- Author
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
- Title
- Cold Weather Fire Suppression Test.
- Coporate
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Bloomington, IL
- Keywords
- fire suppression | weather effects | sprinkler systems | NFPA 13D | life safety | cleaning | costs | residential buildings
- Abstract
- The pros and cons of residential fire sprinkler systems have been debated for decades. One side of the debate states the systems are a necessity for life safely, another side claims possible damage due to accidental discharge, and yet another group is concerned that the cost of the systems makes housing una.fYordable to prospective homeowners. There are innovators and inventors who are trying to bring some resolution to this great debate. Their goal, an affordable system which allows for safety, and low incidence of property damage. One inventor has proposed a 30 gallon, chemically treated water system that would limit water damage and answer life safety concerns. This system is the subject of this test. The system was designed to perform by extinguishing the fire and coating the building surfaces and contents with the chemically treated water. The chemical has an insulating quality that, when applied, should prevent the rekindling of the original fire by removing or suppressing the heat content. The intent was that once the building and content surfaces were coated there was no need for a continuing water supply. Since the concept was reasonable, we designed a test that could prove the system performance. This test gave us an opportunity to determine criteria for fire sprinkler systems in general, and to test another prototype system using a water mist spray and low flow sprinkler head. The conclusion supported by this project is that for typical residential construction, water appears to be an adequate fire suppressant. The proposed chemically treated water system failed to extinguish the exposed fire, in turn allowing the temperature and the carbon monoxide levels in the space to elevate more than the other systems. The mist type fire sprinkler system illustrated that low flow sprinkler heads are comparable to standard fire sprinkler systems and use less water. With the use of less water, it is possible that building damage and content damage can be reduced, which is beneficial to the homeowner. The cleanup cost was considerably less in the test using the mist type fxe sprinkler system. The cleanup required a light wiping with a chemsponge. The test using the chemical additive left a brown residue on the walls, that required heavy scrubbing.