Antifreeze Solutions Within Residential Fire Sprinkler

[incognito]

If the fire sprinkler advocates were truly trying to save lives they would be attempting to reduce all speed limits by 50%. The 30,000 to 40,000 lives lost every year on our roads would drop very dramatically and the results would be immediate. Even if every new home built from today forward had fire sprinklers, we would have to wait decades to see even a 1% drop in fire related deaths. The "facts" and "statistics" supporting residential fire sprinklers are the biggest lie ever told. This is all about the money that NFPA and NFSA will steal from the consumer and nothing more.

 

[mark handler]

What price do you place on your kids/grandkids?

Once again the anti-sprinkler group has hijacked a thread

This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler

Same old Rhetoric

 

[mtlogcabin]

Once again the anti-sprinkler group has hijacked a thread

Hijack what? All you did was post an old NFPA announcement trailered to California about not exceeding 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies. If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?

 

[mark handler]

If you read the Original Thread, you would know that it is new information from the California state fire marshal, in relation to the new issue of using antifreeze and the new California Code of Regulations changes.

This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler

I call that hijacking a thread with the Same old Rhetoric

Like CONARB's chart that he has posted several times on this board. Same old Rhetoric

 

[TimNY]

Hijack what? All you did was post an old NFPA announcement trailered to California about not exceeding 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies. If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?

I am seeing them installed completely within the thermal envelope now. Risers inside the interior walls and then the rafters spray-foamed to bring the piping into the conditioned space.

Some say "wow, spray foam is expensive", typ residential sprinkler is 15-20k for 2-3k sq.ft. so I guess if they can afford one, the other isn't a big deal.

 

[mark handler]

If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?

In Reno, We put the Fire risers in conditioned spaces.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Risers inside the interior walls and then the rafters spray-foamed to bring the piping into the conditioned space.

Is the spray foam listed as a compatible material to a CPVC system

Polyurethane (Spray-On) Foams

• In understanding spray polyurethane foams there are two general areas of concern for CPVC pipe and fittings: (1) chemical compatibility and (2) potential damage to pipes and fittings due to high exothermic temperatures during installation. These spray polyurethane foams have different cell structures, different flame retardants, reach different curing temperatures and require different installation thicknesses to obtain the required r-value. All of these factors must be considered when using spray foams.In 2009, Lubrizol assisted the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) to determine if chemical compatibility issues exist with FlowGuard Gold®, BlazeMaster® and Corzan® CPVC pipe and fittings. SPFA findings, although not comprehensive, conclude that those spray polyurethane foams tested did not pose a chemical compatibility problem. In addition, Lubrizol is unaware of a CPVC failure that was the result of chemical incompatibility with spray polyurethane foams. For more information on the SPFA testing, please contact them at (800) 523-6154 or visit their web site at www.sprayfoam.org. With respect to chemical compatibility, one must always check with the spray foam manufacturer to have them provide assurance that the formulation that they are manufacturing is not incompatible with CPVC.
  
  In a separate, unrelated study also in 2009, Lubrizol conducted testing with a manufacturer of spray polyurethane foam to better understand the effects of high exothermic temperatures on FlowGuard Gold and BlazeMaster CPVC pipe and fittings. These findings demonstrated that temperatures can exceed the softening point of dry CPVC pipe and fittings.
  
  This study found that, for the products tested, the spray pass thickness of the manufacturer’s nominal two pound density spray polyurethane closed cell foam should not exceed a maximum of two inches per single pass. Lubrizol also found in this study that repeated two inch passes (layers) separated by 10 minute intervals provided sufficient time for the spray polyurethane foam to cool. For the manufacturer’s nominal half pound density spray polyurethane open cell foam, Lubrizol found that spray pass thickness should not exceed a maximum of six inches per single pass.
  
  Because polyurethane spray foams’ resulting exothermic temperatures and chemical compatibility characteristics can vary to some extent, Lubrizol recommends that you consult with the manufacturer of the polyurethane spray foam to be installed.
  

 

[TimNY]

Is the spray foam listed as a compatible material to a CPVC system

Good questions. I know there has been a problem with heat from the reaction damaging wiring.

Where I have seen it, they foam the rafters up to the ridge. The branches are installed on top of the ceiling joists. The piping is not in contact with the foam. If I saw piping buried in foam I would be concerned.

 

[brudgers]

If the fire sprinkler advocates were truly trying to save lives they would be attempting to reduce all speed limits by 50%. The 30,000 to 40,000 lives lost every year on our roads would drop very dramatically and the results would be immediate. Even if every new home built from today forward had fire sprinklers, we would have to wait decades to see even a 1% drop in fire related deaths. The "facts" and "statistics" supporting residential fire sprinklers are the biggest lie ever told. This is all about the money that NFPA and NFSA will steal from the consumer and nothing more.

A person is 13 times more likely to die by killing themselves with a handgun than they are in a dwelling fire.

The number one ignition source (19%) for fatal dwelling fires is smoking...about 600 deaths per year.

What price do you put on your grand mother?

 

[Rio]

From this month's JLC (Journal of Light Construction) To paraphrase, "Equipping a home with both a hard wired smoke alarm and a sprinkler system-rather than just a smoke alarm- increases the occupants chances of surviving a structure fire by 80%. But we also used another NFPA figure that they tend not to mention, which is that you already have a a 99.45 % chance of surviving a structure fire with just a smoke alarm." They go on to explain that this translates to increasing ones chances of surviving a hypothetical structural fire by .44% - from 99.45% with just smoke alarms to 99.89% with both smoke alarms and sprinklers. All of this goes to the question of the ever increasing cost of building a structure and the need to trim the tree of bureaucracy.

 

[mark handler]

This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler

 

[Jobsaver]

Fires in homes account for the majority of fire fatalities in Canada, 80% of all fire deaths occur in residential properties. The City of Vancouver has proven through their fire sprinkler bylaw that residences with a fire sprinkler system and smoke detectors increase occupant survivability by 88%. In Vancouver, no fatalities have occurred in a residential property equipped with a fire sprinkler system installed to N.F.P.A. 13D since the implementation of their bylaw.Hows that negativity working out for you....

It depends on what portion of the thread you are reading.

 

[mark handler]

It depends on what portion of the thread you are reading.

No I went of topic also.

I corrected.

If we could delete posts, I would

The same people that sent this thread off topic, were the ones that accused me of going off topic in another thread.

 

[brudgers]

From this month's JLC (Journal of Light Construction) To paraphrase, "Equipping a home with both a hard wired smoke alarm and a sprinkler system-rather than just a smoke alarm- increases the occupants chances of surviving a structure fire by 80%. But we also used another NFPA figure that they tend not to mention, which is that you already have a a 99.45 % chance of surviving a structure fire with just a smoke alarm." They go on to explain that this translates to increasing ones chances of surviving a hypothetical structural fire by .44% - from 99.45% with just smoke alarms to 99.89% with both smoke alarms and sprinklers. All of this goes to the question of the ever increasing cost of building a structure and the need to trim the tree of bureaucracy.

Mandatory sprinklers have even less overall effect.

The actual increase in life safety [based on your numbers] is:

Net life safety benefit = (fdf) * (1-.9945) + ((NDCwS) +(EDuS) - (DCwSER + DUwSER)) / (TD))

fdf =Frequency of dwelling fires

NDCwS = number of new dwellings constructed with sprinklers and fire alarms

EDuS = number of of existing dwellings upgraded to sprinklers

DCwSER = dwellings constructed with sprinklers per existing requirements

DUwSER = dwellings upgraded with sprinklers per existing requirements

TD = total number of dwellings.

Because fdf is very small and TD is very large, the net impact on life safety is very low.

 

[High Desert]

The number one ignition source (19%) for fatal dwelling fires is smoking...about 600 deaths per year.

I would add that of these smoking related deaths, the smoke is most likely the cause of death before the fire can actually activate a sprinkler system. So sprinklers may not have saved them.

 

[conarb]

View attachment 242

​

I've always heard that the leading cause was cooking, sprinklers do nothing for cooking fires, every school child is taught not to put water on a grease fire, and that's exactly what 13D sprinklers do. When this subject has come up before the fire people say to put "misting heads" over cooking facilities, yet that's not mandated by 13D and since they cost more nobody is going to install them. That does bring us back to the anti-freeze problem since those fires were cooking fires. Also note that "Electrical distribution" is more deadly than even smoking, banning plastic wiring and requiring all metal EMT would go a long way toward saving lives, much further than sprinklers, prevention rather than active suppression.​

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v1i13-508.pdf
​

View attachment 242

​

/monthly_2010_11/residential-fires.jpg.7c9898528d2698835b7f6838831015e3.jpg

 

[brudgers]

View attachment 549

I've always heard that the leading cause was cooking, sprinklers do nothing for cooking fires, every school child is taught not to put water on a grease fire, and that's exactly what 13D sprinklers do. When this subject has come up before the fire people say to put "misting heads" over cooking facilities, yet that's not mandated by 13D and since they cost more nobody is going to install them. That does bring us back to the anti-freeze problem since those fires were cooking fires.

Also note that "Electrical distribution" is more deadly than even smoking, banning plastic wiring and requiring all metal EMT would go a long way toward saving lives, much further than sprinklers, prevention rather than active suppression.

​

The graph you provided is for all dwelling fires.

Fatal fires have a quite different distribution of ignition sources (very few in the kitchen since people are typically awake when they cook).

 

[Alias]

Hijack what? All you did was post an old NFPA announcement trailered to California about not exceeding 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies. If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?

Thank You mtlogcabin.

If we can't have dry systems (according to my FM) and anti-freeze won't work, what are we supposed to use? Folks, sprinklers are 'in' in the CA Codes this year and we have a potential temperature conflict where I am located.

Sue, on the frontier in CA

 

[Alias]

If you read the Original Thread, you would know that it is new information from the California state fire marshal, in relation to the new issue of using antifreeze and the new California Code of Regulations changes.This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler

I call that hijacking a thread with the Same old Rhetoric

Like CONARB's chart that he has posted several times on this board. Same old Rhetoric

Agree with you Mark. And thanks for posting the info.

Sue, on the frontier in CA

 

[permitguy]

What, you guys still aren't holding hands around a campfire on this topic? Shocking. :-D

Tell designers to stop being lazy. They can put a bathroom anywhere the buyer wants it. How do the water pipes not freeze? Amazing!

If there is a temperature conflict, then design around it. Run the pipe in interior walls and use sidewall heads for the upper floor. Build a fake beam to hide piping beneath a vaulted ceiling and use concealed heads.

 

[TimNY]

What, you guys still aren't holding hands around a campfire on this topic? Shocking. :-DTell designers to stop being lazy. They can put a bathroom anywhere the buyer wants it. How do the water pipes not freeze? Amazing!

If there is a temperature conflict, then design around it. Run the pipe in interior walls and use sidewall heads for the upper floor. Build a fake beam to hide piping beneath a vaulted ceiling and use concealed heads.

Kum bay ya....

Seriously though, it is possible. Additional insulation.. false beams.. a little forethought by the designer.. It's just an added expense. Sprinklers save lives, not money.

 

[mark handler]

Tell designers to stop being lazy.

Ya right this tread is about the placement of the riser....And I thought is was about antifreeze....

 

[DRP]

well, how about another antifreeze scenario. My client has been doing some research and is considering propylene glycol antifreeze in a closed loop in a Polaris water heater that does both domestic hot water and radiant heating, any problems?

 

[mark handler]

Thread: Antifreeze Solutions Within Residential Fire Sprinkler

Is their heating system tied into the Residential Fire Sprinkler system?