loss of life usually seem to involve non working smoke detectors, but there was a fire here earlier this year where a bunch of firemen were injured when a roof exploded after they vented it. I have never seen a fire on the news where they said there was a working sprinkler system in place.
So, I'll put all the statistics and insurance industry BS aside. My standard is going to be that I don't every want my house to be on the morning news..
I bet in Chicago you would need a gold-plated system to meet code.
Some crazy rules there.
Probably, also the water service is an old 3/4" line. Pressure is on the low side. And there's no meter in the house, which is common in older homes here. But if I went for a permit to put in a sprinkler system, they'd probably put a meter in.