*
We live in a dual use building, my shop and our living space. The sprinkler system was required to meet firewall codes. In most residential systems the sprinkler head are activated by heat individually, so water is isolated to areas with fire. However it the fire dept. hooks a pumper truck to the system that will probably blow all the heads open with high pressure.
Check with your insurance to see if there is any saving, a local architect told me that some downtown townhouses he built had higher insurance rates with the sprinkler system.
Also in our area you are required to have an independent monitor. In theory to eliminate false alarms to the fire dept. In reality more cost, up front and monthly fees.
I like having the system, and haven’t had any problems.
Replies
*
Residential sprinklers are the way to go wherever you are. I don't care if the response time for the fire department is 5-6 minutes or not. First someone has to see, smell, or hear a fire (alarm) to report it. The average fire is not reported for 15-20 minutes in an urban area. I live in a very rural area and I bet my nearest neighbors wouldn't notice a fire until the whole structure was fully engulfed. Think about it... you don't typically notice a house burning until the windows or doors have blown out or the roof has burned through- that's when you see the smoke or possibly flames.
Residential sprinklers are relatively cheap as a percentage of a new construction project. Usually 1.5% to 2% for a $100K job. How many $100k houses have you actually built lately? An average home will run $2500.00 for a standard system. Sprinklers are a bit more difficult to retrofit into an existing structure, but it can be done with little damage to existing walls/ceilings by a trained, experienced and competent installer. Retrofitting the average ranch/bungalow will be in the $3000-3500 range. How much would it cost to replace burned carpet, furnishings, gyp. board, trim and paint?
I'm on a well, too. Tanks are available from many of the manufacturers along with pressure booster pumps (they've even got solar charged battery back-ups available). The lack of well capacity and pressure should not be an excuse for not having a system. These "extras" are really not too costly. As for the sprinklers/heads, the residential sprinklers are strictly a temperature sensitive assembly. If you can "pop" heads off with pressure, you're going to be blowing out pipes as well. The heads are very reliable and there are cages available to protect them if you're prone to knocking things off the walls or ceiling.
The bottom line with sprinklers, as mentioned above, is that they are for saving lives- not property. The containment or reduction in allowing a fire to expand is a side benefit to sprinklers. Keep in mind that most damage in a fire is caused by smoke and heat- not the actual fire itself. It's usually the smoke that kills, the smoke that damages walls and textiles, smoke that clouds glass/windows. you get the idea.
Want to be safe? Put in smoke detectors; install sprinklers; have a fire escape plan and practice it from time to time; have extinguishers readily available; close all the doors in your house when you leave (containment); let neighbors know when your gone (assuming you get along and trust each other!); install smoke/fire compartments in your attics & crawl spaces; install a detector in your ductwork tied to a shut-off for the HVAC system; wrap everything in non-combustible material (gypsum wall board)- skip that it would make my oak laden bungalow awful ugly.
If you're looking for stuff (parts, info etc.) use the web. If you can read this you can search for real info from the NFPA; Grinell, Star and other manufacturers- something other than hearsay and chat; ask your local plumber "who does sprinkler systems"; find a mechanical engineer or an architect and ask for sources/references. I encourage all of you reading this to join the effort.
*
The question I have is why do residential sprinklers have to be code required? If someone thinks they are great, and wants to pay for a system, then that's fine, but don't increase the cost of all new homes built by $2,500. or more, if people are not willing to pay for it. For the actual installation cost in my area, I hear it starts at about $2. per q.ft.
Then you have to take into consideration the infrastructure improvements required to supply enough water. A developer will pass that along in higher lot costs. Most research shows an extremely small amount of fires occur in new homes. Most fires are in aalderhomes. If ggovernment officials truly want to make an impact with fire safety, then they should mandate fire sprinklers be metro fitted in all homes over 20 or 30 years old. This idea of requiring sprinklers in new homes is popping up in many of the areas I build. Every time I discuss the topic with the fire officials supporting the code change, they try to make us feel like we are are arguing against fire safety because we don't want to automatically install systems in all our homes. So, I then ask them individually if they have installed a system in their own homes? In three different towns, I don't remember any fire official saying they had a system.
*One answer-Insurance Agencies. If you look at just about any new law or code change created anymore, down at the source of the line of supporters you'll find an insurance lobby. Motorcycle helmets, air bags, child seats, boring playground equipment, anti-smoking laws....the list goes on and on. All of them can be argued as being a good thing, but... Freedom is expensive to insure.
*Bob,It's the same reason seatbelts are required. We can't be trusted to know what's best for us. Only our elected officials are smart enough to know what we need. Thank goodness we have our governments to be our parents after we're grown.
*I believe one could find quite a bit of evidence that seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcyclists save lives. The statistics I have seen are not the same for residential sprinkler systems. Modern new home construction methods, required by modern codes, make fire hazards in new residential construction very minimal. Residential fires do cause loss of lives, but most of the lost lives from fires in single family residences come from older homes. That is the area fire safety regulators should address. New homes in most areas of the country are simply not the problem. Smoke detectors save lives, are economical to install, are easy to maintain, and cause no damage during times of false detection. I would hate to pay for the water damage from a sprinkler going off every time my wife (or I) burns dinner and a little smoke enters the kitchen air. Not all insurance companies agree that sprinklers are a risk reduction and give premium reductions for them. This is something that should be checked on a case by case basis.
*I understand that the "standard" current residential system uses sprinkler heads that are heat activated. They will not go off falsely with smoke or pressure. I guess some system designs may tie the heads in with the smoke detectors - but the literature that I have been looking at all refer to a separate sprinkler system (not connected into the smoke detectors). Both systems can be connected to the phone or central security system for monitoring - but they will not set each other off.... Also - the current systems only activate individual heads that have high heat - not the whole system or even zones (like the commercial systems).Any other takes on this? I still think that all of the experts around here could get into this issue a bit more....
*All the systems I've ever seen were temperature activated. (and accidental impact, cold weather, and who-the-hell-knows-why-that-happened activated)
*I personally like having sprinklers installed in my house, but after several years of use (NON-use). I always wonder when I'm gone for long periods of time, is their some better way to extinguish fire. So much has been done in the areas of inert gas charged systems for confined areas, that I would believe water based systems are soon obsolete. Or should be in residential settings.A combination of heat, smoke, infra red, gas detectors and flow indicators, maybe even infra red survelliance would be the best solution when tied to a communication/monitoring method. This has no limits once some very common technologyies are put together. Think of what can be done with GPS & ELB's (emergency locating becons)etc. Along with a all the computers, cable modems and Satellite dishes around.I offer this only because I think I would rather have a small fire extingiushed by any other method than water. Just my 2 cents worth
*
All current sprinklers for residential use are heat activated at the individual sprinkler head- I believe this is also the case for all commercial sprinklers, too. When there is enough heat to melt a fusible link or explode a glass tube filled with a special liquid the sprinkler head will be activated. This is not to say a head couldn't be defective or that someone couldn't accidentally bang into it causing it to spew forth many gallons of water!
I don't believe any of you would really rather have a fire (and all the smoke that goes with it) than supression by a sprinkler. As for inert gas- Halon was one of those products; it was recalled because it may have had an adverse effect on the ozone layer. It was also difficult to breath when you were sprayed with it. In order for an inert gas to be effective all oxygen needs to be removed as a source of fuel from the fire. Not something I want happening in my bedroom- I prefer breathing.
If there was a better system that was cost effective, it would be on the market. Sprinklers are effective and realistically, they're cheap insurance.
*
Anderson - the problem with the inert gas systems is that they also have the potential for extinguishing human life along with the fire. It may well be urban folklore, but there have been tales (none, of course, in sufficient detail to be able to verify) about inert gas systems being installed in mainframe computer rooms with the crew being unable to get out when the system was activated.
Dry chemical extinguishers are often used in restaurants where there is the likelihood of grease fires. They tend to make a real mess when activated.
Good old water still seems to be an amazingly cost effective solution when it comes to extinguishing a wide variety of fires. (Besides, it gives you a good excuse to put in a swimming pool to use as a backup reservoir for your house fire sprinkler system...)
*I once had to give a speech on fire sprinklers to a class of mine. I visited the NFPA web site and got lots of great information. But i felt that I needed more personable infomation. So i went down to the local fire dept. Where I live we have 2-3 FF on duty from 6am to 10pm. The rest are all paid on call (paged when a fire call comes in). The FF on duty were very pro-sprinkler. They said that by the time a fire is often reported, heavy damage has already occured, and that the fire will than require large amounts of water to be extinguished. They also showed me the engines that provide 1500-2000 gallons per minute of water. Thats a lot more water than one sprinkler haed puts out (and in something like 90% of all sprinklered fires, one head was enough to contain the fire). To me, sprinklers make sense.
*I kind of favor Bob W's and others' comments that maybe this is okay but a bit overboard as a rule (or code). More people in my area get killed from falls than from house fires. It's a matter of risk versus cost. To what extent do we protect ourselves from the possibility versus the probability?I lose a portion of my insurance dividend every year because of house fires and mud slides in California, hurricanes in Florida, floods in North Carolina, and tornados in Oklahoma. Where I live we have few fires, no hurricanes, no significant floods, and no tornados.The house fires we do have, as was stated earlier, are typically in older homes, not just because they are old, necessarily, but because the tenants aren't careful or they aren't affluent enough to properly maintain their older home systems -- wiring, heating, etc. Half the fires last year were from candles and smoking. These folks surely wouldn't be buying sprinklers.There's enough anecdotal evidence to suggest we should all have sprinklers -- any insurance company can produce it -- but not enough real evidence to put this ahead of solid preventive measures and better education.Finally, there's the old, trite saying: "When your daughter's just been killed, you'll wish you had." If this ruled my life, I'd be in an institution by now.
*You guys have really done your homework! I guess when you look outside your own little world you can learn a lot. Residential systems are relatively uncommon here, thanks to the poitical clout of the local developers, so I guess I didn't do enough digging when I looked into them for my own home. Wish now I would have. They finished taping my drywall Monday.Chad and Casey are dead-on. You still can't beat good old water as an extinguishing agent. It is cheap, plentiful and doesn't pose a health risk. You can't say that for halon,etc.BTW. Chad, Casey. Are you guys firefighters? You seem to have a great understanding of these systems.
*
Sprinklers save lives no doubt about it. One sprinkler responding in 1 minute is better than a whole fire dept responding in 10 minutes. But what is the likelihood of death by Fire?
If a system costs $2/ft as quoted above, my 2500 ft house would add $5000 to the cost. I called my insurance co. They said I would get 10% discount, or save less than $100/year. Payback is over 50 years. Net: sprinklers only save money for the insurance co.
Went to the local fire dept. fish fry and interviewed volunteers. They said most fires are caused by carelessness. Just put in smoke detectors, have a plan to get out fast, and be careful.
*
Brad - your plan will work fine for life safety assuming you don't have babies or parents or other's not capable of getting themselves out when they hear (or not) the alarms. But personally, I'd hate to loose all my personal belongings and don't believe any compensation from insurance would ever replace photos, heirlooms, etc. I stick with my position that sprinklers are especially good at property protection.
As to deaths from fire - I recall somewhere around 5000 a year - about 80% in buildings where people sleep - and a lot of those are single family residences.
*I have a selfish take on helmet and seatbelt laws: I sometimes make absent-minded mistakes while driving (yes it's true), and if I hit someone in a car or on a bike I don't want it to cost me a fortune because they were exercising their "freedom" to fly through the windshield or dash their brains out on the pavement.Buckle up, I might be coming down a street near you. :)
*I am thankful this has been a civil discussion. This residential sprinkler system topic has been a great learning experience for me. Some of my fears of the systems have been eased by what I have learned. My main fear, however, remains. If these systems become code required, the added costs will needlessly eliminate thousands from being able to buy a new home. Many of those eliminated will be hard working people like firemen, policemen, teachers, tradesmen, ect... . Builders and developers in the end do not pay for the increased costs of construction. The buyers always pay. Let's keep new homes fire safe and affordable. The current fire code works fine and is extremely safe. We should not over react to ideas that the average person cannot afford.
*Bob - I don't follow this issue in detail but I believe the issue is a pro/anti development one. I have read that a community has mandated residntial sprinklers in new houses because it could not afford to expand its fire service comensurate with the development. (If all homes are sprinklered, the fire service doesn't have to be as close.) An easy option for an existing resident to support so that their taxes don't have to go up to pay for new fire houses and more personell and equipment for the folks in the new house. In theory, the costs should be somewhat equal - sprinklers instead of higher taxes - for somewhat equivalent protection.Now - this is not necessarily my viewpoint - just reporting on what I read.Bill Conner
*I suspect that if sprinklers became more common they would become much cheaper too. The tract developers would certainly figure out a cookie-cutter way of putting them in, and an increased supply of suppliers would decrease costs (experience = efficiency) and ioncrease competition.Perhaps also a scaled-back version of the sprinkler code would make a difference. Once a bare-bones system was mandated, buyers could upgrade (and likely would) for less cost. I realize that mandated new-home systems seem paternalistic, but from a public-policy standpoint you have to consider all the people who will live in that house over its lifetime and who would only be able to get a system at inflated price, and all the renters who have little choice. Sprinkle in the occasional dead firefighter (oops, that pun was -not- intended) and you get the larger picture.
*Just to be clear, there is a "scaled back" standard for sprinkler systems in single family houses - plastic pipe, minimal water pressure and supply, etc. I thought the new home cost was nearer $1 to $1.50 per sq ft - don't know how much lower it can go. But it is a public policy issue - especially as it affects ongoing costs of supporting more fire service. If you poke around the NFPA site, I believe there is a whole separate organization focused on residentila sprinklers, in addition to the standards committee.
*On the flip side, as long as sprinklers aren't mandated by code, then they will always be a "premium" item installed at "premium" prices. If they are required by code, home buyers won't be passively footing the extra cost. Seems to me developers could install sprinkler systems today at cost for far less than what is currently quoted, paricularily if there was a workforce and supply ready to meet the volumes. It's difficult to argue the current installation costs as a reason not to enforce sprinklers with code.Now the risk/benefit arguement is wide open (in my opinion). I'm sure that for society as a whole there are far cheaper ways to save lives. I'm only looking out for me, mine and my stuff. I'd rather risk drying out a soggy photograph than risk losing it all together. No insurance value there.Besides, nobody says I have to have electricity or plumbing (other than SERIOUS convienience), yet these are code enforced?
*As usual, Bill has good info, even if (typical architect!) he's unwilling to provide specifics. :)Q: if the NFPA is so big on education, why are their publication prices SO )*&^#! HIGH?Tired of wondering about it, I purchased the 30 pp. $24 PDF version of NFPA 13D: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, 1999 Edition When i have a chance to digest it, I'll try to post any useful observations on this thread.Among many offerings in their catalog,$459 SURVIVE! Fire in your home video.also $459, for Friday evening entertainment, try: FIRE POWER VIDEO!<< Winner: Blue Ribbon, American Film Festival Witness the speed and fury of residential fire! This acclaimed video offers a dramatic, first-hand look at the deadly dynamics of fire...from ignition to full room involvement. Ideal for fire fighter training or community fire safety sessions, Fire Power's unique footage keeps viewers on the edge of their seats! Experience a bird's eye view of fire's path of destruction! Fire Power shows the patterns of smoke and flames as they spread through a residence...quickly making escape virtually impossible. Then it demonstrates the enormous effect automatic sprinklers have on the speed of fire suppression and the toll of property damage. Order your copy of this award-winning presentation today. (17 min., Instructor's Guide) >>
*Andrew - I can't afford that stuff so what I report is from the publications I get free for NFPA membership and committee membership, and what I can pick-up from listening at meetings and hearings.I suspect prices are so high because of costs of staff and meetings and publishing and research, etc. I occasionaly can wangle a free book if I can justify it for committee work - but this one would eb a stretch.PS - not an architect - thats a legal issue - I work as a design consultant to architects and owners.
*From an article in the New York Times Science Section of 7Mar00:On average each year, 4,000 civiliansdie and 40,000 are injured in fires,primarily in their homes; amongfirefighters, 80 to 90 die and 80,000to 90,000 are injured. Nearly 75percent of fire fatalities occur inflashoversThe article is on new computer modeling software that can be used to design sprinkler systems as well as to study the spread of fire. (The New York Times requires free registration to view their articles, but I have never received junk e-mail or "spam" from them as a result of having registered.) For those of you with an interest in fire science you can read it at: NY TIMES article on fire simulation computer program
*
No, I'm not a fire fighter. I do argue with them a lot. I disagree with them (almost always) as to the best way to protect and preserve life and property in a rural setting. I've been battling the local department and the rural fire association about a fire service area. My contention is first someone needs to see a fire to call it in; second response time for a fire ten miles from the station is at least 15 minutes where I am (longer in winter when the roads are icy). I did some homework and investigating- dollar for dollar I'd rather see the County sponsor a long term, low interest loan program to install sprinklers in the rural areas- in the long run it would be money much better spent. The fire service area would mean personnel, equipment, training, facilities, all the baloney that goes with it- Oh, did I mention an average annual tax increase of $200 per residence and $75 for on-residential buildings and outbuildings?
*
They are code for much of the SoCal area. I have never installed them, but have been on 4-5 jobsites that have. Most use 3/4" copper supply, and work locally, sprinkler by sprinkler. In other words a fire in one corner, does not turn them all on.
They also work in conjuction with your Alarm system, and as a sprinkler engages, it sets off the central smoke alarms (if not already on) and automatically telephones the central station.
They are fairly expensive to install, although I have seen them placed in the ceilings with high pressure PVC (the orange type) to cut costs. As you could expect, most of the expense is labor, although materials (if copper) are significant.
Installation was a bear, as the stuff needs to go in before electrical, and at about the same time as the plumbing, as the two systems share the same chases/joist bays. Because of the shear number of holes in some of the plates and joists, we had over-engineer the framing to accomodate the holes (only 1/3rd of the joist can be drilled, or 1/4th if on an edge). At least one interior non load bearing wall had to be a 2x6 (for a chase), and the plumbing and fire saftey schedule and layout had to be coordinated at the plan stage, as opposed to doing it as an afterthought on site.
The heads have a plastic cover and when a sensor in the head detects a certain temperature, the sprinkler head pops down and engages. The plastic covers really blend it with most smooth ceilings, although if you are partial to popcorn/textured ceilings, they will stand out more. There was also a central manifold station for testing and for the low voltage connection (signal wire) to the alarm system, which was installed in the basement or utility room.
I would recommend speaking with a sub that does this work, and get his thoughts as well, but from what I observed, it was not a project I would want to tackle myself, and if building a home with this attribute, I would want to have the layout done at the plan stage.
*Casey:I can see your point about fire protection districts. I have lived in a rural area all my life, and wouldn't think of changing. My feeling is that it is a concious trade-off. You know going in that if your house catches fire it will likely end up a parking lot. That just tends to make you a little more fire-safe. If I had to make a choice between sprinklers and firefighters I would still choose the firefighters. Firefighting is a labor intensive task, and you just can't do the job without the bodies. Also remember that the guys (and/or gals) who respond to your house will also respond for medical emergencies, public service calls, etc. In fact about 75% of our calls now are medical-related. Working house fires are becoming less common. Also, a large number of those house fires occur in attics, which generally aren't sprinklered.$200 per home seems like a lot until you call 911 and someone comes out to safely extricate you from your crashed vehicle, or administer life support when your mother-in-law has a heart attack. (o.k., bad example) Have you looked into how much, if at all, your insurance rates will drop with better fire protection? Rates are still based largely on proximity to a fire station and water supply.The bottom line, in my opinion, is that sprinklers are a great tool. But they cannot replace trained firefighters.
*Wedgehead - I don't necessarily disagree with your preference for fire service, but consider that with sprinklers they may not need to send so many people and those who do respond probably won't be tied up for so long. They work together - providing some redundancy in the bargain. In general, the fire service seems to support sprinklers - which should tell us something.
*I'm currently working on a small town commercial/apartment rehab. I ripped out about 400 cu yards of combustibles out of the place and have replaced most everything with concrete and steel. I'm still interested in installing sprinklers in potential hotspots like kitchens and utility rooms. Anybody have any sources of supply for reasonably priced materials? Thanks
*Bill, I guess I wasn't too clear. Yes, I'm definately pro fire dept, but I think Chad is almost being pushed into an either/or situation. I agree that firemen and sprinklers go hand in hand, but if I were forced to choose one or the other, I would still choose the firefighters.As for reducing the number of people sent to an alarm, around here we are running mostly 3-man engine companies and four man ladder companies. That is pretty much as lean as you can go and still put the wet stuff on the red stuff. The situation gets even worse in the rural areas, where two man companies are the norm.
*
I installed a system in my current project. Had a local company design the system and I bought the heads from them. System was not a code requirement, but I figure it is cheap insurance for fires. The costs for my 2800 sq.ft. home were: $200 for design, about$450 for the heads(18 @$18/each)and the plumbing parts I didn't have, I had a lot of copper so I used that(approx.250 ft of 3/4" and 75 ft of 1.25"). My project is complete gut remodel with new additions, So I had easy acess to the attic . I laid the pipes across the ceiling joists and brought my supply up through a 2x4 interior wall. We live in Northern Calif. so I don't have much concern about freeze damage to the system, but the pipes are on the warm side of 12" of fiberglass so they should be safe in most climates. The shut off valve, pressure gauge and system drain are located in the back of a small closet. I put it all together and had it operational in a long weekend.
My design only required 1" mainline but I had the larger copper. My system pressure averages 90psi. We haven't moved in yet so I haven't talked to the insurance provider to see if rates will be lower.
*I am being pushed into a "Fire Service Area"; that means a board is established, determines what is needed for service, sets an assessment and sends me the bill. The area they want to cover stretches roughly 20 miles in all directions from the nearest town, I'm 10 miles from town. The part I really don't like about the FSA is that I as a property owner/tax payer have very little input into what is needed and how much will be spent. Winters here in Eastern Montana typically dip into the -20 to -40 range. Summers get into the 100's. You can't get to my house if it snows more than a foot or rains half an inch. We have "gumbo" here; it's slick, sticky heavy (fat) clay. In good weather I can "speed" home in 12 minutes- that's going in excess of 80 mph. I haven't been in a pumper/tanker that can do 80 up a 6% grade. There is a lot more to my story than that, but for the record I think that sprinklers are the way to go in the long run. Some day, if all buildings are sprinklered, firefighters may be somewhat obsolete. In a perfect world that might work. But we will continue to fill our homes with combustible materials; to build with wood, paper and plastic products; and to fall asleep while smoking or burning candles. There will always be a place for firefighters and all their toys. My house will not always be one of those places.A footnote: There was a fire in town recently, a home was gutted by fire just one minute (6 blocks) from the fire station. No one saw it until it went through the roof!
*I spoke to the insurance company. Installing a few smoke detectors ($4.99 at HD) gets me a 10% discount. Installing sprinklers ($1,000s) get me another 10%. I wish I could afford both.
*
Bob
"Smoke Detectors Save Lives" is somewhat misleading.
Only about 9% of the population are woke (is that the right word?) by the tone. There are documented cases where they never woke the owners and their proper function was verified. Or where owners managed to escape but never heard them because they had already been consumed by fire.
Kind of like CPR, despite the fact that we are all taught it, it only works 1/2% of the time!! Then 1/2 of the survivors have permanent injury resulting from the cardiac and respiratory arrest.
-Rob
*My insurance company said sprinklers would deduct $12 off of my insurance. Wow.That is about 3% off my policy.I like the stove hoods that have a built-in drychem extinguishing system for stove fires.-Rob
*Actually, I've recently heard it said that CPR keeps the organs viable so they can be donated later. So in a sense, it is doing some good, just not to the recipient. What I heard anyway, no factual backing that I'm aware of.And, unfortunately, it also would seem that many smoke detectors on the market haven't been able to pass testing in years. This I HAVE seen in independant testing. Somewhere the line was crossed from "going off at every little cooking steam" to "Not going off at all until it's waaaaay past too late". Just can't trust anything these days.
*Here's an article on some efforts to allow some code relaxations in other areas when a sprinkler system is involved. From Walls & Ceilings Magazine.With apologies to our host.Rich Beckman
*Carl, what did your local company have to say about stale water in the sprinkler lines?
*
Scott,
my design called for two rubber faced check valves on the sprinkler supply line, which I installed. I was still concerned about stagnent water in the system so I dropped a 3/4" line from the far end of the system to an outside wall. I attached a 3/4" ball valve with a hose bib. Now I have a high pressure source on the outside of the house and I can easily flush my interior fire sprinkler system. My system designer said the check valves would isolate any stagnant water, but he agreed that the flushing valve was OK and a good idea for exterior fire fighting(We live in a wildland fire area).
*
I love fires...and am not that attached to any of my photos...If my house burns to the ground unoccupied, no big deal...And if I'm in it then That's my ticket...
I just don't believe in mandatory tooth brushing I guess...but I do like to wear a seatbelt and do like the fact that my new truck has airbags and even better it never loses in a collision with Ford Fiestas...
near the stream, starting a fire tonight,
aj
ps sprinklers...oh yes, that's the subject...I put in tons of them o0n tennis courts...They can flood the whole court well in 15 minutes off a 1 inch line at 50psi...7200sqft that is.
*
Anyone have experience with residential sprinkler systems? I was considering them on a current project and was looking for "real life" experience...
They appear to be a great thing for a "small" up front cost - but there may be more to the story?????
Let's talk about the pros and cons....
John
*I know nothing about residential systems. I know alot about commercial sprinkler systems. I've seen alot of property damage caused by sprinkler systems malfunctioning. Frozen sprinkler heads, heads hit by ladders, leaking pipes, heads that just open up for no apparent reason. As a life saving device, I think sprinklers are a good idea. As a property protection device, I'm not convinced. I've tried over several years to find some statistics on this but maybe there are none available.
*I believe these were developed for and are still relied upon for property protection. Sprinklers in occupancies where people sleep - homes, hotels, dorms, etc. - are believed to enhance life safety. In other occupancies I think their life safety value is more suspect - but they still get credit and trade-offs.On the other hand, while you may have cleaned up from a number of accidental actuations of sprinklers, the record shows this to be very rare. Also, the damage from water is usually quite a bit less than from a fire. I suspect this may be less true as the value of the building decreases.Keep in mind most insurance companies will offer a reduction in premium if there are sprinklers - a fairly clear sign that property loss records show that sprinklers are effective.
*In most of California, residential sprinklers are mandatory in new construction and remodels over 50%. Many plumbers have taken classes to be certified installers (another mandatory) and there is a fair amount of competition in the field bringing prices down a little. An average job might cost around $2500 and up, not including upgrading your waterline and/or pressure to the house. Uncommon ten years ago and everywhere today, I have never heard of a residential sprinkler malfunction yet. If you have a fire however, the sprinklers cause as much or more damage to a house than the fire usually does. The primary function is saving lives. If I had a choice, I'm not sure if I would voluntarily put one in or not. There might be some insurance savings if you ask.
*I believe "If you have a fire however, the sprinklers cause as much or more damage to a house than the fire usually does." But if you don't have sprinklers, the damage from fire and water applied by the fire service will likely be much greater than the combined fire and water damage with sprinklers.If the water supply is there, I think I'd opt for sprinklers. About a dollar a sq ft in new home construction I believe - maybe a little more depending on the market.
*We live in a dual use building, my shop and our living space. The sprinkler system was required to meet firewall codes. In most residential systems the sprinkler head are activated by heat individually, so water is isolated to areas with fire. However it the fire dept. hooks a pumper truck to the system that will probably blow all the heads open with high pressure. Check with your insurance to see if there is any saving, a local architect told me that some downtown townhouses he built had higher insurance rates with the sprinkler system. Also in our area you are required to have an independent monitor. In theory to eliminate false alarms to the fire dept. In reality more cost, up front and monthly fees. I like having the system, and haven’t had any problems.
*John:I'm a firefighter in bakersfield CA. Large metropolitan city of about 300,000. We don't require residential sprinklers, yet, and due to response times in an urban environment( 11 - 15 firefighters in 6 minutes), they might be overkill here. Contrast that with where I live and am currently building: 15 minute response from my nearest 3 man firehouse, 25 min. or more for the next-in company. If my well would supply it, you can bet I would have a system in my new home. I'll take the chance on water damage. They keep small fires small until the professionals get there,(or put them out altogether). Carpet and sheetrock can be replaced. Family members and hierlooms can't. BTW, in my nearly 20 years in the fire service, I have never seen a sprinkler head pop due to overpressure.
*Something I haven't seen addressed -- what about fires when the occupants are away? What are good precautions to take, to ensure SOMEONE notices before it's too late? (we're semi-urban)
*Andrew - The simplest would be a flow alarm and a bell which would probably alert neighbors or passerbys if not to far away. Else a flow alarm and a monitoring service - like a burglar alarm system. I would find it odd for a single family residence to signal the dispatcher as is the case for a large building. Obviously if flow operates a switch, you can have it do most anything you want to pay for.
*I too am on a well system - and I actually have great water - but low production.From the information that I have been reading, it sounds like there are tanks (either inside the home or buried outside - some even use concrete cisterns) that can be dedicated to the sprinkler system with a dedicated high output pump.I am building in a somewhat rural area. It is just off the main highway - but the local volunteer fire dept. is probably 10-15 min response time. The kicker is that our lot has a private 1,500 ft road for access - and in certain times of the year it is not easy to get to the house. Even worse, there isn't a city hydrant anywhere close and the nearest pond is 1/2 mile or so.Anyway, I have been considering a whole house sprinkler system with dedicated tanks and pump. I have not started talking to any subcontractors about this yet - and was looking for the wisdom and experience of the good folks at BT to give some real world advice.... I too think that saving my family in a fire outweighs any water damage (if that is a concern). One of my cousins just had a house fire that was started in the kids room. It was a fish tank pump that went bad and caught the curtain on fire. The house was empty and a neighbor called it in - but just think if it would have been at 1 am or so. My wife wants us to really look into the systemsThanks for your comments....
*I've seen several magazine articles on residential sprinklers both DIY and professional installs. I guess in some places, DIY parts are readily available, here they're non-existant, as are residential sprinklers in general.I once saw a news broadcast regarding residential sprinklers and making code requirements. Builders were complaining that the new codes would add too much on the the cost of building. A fire official agreed, but ONLY because the proposed code changes set unrealistic and goals (minimum pressure and flow, alarms, etc). Further more the fire official also said that even a low pressure/flow sprinkler saves lives and would be better than none at all. My take is that the issue appears to be clouded with red tape and liabilty concerns.I'd rather take my chances mopping up a wet floor so I'm hoping to install some kind of system while the walls are ripped up. I understand there are many sprinkler head designs for low pressure/flow conditions. The one and only sprinkler company in town doesn't appear to be interested in providing information, materials or quoting anything less than a full blown installation and service contract, so I guess I'll be doin alot of reading followed by mail order.
*The NFPA has been active in revising and developing the standards for residential sprinklers so that they are more practicle and economical while still providing protection. There are plastic pipe systems and sprinklers (I have been corrected so many times at code meetings for calling them "heads" - the industry has decided what some of us call heads are properly called "sprinklers") approved that are effective with lower pressures and volumes. With a city water system, there may be a few cases probably in older neighborhoods, which might need a pump - or a new line to the street - to meet the standard. I'll see if I can interest one of the sprinkler gurus I've met through code work to pop in here.