[dd251] Re: Water Mist Systems
- From: Jeannette Baxter <j.baxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <dd251@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:43:07 +0100
on 22/1/03 1:36 am, brian blessed at resisprinklers@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>=20
>=20
> To all members,
>=20
> I have just read the email from William and as someone who is independant
> and has nothing to gain from criticising sprinkler or water mist systems =
I
> would comment as follows:
>=20
> Firstly we need to establish the difference between a 'life safety sprink=
ler
> system' and a 'life safety' sprinkler system. BS5306 has a clear set of
> guidelines as to what needs to be carried out to ensure that a sprinkler
> system complies with 'life safetey'. If the system is fed from the towns
> main then the system should be fed from superior mains with two separate
> connections to seperate mains. If the system is fed from pumps and tanks
> then the tank needs to be split into two seperate sections with seperate
> ball valves and suction lines. The main valve set needs to have a bypass
> fitted. All floors need to be split into zones and no zone shall have mor=
e
> than 200 sprinkler heads fed from it. All valves need to be monitored and
> the signals should go to a panel which gives clear indication of the valv=
e
> status. All sprinkler heads should be quick response. If two ecectric pum=
ps
> are installed (one duty & one standby) then there should be an auto
> changeover panel installed so that should mains electricity fail then the
> pumps will run off stanby generaor. Mains electricity needs to be brought=
in
> from an uninterupted supply.
>=20
> All of these reccomendations are there with the intention of reducing ris=
k.
> It would be wrong to confuse 'life safety' and these sort of precautions
> when talking about domestic or residential systems as if the above action=
s
> were implemented when protecting someones home then they would almost
> certainly push the cost of the system way beyond the budget of the house
> holder, builder, local authority etc.
>=20
> With regard to the other questions I would comment as follows:
>=20
> 1) Pressure ratings of systems are normally linked with the nozzle design=
.
> As William will no doubt be aware different nozzles work with different
> pressures. A long throw sidewall head will need a different pressure to a
> ESFR head. Asking for the pressure requirement is a neither here nor ther=
e
> question, what will be deduced from this?
>=20
> 2) Why ask if pipework complies with DD252 or UL listings? Why do you lea=
ve
> out FM, CEN, BS, NFPA? If pipework delivers water to a fire then is it no=
t
> doing what its meant to be doing? What if you fitted 65mm fire hoses
> throughout the premises, these are used by fire fighters every day and ar=
e
> strung across roads, pulled up the sides of buildings, dragged through
> builders yards to get to skip fires but still deliver water to a fire. Ar=
e
> these not acceptable? What exactly is your point?
>=20
> 3) Apparently there are no residential sprinkler or water mist heads list=
ed
> in Barbados! What happens if someone wants to protect themselves against
> fire in the home there? Come on, technology needs to move on, if systems =
can
> be installed that reduce fatalities and reduce fire damage then we should
> all be embracing them.
>=20
> 4) What blockages would you invisage in a water mist system that are
> different to a sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems are fantastic but I ha=
ve
> come across sprinkler systems with lumps of wood holding the clack open,
> birds nests in alarm gongs, metal discs from mechanical tee installs left=
in
> the pipework, I could go on but what is your thinking behind asking this
> question?
>=20
> 5) Why do you think that leaking through diaphram seals in the states is =
due
> to maintenance issues? I can only think that by diaphram seals you mean t=
he
> seals on the nozzles themselves. How many sprinkler systems have the head=
s
> removed on every service visit and the seal inspected? If the heads were
> removed then they would in accordance with BS5306 need to be replaced wit=
h
> new heads. Are you suggesting that every sprinkler and water mist nozzle =
in
> the world should be replaced every service visit? Or do you think they ma=
y
> need replacing more frequently due to this 'diaphram seal' problem? I wou=
ld
> welcome your advice on this.
>=20
> 6)Sprinkler systems do not have a blanket 'approval' complying with water
> authority regulations, the design has to take in to account these
> regulations. Systems cannot be boosted directly from the town main, a dou=
ble
> check valve needs to be installed and if a tank is used on the system the=
n
> it should have a type 'A' air gap. These water authority regulations can =
be
> designed into a sprinkler or water mist system quite easily. What are you=
r
> reccomendations on this subject?
>=20
> 7) If the water authority regulations mentioned above are complied with t=
hen
> there should not be a problem as these are written up specifically to
> prevent cross contamination. The same obviously goes for sprinkler and wa=
ter
> mist systems. I do know that US, fire departments have been using these t=
ype
> of wetting agents for a number of years with amazing results. Do some
> research and check it out.
>=20
> 8) With regard to full capacity operating for ten minutes then this would
> need to be answered by a water mist company. A thought however: Should th=
e
> water board shut the main for repairs then could a sprinkler system opera=
te
> for the full time? Fire needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible as =
the
> longer it burns the quicker it will spread. The first few seconds/minutes=
of
> the fire are the most critical, controlling it at this stage are paramoun=
t.
>=20
> I could not make sense of the paragraph about retro-fit systems.
>=20
> To finish I would say to you all sprinkler systems have a huge role to pl=
ay
> in this world, so do water mist systems. Do not be inclined to fight each
> other because you think that one system is a threat to the other in terms=
of
> market share. There is plenty of work out there, lets all pull together a=
nd
> make this a safer place.
>=20
> PS: Who is Simon Quillish?
>=20
>=20
> Best regards
>=20
> Billy B.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> From: "William" <william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: dd251@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: <dd251@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [dd251] Water Mist Systems
>> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:36:57 -0000
>>=20
>> To all members
>>=20
>> I have read the recent e-mail on water mist sytems and have a few questi=
ons
>> that many people have asked.I am also astounded that the word guarantee =
for
>> any sprinkler system is used. The principals of a life safety system is
>> based on risk as there will never be a guarantee of electric or water.
>>=20
>> QUESTIONS
>>=20
>> 1) What pressure rating does the system work at
>>=20
>> 2) Does all the pipework comply with DD252 or UL listing and also comply
>> with the manufactures requirements.
>>=20
>> 3) Are mist sprinkler heads listed for residential use any where in the
>> world.
>>=20
>> 4) Are there blockages within the system over a period of time /or is it
>> dry
>>=20
>> 5) Systems like these used in the states have failed through leakage of
>> diaphram seals this is probably because of maintenance issues
>>=20
>> 6) Cross contamination with water ( has the system got the relevant
>> approvals from the relevant authorites) This is a legal requirement
>>=20
>> 7) Are the fire retardent agents used within the system ok for the water
>> authorites and manufacturers of products used
>>=20
>> 8) Can the system operate at full capacity for 10 minutes as in the NFPA
>> 13D or DD251 standard.
>>=20
>> To my knowledge water mist systems are currently being fitted to domesti=
c
>> properties where a standard is not applicable (retro-fit) as these are
>> deemed to be above and beyond whats required for regulations?
>>=20
>> In my opinion no system not stated or complying with the relevant standa=
rds
>> can be considered for any form of relaxations either building or fire.
>>=20
>> I trust I will receive comments back on this issue
>>=20
>> William Butler
>>=20
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> Residential Sprinkler Forum
>> Archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/dd251
>> WebSite: www.dd251.org.uk
>> To unsubscribe from the list, send an email to
>> dd251-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx with =93unsubscribe=94 in the Subject line or
>> unsubscribe from the website www.dd251.org.uk
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
> http://messenger.msn.co.uk
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Residential Sprinkler Forum
> Archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/dd251
> WebSite: www.dd251.org.uk
> To unsubscribe from the list, send an email to
> dd251-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx with =93unsubscribe=94 in the Subject line or
> unsubscribe from the website www.dd251.org.uk
>=20
>=20
Brian Blessed's (you're not THE Brian Blessed are you!!) response is well
written and is really worth reading, (makes a change from the usual mud
slinging!) and hopefully will open up a more interesting debate for us all.
One question I would like to pose is with regard to pipe. Currently we use
either copper or CPVC, both "approved". What about using unapproved pipe -
how would it effect the acceptance of a sprinkler or watermist system by
those specifying such systems? I am thinking of a flexible plastic pipe,
which is much easier to install, will meet the requirements of many
housebuilders with these TJG (? not sure if I've got that right) joists but
as far as I know does not have any fire rating? If it is concealed within
the fabric of the building, and that in itself will provide at least 30
minutes fire resistance, and any exposed pipework could be of an "approved"
type, would that not satisfy everyone?
ps. I believe Simon Quillish is employed by Hall & Kay, (I'm sure someone
told me he was now MD)
=====================================================================
Residential Sprinkler Forum
Archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/dd251
WebSite: www.dd251.org.uk
To unsubscribe from the list, send an email to
dd251-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx with ?unsubscribe? in the Subject line or
unsubscribe from the website www.dd251.org.uk
Other related posts:
