. .. Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System 4 RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ RN2 8
Views 101 Downloads 2 File size 4MB
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
4
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ RN2 8 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 7 14′–0″ 14′–0″ 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ CM1 10 RN3 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 14′–0″ 6 14′–0″ 5 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 9 3″ CM2 1″
1179
RN1 3 2 1 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1v RN2 8 7′–0″ 7 14′–0″ 14′–0v 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ CM1 10 RN3 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 14′–0″ 6 14′–0″ 5 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 9 3″ CM2
1
47′–0″ CM3
47′–0″ CM3
3″
3″ BOR
BOR
Exhibit S2.24 First Attachment Path.
Exhibit S2.26 Second Attachment Path.
K-factor to represent the outlet in our primary path, and this will be how we ultimately determine how much water would flow from the sprinklers in the attachment path. (See Exhibit S2.25.)
and pressure (P) that would be required from the first branch line (CM1) to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq). (Keq = Q ÷ p ) We will use that equivalent K to represent the outlet in our primary path and this will be how we ultimately determine how much water would flow from the sprinklers on the second branch line. (See Exhibit S2.27.)
Use K-factor from 1st path
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ RN2 8 7′–0″ 7 14′–0″ 14′–0″ 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ CM1 10 RN3 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 14′–0″ 6 14′–0″ 5 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 9 3″ CM2
1 RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
1
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} RN3 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 9 3”
10
47′–0″ CM3
47′–0″ CM3
3″
CM2 Use K-factor from CM1
BOR 3″
Exhibit S2.25 Plugging in an Equivalent K-factor for First Attachment Path. The second attachment path is where water leaves the primary path at node CM2 and flows to Sprinklers 5, 6, 7, and 8. (See Exhibit S2.26.) As we did previously, we will account for this path by describing it as an outlet in the primary path. We will again create an outlet or an equivalent K-factor to describe all of the pipe and fittings in the second attachment path. As we did previously, we’ll first calculate the attachment path and then use the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq). If you examine the pipe and fitting arrangement of the entire second branch line, you will see that the second branch line is identical to the first branch line. So, rather than perform two calculations for identical branch lines, we will use the minimum flow (Q)
BOR
Exhibit S2.27 Plugging in an Equivalent K-factor for Second Attachment Path. Next, we will need to identify the third attachment path. This path is where water leaves the primary path at Node CM3 and flows to Sprinklers 9 and 10. (See Exhibit S2.28.) We would choose to list the nodes for this path as 10-RN3-CM3. Of the two sprinklers on this path, we would choose to start with Sprinkler 10 as it will be the more challenging sprinkler to which we must deliver water. Water flows away from this attachment at Node RN3 and goes out to Sprinkler 9. We will need to describe the piping that goes from 9-RN3 as an outlet in the third attachment path. We will first
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1179
11/19/2015 3:37:27 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
1180
Use K-factor from 1st path (4-RN1) 10 RN3 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 9 3”
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
1
3″
CM2
47′–0″
47′–0″ CM3
1
CM2 CM3 Use K-factor from 3rd path
3″
3″ BOR
BOR
Exhibit S2.28 Third Attachment Path.
Exhibit S2.30 Plugging in an Equivalent K-factor for Third Attachment Path.
calculate the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) that would be required at Sprinkler 9 and through the pipe feeding it. Then, we will use that information to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq). (Keq = Q ÷ p .) We will use that equivalent K-factor to represent the outlet at RN3 and use this outlet in calculating the third attachment path. (See Exhibit S2.29.)
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
Use K-factor from 1st path (4-RN1) RN3
attachment paths. And with Exhibit S2.31, we can see the primary path that is used to perform the final calculations. We are finally ready to walk through the actual calculation procedures for the system on our project.
Use K-factor from 1st path RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
1
1
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 3″
1¹⁄₄″ 7′–0″
3″
47′–0″ 9
Use K-factor from CM1
CM3 Use K-factor from 3rd path
CM2
47′–0″ CM3
CM2
3″ BOR
3″ BOR
Exhibit S2.29 Outrigger at Third Attachment Path. With a sprinkler at Node 10 and an equivalent K-factor at Node RN3, we are all set to describe our third attachment path as 10-RN3-CM3. Now we will be prepared to calculate the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) that would be required in the third attachment path. We will use that information to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq). (Keq = Q ÷ p .) We will use that equivalent K-factor to represent the outlet (CM3) in our primary path. (See Exhibit S2.30.) Now with all three attachment paths defined, we can visualize only the primary path and the points where we will account for our
Exhibit S2.31 Primary Path with Outlets for the Attachment Paths.
STEP SEVEN: Calculate how much energy and flow will be needed for the entire remote area because of that first sprinkler. We have discussed how much water must flow from individual sprinklers and from created virtual paths for waterflow in our project system. It is now time to consider what amount of energy it will take to do the work of flowing water to the sprinklers. We will also consider the turbulence and resulting friction losses created by fittings, valves, and other devices. We are ready to walk through the calculation procedures to complete the calculation for this project. We will start with the attachment 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1180
11/19/2015 3:37:33 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
1181
Step 7.1: Complete the hydraulic analysis form using the data known for your path.
paths and finish with the primary path. The following steps are generally used to calculate the piping in a path: 1. Complete a hydraulic analysis form using the data known for your path. 2. Determine the minimum required starting pressure for your end outlet. 3. Determine the flow from the outlet (q) (if the pipe segment has a K-factor shown). 4. Verify that Q, K, and P are valid each time a new pipe segment is started. 5. Determine the total flow (Q) in the pipe segment. 6. Determine if any fitting modifiers would apply to the pipe segment. 7. Determine the friction loss per foot. 8. Determine the friction loss for the entire pipe segment. 9. Determine any elevation loss or gain. 10. Total the required pressures to create a new total pressure (Pt) for the next pipe segment. 11. Use the total pressure to begin again at Step 3 of this list on the next pipe segment. 12. When you reach the end of an attachment path, create an equivalent K-factor to place in the primary path. 13. When you reach the end of the primary path, compare the needed flow and pressure to that available from the water supply. 14. Be sure to consider any requirement for hose allowance. Let’s walk through this process, one item at a time.
The first thing we will do is start entering data onto the NFPA hydraulic calculation forms. We will use the pipe analysis form for performing calculations manually. This detailed worksheet is Figure 23.3.5.1.2(d) in NFPA 13. Exhibit S2.32 shows the standards we will use for rounding the numbers in our calculation. Be sure to use these standards if you would like to get the same results that are shown in this supplement. We will calculate the waterflow through the attachment paths to determine their equivalent K-factors. Then we will calculate the primary path. Enter the data we know for the first attachment path. We described this in Step Six as 4-RN1. We have entered the known data for this path in Exhibit S2.33. We know the following data about this path and should enter it in the appropriate place on the form: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Node tags (4 and RN1) Elevation of each node (19 ft and 16 ft) K-factor for the sprinkler (5.6) Minimum required flow [Qs = As × density (D) = 126 × 0.15 = 18.9 gpm] 5. Pipe size and actual internal diameter (1 in. and 1.049) 6. Length of pipe (L) is 7 ft 7. Tee fitting. There is a tee attached to this pipe, and the energy we would lose to friction by going through that fitting is the same as if we went through 5 ft of pipe. (See Table 22.4.3.1.1, Tee or Cross.)
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
0.1 0.1
total flow (Q)
q
0.1
(see Q notes)
0.1
0.10
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T
Nom 1/4 or ID 1/2 Act ID
0.333
(see notes)
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
frict
C
ft ft ft
elev
L
0.1 C=
Pt
0.1
F
0.1
Pe
0.1
T
0.1
Pf
0.1
Pt
0.1
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
elev
0.333
notes
Equivalent K-factors Fitting Modifiers
0.22 0.333
Exhibit S2.32 Rounding Standards for NFPA Calculations.
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
q
18.9
Q
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
L
ft ft ft
C
frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt 5.0
Pe
T 12.0
Pf
1T = 5’ F
notes
Exhibit S2.33 Known Data in First Attachment Path (4-RN1). Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1181
11/19/2015 3:37:36 PM
. ..
1182
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
8. Total equivalent length of pipe (12 ft). 9. C-factor (120). Item 7 in the list above has us adding a certain amount of feet of pipe to represent the energy lost when we turn a corner or go through a piece of equipment that creates moderate turbulence. We turn the corner through tees and elbows. Welded outlets are considered tees in NFPA 13 calculations. Equipment, like gate valves and check valves, also causes enough turbulence for us to consider in our calculations. When you place the nodes on the form, place the one closest to the water supply on the second line. We should determine what valves and devices are between the two nodes and if there is a fitting at the node closest to the water supply. When determining which fitting should be at the “upstream” node, you should again “be the water.” If you were flowing through the pipe described by these end nodes, turn around to see what fittings you came through to get into this pipe. Exhibit S2.34 shows the concept of how to choose fittings for the pipe.
1. Consider the direction water will flow. 1″
1¹⁄₄″
3″
1¹⁄₄″
1″
2. Turn around and see the fittings the water had to come through to get into and through this pipe.
riser will be accounted for twice. The water will turn going into the 1 in. outrigger. The water will also turn into the 11⁄4 in. pipe. We will account for a tee in each of those pipe segments in our path. We will also include a tee in the pipe segment that describes the riser nipple. Exhibit S2.36 shows where the fittings should be included.
This tee is accounted for on both pipes. 1″
3″
1¹⁄₄″
1¹⁄₄″
1″
A tee turn will need to be accounted for at the bottom of the riser nipple and should be included on the pipe that is the riser nipple.
Exhibit S2.36 Fittings for the Branch Line.
Step 7.2: Determine the minimum required starting pressure for your end outlet. The formula for determining the required starting pressure is P = (Q ÷ K)2. As we discussed in Step Four, the minimum flow (Q) we need from the sprinkler is 18.9 gpm. Using the K-factor from Line 1 of the Hydraulic Analysis Form, we can now determine the minimum required pressure for this outlet. Using the formula P = (Q ÷ K)2, we can see that the minimum required pressure will be 11.4 psi as shown below.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} Exhibit S2.34 Accounting for the Fittings.
When adding fittings to the hydraulic calculations, you should be aware that certain fittings do not add enough turbulence to be included in the process. In 23.4.4.7.1 of NFPA 13, there are 10 items that include direction on which fittings to include. It also gives guidance on which fittings do not need to be included. Exhibit S2.35 shows two of the situations where fittings are not included. For the branch line shown, we do need to include the tees at the top of the riser nipple and at the bottom. The tee at the top of the
The fitting attached directly to the sprinkler does not need to be considered. 1″
3″
1¹⁄₄″
1¹⁄₄″
No fitting required for water running straight through a tee.
Exhibit S2.35 Fittings Not Required to Be Included.
1″
P = (Q ÷ K)2 P = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 P = 11.4 psi
We should enter this pressure total on the Hydraulic Analysis Form in the field labeled Pt. We should also make notes that include how we determined the minimum required flow and pressure at this point. (See Exhibit S2.37.) When you start with the first outlet, you may skip the next item in the list (Step 7.3) and move on to Step 7.4.
Step 7.3: If the pipe segment has a K-factor shown, determine the flow from the outlet (q). Anytime that you are calculating a pipe segment that is not the first pipe segment in your path, you will add the data in the pressure column together, and enter that total into the Pt field on the next pipe segment. Once you enter that data, you should look to the left side of the form for this pipe segment and see if there is a K-factor that applies. If so, you will need to determine what the flow will be. Every time we have a K-factor and a pressure in the data for the pipe segment, you will need to determine the flow from that outlet. (See the step-by-step calculation for the third attachment path in Step 7.14.) The formula to determine the flow from an outlet is Q = K ÷ = p . You will enter this data into the field labeled “flow added this step (q).” 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1182
11/19/2015 3:37:40 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
q
18.9
Q
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
L
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
C
5.0
Pe
T 12.0
Pf
1T = 5’ F
elev
1183
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.37 Determine and Enter the Starting Pressure.
Step 7.4: Verify that Q, K, and P are valid each time a new pipe segment is started.
Step 7.6: Determine if any fitting modifiers would apply to the pipe segment.
The variables of Q, K, and P should always be verified by the formula Q = K × p . Verifying these numbers will ensure accuracy in the calculation procedure. This is often a step in verifying reports that were printed from calculation software. Exhibit S2.38 shows the fields we are discussing.
Table 23.4.3.1.1 of NFPA 13 is what we use to determine the equivalent length of pipe and fittings for the purposes of hydraulic calculations. You can instead choose to use the values for equivalent lengths given by the manufacturer of a project. However, when we use NFPA 13 equivalent lengths, there are two questions we must ask ourselves:
Step 7.5: Determine the total flow (Q) in the pipe segment.
1. Are we using Schedule 40 steel pipe? 2. Does the pipe segment have a C-factor of 120?
The “total flow (Q)” field should now be determined. Add the Q (total flow) from the previous step to the q (flow added in this step). In the first pipe segment of a path, Q is always the same as the q because there is no previous flow to add. We will see this step required when we calculate the third attachment path. (See Exhibit S2.39.)
If you answer “yes” to both of these questions, then you can use the equivalent lengths shown in the table. However, if you answered “no” to either of these questions, then you must adjust these lengths to ensure that we are using the correct amount of energy loss in the fitting.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
q
18.9
Q
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
L
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
C
5.0
Pe
T 12.0
Pf
1T = 5’ F
elev
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.38 Verifying Q, K, and Pt.
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4 RN1
19.0 19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
q Q
18.9 18.9
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
L
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
elev frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
C
5.0
Pe
T 12.0
Pf
1T = 5’ F
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.39 Entering Total Flow (Q). Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1183
11/19/2015 3:37:45 PM
. ..
1184
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
If you are not using Schedule 40 steel pipe, then you must modify the equivalent lengths using a formula based on a comparison of the actual internal diameter of the pipe and the internal diameter of Schedule 40 pipe. The following formula is found in 23.4.3.1.3.1.
Where: p = frictional resistance (psi per ft of pipe) Q = flow (gpm) C = friction loss coefficient d = actual internal diameter of pipe (inches)
(Actual inside diameter ÷ Schedule 40 inside diameter)4.87 = Factor
We have rewritten the formula so that you may more easily enter it into your calculator as:
If the pipe segment does not have a C-factor of 120, then you must modify the equivalent lengths using the factors given in Table 23.4.3.2.1 of NFPA 13 (and shown below as Table S2.1 in a slightly different format), by multiplying the value of the fitting lengths by the following values, based on the C-factor of the pipe segment. If the pipe segment is neither Schedule 40, nor C-factor = 120, then you must apply both fitting length modifiers as follows:
p = 4.52 × Q1.85 ÷ C1.85 ÷ d4.87 Generally, when performing hydraulic calculations for waterbased fire protection systems, we use the Hazen– Williams formula to determine this most important piece of information. Using a Q of 18.9 gpm, C of 120, and d of 1.049, would result in a p of 0.117 psi/ft. You should enter this result in the “Pf per foot” field on the hydraulic calculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.40.
Total Fitting Equivalent Lengths (F) × New Adjusted = Non-S40 Modifier × C-factor Modifier Length (Fadj)
Step 7.8: Determine the friction loss for the entire pipe segment.
TABLE S2.1 C Value Multiplier. C Value
Multiplier
100 130 140 150
0.713 1.16 1.33 1.51
Once you have determined the friction loss per foot (Pf per foot), you multiply that value by the total length of pipe and fittings (T). This will determine the total friction loss for the pipe segment (Pf). In our pipe segment this would be expressed as follows: 12 ft × 0.117/ft = 1.4 psi
Source: Table 23.4.3.2.1, NFPA 13, 2016 edition.
Enter this into the Pf (frict) field in the hydraulic c alculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.41.
Step 7.7: Determine the friction loss per foot.
Step 7.9: Determine any elevation loss or gain. {2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} Once we know how much water will be flowing (Q), the pipe size through which it will flow (D), and the C-factor for the pipe segment, we can calculate the amount of friction loss that will occur in each foot (and equivalent foot) of pipe. Generally, when performing hydraulic calculations for water-based fire protection systems, we use the Hazen–Williams formula to determine this most important piece of information. The Hazen–Williams Formula as it appears in NFPA 13 is as follows: P=
4.52Q1.85 C 1.85d 4.87
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4 RN1
19.0 19.0
We must take any elevation change into account that occurs in our pipe segment. When the water flows uphill, there will be more energy needed. This is represented by entering a positive value in the Pe(elev) field. When the water flows downhill, there will be energy gained. This is represented by entering a negative value in the Pe(elev) field (because this is energy we are getting back). The pipe segment we are calculating has no elevation change. Both nodes are at an elevation of 19 ft, as shown in the Elev 1 and Elev 2 fields. Therefore, we should enter 0.0 psi for the Pe(elev) field in the hydraulic calculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.42.
total flow (Q)
5.60
q Q
18.9 18.9
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
L 1T = 5’ F
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
elev frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
5.0
T 12.0
C
0.117
Pe Pf
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.40 Determining Friction Loss per Foot (Pf ). 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1184
11/19/2015 3:37:48 PM
..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
L 1T = 5’ F
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
5.0
T 12.0
C
0.117
elev
Pe
1185
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
Pf
1.4
(18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.41 Determining Total Friction Loss (Pf – frict).
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
L 1T = 5’ F
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
elev frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
5.0
T 12.0
C
0.117
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.42 Determining Total Friction Loss (Pf – frict).
Step 7.10: Total the required pressures to create a new Total Pressure (Pt) for the next pipe segment.
this becomes the beginning pressure and should be used to determine the amount of flow (q) from any outlet shown in the K-factor field for that segment. See the step-by-step calculation for the third attachment path in Step 7.14.
The only thing left in calculating this path is to add the needed pressures together and determine the total pressure (Pt) we will need. When there are more pipe segments in the path, this total will be the beginning pressure for the next pipe segment. Add the pressure column and enter the result in the Pt(total) field on the next line of the hydraulic calculation form. See Exhibit S2.43.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} Step 7.12: When you reach the end of an attachment path, create an equivalent K-factor to place in the primary path.
We have completed the calculation of the minimum required pressure (Pt) and flow (Q) for the first attachment path. This is the information we need in order to create the equivalent K-factor that describes all of the calculations we have just performed. When we know the P and the Q, we can determine an equivalent K-factor in the following manner.
Step 7.11: Use the total pressure to begin again at Step 3 on the next pipe segment. As stated earlier, this total will be the beginning pressure for the next pipe segment. When there are additional pipe segments in the path,
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
L 1T = 5’ F
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
5.0
T 12.0
C
0.117
elev
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
Pt
12.8
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.43 Determining Total Pressure (Pt ) required for our pipe segment. Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1185
11/19/2015 3:37:54 PM
. ..
1186
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
water flow out of sprinkler 10 because it is on smaller pipe and will need more energy to flow enough water than will Sprinkler 9. See Exhibit S2.46.
K = Q ÷ p Keq = 18.9 gpm ÷ 12.8 psi Keq = 5.28 ydraulic cal This should be shown in the notes section of the h culation form as shown in Exhibit S2.44.
Step 7.13: When you reach the end of the primary path, compare the needed flow and pressure to that available from the water supply.
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
RN3 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 9 3″
10
See the calculation of the primary path that follows for the final pressure and flow that will be required for our system.
CM2
1
9
47′–0″ CM3 10-RN3-CM3
Step 7.14: Be sure to consider any requirement for hose allowance.
Water flows away from the third attachment path here and goes to Sprinkler 9.
3″
The insurance company for our sample project has told us to add any needed hose allowance at the base of the riser. We will use the hose allowance required by NFPA 13 in Table 11.2.3.1.2. For an ordinary hazard occupancy, we will be required to include an additional flow of 250 gpm for the fire department to use for hoses during operations when they arrive at the fire scene. When we complete the calculations for the system, we will add 250 gpm to the demand before comparing the needed flow to that flow available from the water supply.
BOR
Exhibit S2.45 Third Attachment Piping Layout.
Calculating the Third Attachment Path
RN1 3 2 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″ 1″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″ 14′–0″ CM1
RN3
10
1
1″
The third attachment path requires us to create an equivalent K-factor for the pipe that feeds Sprinklers 9 and 10 (10-RN3-CM3). Water flows away from this attachment at Node RN3 and goes out to Sprinkler 9. We will need to describe the piping that goes from 9-RN3 as an outlet in the third attachment path. See Exhibit S2.45. We will first calculate the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) that would be required at Sprinkler 9 and through the pipe feeding it. Then, we will use that information to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq) (Keq = Q ÷ p ). We will use that equivalent K-factor to represent the outlet at RN3 and use this outlet in calculating the third attachment path. We chose Sprinkler 10 as the end sprinkler on the third attachment path. It will be more demanding to make
7′–0″ 3″
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
4
19.0
RN1
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
Create K-factor for 9-RN3
3″ BOR
Exhibit S2.46 Determining the Equivalent K-factor (Keq ) for the Third Attachment Path.
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T
q
CM2
47′–0″ CM3
L 1T = 5’ F
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
5.0
T 12.0
C
0.117
elev
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
Pt
12.8
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Keq@RN1 = Q ÷ √Pt = 5.28
Exhibit S2.44 Determining the Equivalent K-factor (Keq ) for the First Attachment Path. 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1186
11/19/2015 3:37:59 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
When we walk through the same process we used for the first attachment path, the results for the 9-RN3 pipe segment should be as shown in Exhibit S2.47. We establish an equivalent K-factor for this pipe segment, and we will insert it into our third attachment path. With the remaining sprinkler at Node 10 and an equivalent K at node RN3, we are all set to describe our third attachment path as 10-RN3-CM3. Now we are prepared to calculate the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) that would be required in the third attachment path. We will use that information to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq) (Keq = Q ÷ p ). We will use that equivalent K-factor to represent the outlet for this attachment path at CM3 in our primary path. See Exhibit S2.30. As always, we enter the known information about our attachment path. See Exhibit S2.48. We can complete the calculation for friction loss per foot and for the total equivalent pipe length for this segment. Enter the data as shown in Exhibit S2.49.
K flow addedNode Elev 1 factor this step (q) 1 Node Elev 2 2
9 RN3
19.0
total flow (Q)
5.60
q Q
19.0
18.9 18.9
After we have entered the friction losses for the first pipe, we can total the pressure column and enter the total pressure (Pt) for the next pipe segment (RN3-CM3). However, this is the first time we have encountered a second pipe segment in a path. And as we said previously, when we enter the Pt data on a new pipe segment, we must look to the left side of the hydraulic analysis form to see if this segment has a K-factor. We can see that this second pipe segment (RN3-CM3) has the equivalent K-factor we created for the pipe segment labeled 9-RN3. Therefore, we must use it to determine how much water would actually flow out to Sprinkler 9 when we flow the minimum required flow from Sprinkler 10. So we will use Q = K × p to determine that this outlet will flow 19.7 gpm as shown in Exhibit S2.50. Now we can combine the “flow added this step (q)” from the outlet with the “total flow (Q).” This would be 19.7 + 18.9 = 38.6 gpm,
Nominal ID fittings- L qty and F equiv Actual ID length T Nom ID
1 1/4
Act ID
1.380
1187
L 1T = 6′ F
Pt
total
Pf per Pe foot Pf
elev frict
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
ft ft ft
6.0
T 13.0
C
0.031
Pe
0.0
Pf
0.4
Pt
11.8
notes
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Keq@RN3 = Q ÷ √Pt = 5.50
Exhibit S2.47 Calculation for Third Attachment Equivalent K-factor.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
5.60
q Q
5.50
18.9 18.9
q Q
16.0
Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
Nom ID
1 1/2
Act ID
1.610
1T = 5′
1T = 8′
L
7.0 C = 120 Pt
F
5.0
Pe
T 12.0
Pf
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
F
8.0
Pe
T 11.0
Pf
11.4
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
1.3
Pe = .433 × 3′ = 1.3 psi
Exhibit S2.48 Calculating Third Attachment Flow and Pressure.
10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
16.0
5.60
q Q
5.50
18.9 18.9
q Q
Nom ID
1
Act ID
1.049
Nom ID
1 1/2
Act ID
1T = 5′
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
F
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
1.3
Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 = 19.4 gpm
6.0
T 13.0
1T = 8′
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
L
0.117
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
F
8.0
Pe
T 11.0
Pf
Exhibit S2.49 Calculating Third Attachment Friction Loss and Total Equivalent Pipe Length.
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1187
11/19/2015 3:38:03 PM
. ..
1188
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
5.60
5.50
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
19.7
Nom ID
1 1/2
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
F
5.0
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
12.8
F
8.0
Pe
1.3
T 11.0
Pf
T 12.0
1T = 8′
Act ID
Q
16.0
1T = 5′
L
0.117
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 = 19.7 gpm
Exhibit S2.50 Calculating Flow for Sprinkler 9. the next line. So we add Pt + Pe + Pf for this pipe segment to determine the Pt for the next line:
and we enter the data into the “total flow (Q)” field for this pipe segment as shown in Exhibit S2.51. With this flow determined, we can now calculate the friction losses (Pf per foot, Pf for total length) for this pipe segment. We enter this data as shown in Exhibit S2.52. Once we have completed the fields that apply to this pipe segment, total the pressure column and place the result in the Pt field on
10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
5.60
5.50
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
19.7
Nom ID
1 1/2
Q
16.0
38.6
1T = 5′
Enter this data and determine the result as shown in Exhibit S2.53. We have completed the calculation of the minimum required pressure (Pt) and flow (Q) for the third attachment path. This is the
L
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
F
5.0
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
12.8
F
8.0
Pe
1.3
T 11.0
Pf
T 12.0
1T = 8′
Act ID
12.8 + 1.3 + 0.6 = 14.7 psi
0.117
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 = 19.7 gpm
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} Exhibit S2.51 Calculating Third Attachment Total Flow.
10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
16.0
5.60
5.50
q
18.9
Nom ID
1 1T = 5′
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
19.7
Nom ID
1 1/2
Q
38.6
Act ID
L
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
F
5.0
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
12.8
F
8.0
Pe
1.3
Pf
0.6
L
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
F
5.0
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
12.8
F
8.0
1.3
T 12.0
1T = 8′
T 11.0
0.117
0.055
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 = 19.7 gpm
Exhibit S2.52 Calculating Friction Losses.
10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
16.0
5.60
5.50
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
19.7
Nom ID
1 1/2
Q
38.6
Act ID
1T = 5′
T 12.0
1T = 8′
T 11.0
0.117
0.055
Pe Pf
0.6
Pf
14.7
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 = 19.7 gpm
Exhibit S2.53 Calculating Pt (Total Pressure). 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1188
11/19/2015 3:38:09 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
information we need in order to create the equivalent K-factor that describes the piping arrangement we just calculated as an outlet in our primary path. When we know the P and the Q, we can determine an equivalent K-factor in the following manner.
we did not perform the calculations for Branch line 2. If you will remember, we said that since Branch line 2 is the exact same piping arrangement as Branch line 1, we will determine an equivalent K-factor at CM1 for use at CM2 as we calculate the primary path. This means that it is time for us to finish this calculation by performing the calculations for the primary path.
K = Q ÷ P Keq = 38.6 gpm ÷ √14.7 psi Keq = 10.07
Primary Path Calculations We will continue following the process described earlier by first entering all of the data we know for the primary path onto the hydraulic analysis form. This includes the equivalent K-factors for the first and third attachment paths. See Exhibit S2.55.
This should be shown in the notes section of the hydraulic calculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.54. Now that we have calculated the first and third attachment paths, we can calculate the remaining primary path. You might be wondering why
10
19.0
RN3
19.0
RN3
19.0
CM3
5.60
5.50
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
19.7
Nom ID
1 1/2
Q
16.0
38.6
1189
1T = 5′
7.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
F
5.0
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.4
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
12.8
F
8.0
Pe
1.3
Pf
0.6
Pf
14.7
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
Pe
0.0
T 12.0
1T = 8′
Act ID
L
T 11.0
0.117
0.055
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 = 19.7 gpm Keq@CM3 = Q ÷ √Pt = 10.07
Exhibit S2.54 Calculation for Third Attachment Equivalent K-factor.
1
19.0
2
19.0
2
19.0
3
19.0
3
19.0
5.60
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
Nom ID
1 1/4
Q
Act ID
1.380
q
Nom ID
1 1/4
Act ID
6.0
Pe
Q
1.380
T 13.0
Pf
q
Nom ID
1 1/2
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
Act ID
F
8.0
Pe
Q
1.610
T 11.0
Pf
3
F
0.0
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} RN1
5.60
5.60
19.0
RN1
19.0
CM1
16.0
5.28
q
CM2
16.0
Q
Act ID
3.068
CM2
16.0
q
Nom ID
3
CM3
16.0
Q
Act ID
3.068
CM3
16.0
10.13 q
Nom ID
3
Act ID
3.068
1.0
Q
Pe Pf
L
1T = 8′
16.0
BOR
0.0
T 14.0
1T = 6’ F
CM1
Pf
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
F
Nom ID
??
T 14.0
1T = 5′
0.0
7.0 C = 120 Pt
L
9.0 C = 120 Pt
F
0.0
Pe
T
9.0
Pf
L
9.0 C = 120 Pt
F
0.0
Pe
T
9.0
Pf
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
L 47.0 C = 120 Pt E+G+C F 24.0
Pe
7+1+16 T 71.0
Pf
6.5
Pt
Exhibit S2.55 First and Third Attachment Hydraulic Data. Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1189
11/19/2015 3:38:12 PM
..
1190
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
the second pipe segment. We show the results you should obtain in Exhibit S2.56. Using the new Pt for the second pipe segment (Nodes 2 and 3), we can determine the flow that will come from the second sprinkler on our most remote branch line. Using the formula, Q = K × p , will result in a flow (q) of 20.2 gpm from Sprinkler 2. This is shown in Exhibit S2.57.
Be sure to enter the correct equivalent K-factor values for the attachment paths. Note the question marks that are entered at CM2 to remind us to determine an equivalent K-factor from CM1 to describe the second attachment path, which is the same piping arrangement that we will calculate for the first branch line. At this point you should be able to walk through the procedure for calculating the first pipe segment and determine the Pt for
1
19.0
2
16.0
2
19.0
3
19.0
5.60
5.60
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
Nom ID
1 1/4
Q
Act ID
1.380
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
11.4
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.6
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
13.0
F
0.0
T 14.0
0.117
0.0
Pe
T 14.0
Pf
F
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.56 Calculating Pt for Second Pipe Segment.
1
19.0
2
16.0
2
19.0
3
19.0
5.60
5.60
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
20.2
Nom ID
1 1/4
Q
39.1
11.4
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.6
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
13.0
F
Q
Act ID
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
F 1.380
0.0
T 14.0
0.0
T 14.0
0.117
0.118
0.0
Pe Pf
1.7
Pt
14.7
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.6 × √13.0 = 20.2 gpm
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} Exhibit S2.57 Calculating Flow for Sprinkler 2.
Exhibit S2.57 also shows the total flow in this step (Q), the friction loss per foot (0.118), the total friction loss (Pf), and the new total pressure (Pt) of 14.7 that will be used to determine the flow from the outlet in the next pipe segment. As you can see, this starts to become very repetitive. We must complete the calculations for Branch line 1 so that we can determine the equivalent K-factor that will apply to Branch line 2. Exhibit S2.58 shows the data entered in the first portion of the primary path, stopping at the end of Branch line 1 (Node CM1). Exhibit S2.58 shows the minimum required pressure (Pt) and flow (Q) for Branch line 1. This is the information we need in order to create the equivalent K-factor that describes the piping arrangement we just calculated. We will use this to create the equivalent K-factor to use at node CM2 (Branch line 2) in our primary path. When we know the P and the Q, we can determine an equivalent K in the following manner. K = Q ÷ P Keq = 83.1 gpm ÷ √22.0 psi Keq = 17.72
This should be shown in the notes section of the hydraulic calculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.58. One of the benefits of using the primary path method to calculate systems is that once all of the equivalent K-factors have been determined, you can continue the calculations through the primary path until you reach the water supply. Exhibit S2.59 shows the remainder of the calculations for the primary path. The sprinkler system for our project requires a minimum flow and pressure of 214.1 gpm @ 33.7 psi. We will need to add a hose allowance of 250 gpm at the base of the riser (Node BOR). We will add the hose allowance to the required flow without changing the required minimum pressure. Sprinkler System Requirement: Hose Allowance:
214.1 gpm
at 33.7 psi
+250.0 gpm
Total Required Flow and Pressure:
464.1 gpm
at 33.7 psi
Congratulations for making it this far. You have learned more than the typical engineer and designer in the fire protection industry. It is time to see if all of our work has paid off. Move on to Step Eight to see if your calculation can be considered successful.
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1190
11/19/2015 3:38:16 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
1
19.0
2
16.0
2
19.0
3 3
5.60
5.60
19.0 19.0
RN1
19.0
RN1
19.0
q
18.9
Nom ID
1
Q
18.9
Act ID
1.049
q
20.2
Nom ID
1 1/4
Q 5.60
5.28
q
1.380
1T = 6′
q
22.5
Nom ID
1 1/2
Act ID
1.610
Nom ID
3
Act ID
3.068
Nom ID
3
CM1
16.0
q
83.1
Q
0.0
Pf
1.6
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
13.0
1.380
0.0
T 14.0
1 1/4
60.6
Q
Pe
0.0
T 14.0
F
Q
16.0
16.0
21.5
Nom ID
11.4
F
Act ID
CM1
CM2
39.1
Act ID
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
0.118
Pe
0.0
Pf
1.7
L
7.0 C = 120 Pt
14.7
F
6.0
Pe
0.0
Pf
3.5
L
3.0 C = 120 Pt
18.2
F
8.0
Pe
1.3
Pf
2.5
L
9.0 C = 120 Pt
22.0
F
0.0
Pe
0.0
T
9.0
Pf
L
9.0 C = 120 Pt
22.0
F
0.0
Pe
0.0
T
9.0
Pf
0.1
L
9.0 C = 120 Pt
22.1
T 13.0
1T = 8′
0.117
T 11.0
0.266
0.225
1191
q = As × density = 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm P = (Q ÷ K)2 = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi Q = K × √P = 5.6 × √13.0 = 20.2 gpm
Q = K × √P = 5.6 × √14.7 = 21.5 gpm
Flow to first attachment path Q = K × √P = 5.8 × √18.2 = 22.5 gpm Pe = 3′ × 0.433 psi = 1.3 psi
Keq@CM1 = Q + √Pt = 17.72
Exhibit S2.58 Primary Path Hydraulic Data.
CM1 CM2 CM2
16.0 16.0 16.0
q Q 17.72 q
0.0 83.1
Act ID
83.3
Nom ID
3
166.4
Act ID
3.068
47.7
Nom ID
3
Act ID
3.068
3.068
0.010
Keq@CM1 = Q + √Pt = 17.72
Flow to second attachment path Q = K × √P = 17.72 × √22.1 = 83.3 gpm
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} CM3
CM3 BOR
16.0
16.0 1.0
Q
10.07 q Q
214.1
F
0.0
T
9.0
0.035
Pe
0.0
Pf
0.3
L 62.0 C = 120 Pt
22.4
E+G+C F 24.0 7+1+16 T 86.0
0.056
Pe
6.5
Pf
4.8
Pt
33.7
Flow to third attachment path Q = K × √P = 10.07 × √22.4 = 47.7 gpm Pe = 15′ × 0.433 psi = 6.5 psi
Exhibit S2.59 Primary Path Hydraulic Data Calculated to Base of Riser.
STEP EIGHT: Compare the waterflow and pressure you think is needed to the flow and pressure that is available at the water supply. If the demand is less than that available, the calculation can be considered successful. Now compare the results of our calculation to the available water supply for this project. The available water supply is shown in Exhibit S2.60. Next, identify the point on the graph that represents our sprinkler system demand of 214.3 gpm at 32.9 psi. We will also draw a line that starts with no water and no energy being used (0.0 gpm and 0.0 psi), and goes to the system demand. This line is drawn
to indicate an increasing demand as sprinklers open during a fire event. It is not an accurate representation of water flowing during a fire. See Exhibit S2.61. We should next draw a line showing that we added the hose allowance that is required from NFPA 13, Chapter 11. NFPA 13 requires an allowance of 250 gpm for systems designed to protect ordinary hazard occupancies. See Exhibit S2.62. We add the hose allowance to the sprinkler demand without revising the required pressure. This can be stated as follows: Sprinkler System Requirement: Hose Allowance: Total Required Flow and Pressure:
214.1 gpm
at 33.7 psi
+250.0 gpm 464.1 gpm
at 33.7 psi
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1191
11/19/2015 3:38:19 PM
. ..
1192
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
80
Static: 72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual: 58 psi 1200 gpm
60 50
Water supply available at the base of the system riser
40 30 20 10 0 A B C
0 50 75 100 0 100 150 200 0 200 300 400
125 250 500
150 300 600
175 350 700
200 400 800
225 450 900
250 500 1000
275 550 1100
300 600 1200
325 650 1300
Exhibit S2.60 Available Water Supply.
80
Static: 72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual: 58 psi 1200 gpm
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 60 50 40 30
Sprinkler system requirement 33.7 psi 214.1 gpm
20 10 0 A B C
0 50 75 100 0 100 150 200 0 200 300 400
125 250 500
150 300 600
175 350 700
200 400 800
225 450 900
250 500 1000
275 550 1100
300 600 1200
325 650 1300
Exhibit S2.61 Sprinkler System Demand. This total needs to be indicated on the water supply graph as shown in Exhibit S2.62. It becomes apparent that the minimum required flow and pressure for our project system does not exceed the available water supply. In fact, we need to indicate the available flow and pressure as shown in Exhibit S2.63.
In Exhibit S2.63, we can see that have approximately 69 psi available from the water supply when 464.1 gpm are flowing. The difference between the available pressure and the required pressure is often called the safety factor or buffer. There is no minimum safety factor required by NFPA 13. The NFPA 13 calculation process has 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1192
11/19/2015 3:38:22 PM
. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
80
Static: 72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual: 58 psi 1200 gpm
60 50 40
Sprinkler system requirement 33.7 psi 214.1 gpm
30 20
1193
Hose allowance 250 gpm
Total project water requirement 33.7 psi 464.1 gpm
10 0 A B C
0 50 75 100 0 100 150 200 0 200 300 400
125 250 500
150 300 600
175 350 700
200 400 800
225 450 900
250 500 1000
275 550 1100
300 600 1200
325 650 1300
Exhibit S2.62 Adding Hose Allowance.
80
Static: 72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual: 58 psi 1200 gpm
Available flow and pressure +/– 69 psi 464.1 gpm
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 60 50 40
Sprinkler system requirement 33.7 psi 214.1 gpm
30 20
Hose allowance 250 gpm
Total project water requirement 33.7 psi 464.1 gpm
10 0 A B C
0 50 75 100 0 100 150 200 0 200 300 400
125 250 500
150 300 600
175 350 700
200 400 800
225 450 900
250 500 1000
275 550 1100
300 600 1200
325 650 1300
Exhibit S2.63 Comparing Available Supply to the Demand. built in safety factors that allow designers to simply have a demand that is less than the available supply. We could say that this system calculation was successful since the available water pressure of 69 psi and a system demand of 33.7 psi would leave a safety factor of 35.3 psi. However, it would seem prudent to resize this system’s
iping so that the demand came closer to the available water supply. p By so doing, the designer will save the owner money without lowering the minimum required level of safety for their project. And ultimately, we should be trying to design and install the lowest cost system that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1193
11/19/2015 3:38:25 PM
. ..
1194
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System
SUMMARY We have covered a lot of territory in this supplement that simply cannot be fully addressed in such a manner. We have hopefully given you the tools needed to review or begin the calculations of fire sprinkler
systems. While this might have been an entire supplement of “alphabet soup,” you have learned about A, As, Qs, D, gpm, psi, K, C, d, L, F, T, Pt, Pe, Pf, q, Q, Keq, BL, RN, and CM. (Whew!) And if you managed to stay with the flow of this text (pardon the pun), you have learned how to perform a hydraulic calculation, step-by-step.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1194
11/19/2015 3:38:25 PM
. ..
3
Supplement
The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
Alan Brinson
HISTORY The British claim that the sprinkler concept was invented in the United Kingdom by William Congreve, with the first system installed at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, in 1812. Although this system had a network of pipes, it did not include sprinklers. Instead, it used a series of holes in the pipes to distribute water. Later that century, in 1864, Major Stewart Harrison of the First Engineer London Volunteers designed the first automatic sprinkler but did not patent his idea or commercialize it. Thus, it was only after sprinklers were commercialized in the United States that they began to be used in Europe, starting in the United Kingdom. The first risks to be protected were textile mills in the Manchester area. William Mather, of the engineering firm Mather & Platt, met Frederic Grinnell in 1882 and purchased the rights to the Grinnell sprinkler for all areas outside North America. Mather & Platt became the leading sprinkler manufacturer and installer in the United Kingdom and in several other European countries. Today, Manchester remains the center of the British sprinkler industry.
APSAD R13 design and installation rule for sprinkler systems recognized by French insurers. In 2004, the European standards body, Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN), produced the first European sprinkler system installation standard, EN 12845, again drawing heavily on the FOC concepts. Two amendments have been made and at the time of writing, the text of a first revision of EN 12845 has been approved for publication in 2015. While there are differences between CEA 4001, APSAD R1, and EN 12845,4 they are growing together and contradictions have already been eliminated. Many of the technical innovations in NFPA 13 are not yet reflected in these documents so for certain occupancies, in particular for storage, designers often successfully argue that NFPA 13 (or the relevant FM data sheet) is an acceptable alternative. In France, CNPP is licensed by NFPA to distribute French editions of NFPA 13 and a number of other NFPA standards.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
INSTALLATION STANDARDS In 1885, John Wormald wrote the first installation rules for automatic sprinkler systems. A second edition was published in 1886 by his employer, the Mutual Fire Insurance Corporation Limited of Manchester, United Kingdom. The London Fire Offices’ Committee (FOC) adopted an 1888 edition of these rules and regularly published updates, with the twenty-ninth and final edition being published in 1968. The FOC rules greatly influenced the development of sprinkler installation rules in other European countries, and in turn led to the Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA – European Insurers) rule, CEA 4001.1 In Germany, VdS,2 a laboratory and certification body owned by the German Insurance Association, administers the German version of CEA 4001. Most sprinkler systems installed in Germany are designed using VdS CEA 4001. Similarly in France, CNPP, a laboratory and certification body with strong insurance links publishes the
COMPONENT STANDARDS EN 12845 was written to support a series of component standards under EN 12259: • • • • • • • • •
Part 1 — sprinklers5 Part 2 — wet alarm valve assemblies6 Part 3 — dry alarm valve assemblies7 Part 4 — water motor alarms8 Part 5 — flow switches9 Part 9 — deluge valves Part 12 — pumps Part 13 — pump assemblies Part 14 — residential sprinklers
Parts 9 through 14 have not yet been finalized, but the existence of these standards allows regulators to reference them. Their technical requirements are similar to those in UL and FM test protocols. Prior to the existence of these standards, test bodies in different countries applied different test protocols, so different sprinklers had
1195
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1195
11/19/2015 3:44:15 PM
. ..
1196
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
to be manufactured for different national markets. Today, the same sprinkler can be installed across Europe and in the United States. That is the reason these standards were produced: under the Construction Products Directive, which has been replaced by the Construction Products Regulation (CPR),10 barriers to cross-border trade in construction products within the European Union must be removed. To facilitate that, the European Commission has mandated that CEN produce standards for all types of construction products, including sprinklers.11 Where there is a harmonized European standard for a sprinkler component, that component must bear the CE mark, which requires testing by a laboratory accredited by one of the European Union member states to the relevant standard. It is illegal to offer such a sprinkler component for sale in Europe without the CE mark. This regulation does not apply to products for which a harmonized European standard does not exist. For example, EN 12259-1 does not include large orifice sprinklers, so they cannot be CE marked but they can be sold in the European Union. System standards cannot be harmonized because the CPR only applies to products. This means that with the approval of the authority having jurisdiction, standards other than EN 12845, such as NFPA 13, can be used to design sprinkler systems.
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER STANDARDS Residential sprinklers are still a new concept in much of Europe, with many countries yet to see the first system installed. One hindrance is the lack of a national installation standard to which regulators can refer (NFPA 13R12 and NFPA 13D13 are foreign standards that are written in English and not accepted by most regulators). CEN is therefore drafting a residential system design and installation standard, drawing on the concepts in NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D. The standard will be complemented by Part 14 of EN 12259, which is based on UL 1626 and specifies the test protocol for the residential sprinklers to be used in these systems.
FIRES AND FIRE SAFETY CODES Few European countries produce detailed fire statistics. Most do not even record the total number of fire deaths each year, let alone the sex and age of those who died, or in what type of building and where in it the fire started. In those countries that do collect data, it is not necessarily collected on a consistent basis. This lack of interest in fire protection is reflected in far less use of sprinklers in Europe than in North America. Nevertheless, for more than 20 years, the Geneva Association has published an overview of world fire statistics, using data from fire brigades and the World Health Organization.16 There are some large differences between the two figures in some countries but it is clear that there are well over 3000 and probably over 4000 fire deaths each year in the European Union, and that the fire death rate is higher in Northern and Eastern Europe than in Southern Europe. This difference is to be expected when one considers that in Northern Europe people spend more time indoors, their homes have more carpeting and curtains, furniture is more deeply upholstered, and they make greater use of candles. In Eastern Europe, more use is made of wood-burning stoves for heating and cooking. See Table S3.1. Property loss statistics from fire in Europe are stable and at a similar level to the United States. A number of countries have estimated that the annual economic cost of fire is approximately 1 percent of GDP.17,18 In the United States, the federal government does not have jurisdiction over fire safety codes. In Europe, each country (member state) of the European Union has jurisdiction over its fire safety code. In some countries, similar to the United States, this responsibility is delegated to states, provinces, or regions within the country. Some countries cover all the regulatory requirements in one document,
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} COMPETENCY STANDARDS Central and Northern European countries have national accreditation schemes for sprinkler installers. These schemes are usually drafted on behalf of insurers, who only recognize sprinkler systems installed by companies accredited under them. Among other requirements, each national scheme requires an installing company to show it has a quality control system, and to nominate people to sit for a sprinkler examination. It could be argued that these private schemes constitute a barrier to cross-border trade. For that reason, CEN and its sister organization for electrical standards, CENELEC, have formed a joint committee, CEN/TC 4,14 to draft standards for individuals and companies who supply security services. The mandate for this committee stems from the European Services Directive,15 legislation which is opening up Europe to cross-border trade in services. The scope of work for CEN/TC 4 includes active fire protection systems, with sprinklers specifically named.
TABLE S3.1 Extract from GAIN Statistics for Fire Deaths (2010) Country Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom
Fire Brigade 131 90
119 65
247
WHO 39 62 66 79 475 (2009) 373 89 140 43 191 39 38 568 61 397 9 188 80 21 292
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1196
11/19/2015 3:44:15 PM
. ..
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
while others have separate regulatory documents for different building types. In practice, the codes are usually drafted by government officials, sometimes with the assistance of nationally recognized fire safety experts, and they are written in the national language. After they are developed, codes are reviewed far less frequently than NFPA or ICC codes and often remain unchanged for decades. As a result of the separate and different arrangements for drafting fire codes, the regulatory fire safety requirements differ widely across Europe. Sprinklers are not required in most new buildings. Instead, the emphasis is on compartmentation, and even fire detection is not yet a universal requirement.
SPRINKLER MARKETS As explained above, fire safety codes in European countries do not generally call for sprinklers. However, most European countries do require sprinklers for some types of buildings, and the list is growing.
Industrial In Europe, sprinklers have traditionally been used at the insistence of insurers to mitigate industrial property fire losses. With the
1197
break-up of industry-wide insurance tariff and discount agreements for sprinklers under anti-trust legislation, the influence of insurers on the sprinkler market has weakened. Furthermore, insurers today employ far fewer loss prevention engineers than in the past. Fortunately, regulators have mandated the fitting of sprinklers in many of the risks where they were already commonly fitted at the insistence of insurers, such as in new, large factories and warehouses. Such regulatory requirements have also been justified as a means to prevent environmental damage, to protect fire fighters, and to preserve employment. Often they were introduced as buildings, and thus industrial building fires, became larger. Table S3.2 provides an overview of regulatory requirements for sprinklers in industrial buildings across Europe. Several countries have introduced these requirements since 2000, setting a threshold for the sprinkler requirement in the form of an area limit, height limit, or maximum specific fire load. Looking ahead, while there are some national gaps in this overview, it is unlikely that the European sprinkler market as a whole will see major market growth in industrial risks. New, large warehouses in most countries are routinely fitted with sprinklers. There is scope for greater regulatory pressure to fit sprinklers in new factories. But in practice many new, large factories are already being voluntarily fitted with sprinklers, either
TABLE S3.2 Sprinkler Requirements in Factories and Warehouses Country
Industry
Czech Republic21
Larger compartments >25,000 m2 and 10,000 m2 and >350 MJ/m2 >5000 m2 and >900 MJ/m2 >20 m3 of flammable liquids
Denmark22
>2000 m2 and >200 MJ/m2 >5000 m2 other fire load
Austria19 Belgium20
Warehouses Generally >1800 m2 >5000 m2
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} France23 Germany24 Greece25
fire load >15 kWh/m2 and >400 m2 fire load >45 kWh/m2 and 2000 m2
Hungary26 Ireland27 Lithuania28 Netherlands29 Norway30 Spain31 Sweden32 Turkey33
>2000 m2 with combustible goods >1000 m2 >800 m2 >3500 m2 and >350 MJ/m2 Maximum compartment sizes reduced further if the fire load is higher or the building adjoins others >800 MJ/m2 and >5000 m2 >15,000 m2, or with easily ignitable and flammable materials >6000 m2
United Kingdom34
Postal stores >800 m2 >50 m3 of flammable liquids >2000 m2 and >200 MJ/m2 >5000 m2 other fire load >3000 m2 >1200 m2 or Storage >7.5 m high >2,000 MJ/m2 or >1000 MJ/m2 and >2000 m2 >3000 m2 or >6 m high and >1500 MJ/m2 Single story >14,000 m2 normal and >1000 m2 high hazard >2000 m2 Fireworks storage >2500 m2 fire compartment >800 m2 >2000 m2 and >850 MJ/m2 Maximum compartment sizes reduced further if the fire load is higher or building adjoins others >800 MJ/m2 and >2500 m2 >5000 m2, or with easily ignitible and flammable materials >1000 m2 >20,000 m2 or >18 m height
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1197
11/19/2015 3:44:16 PM
. ..
1198
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
to secure better insurance cover or to mitigate concerns raised by corporate risk assessments.
TABLE S3.3 Sprinkler Requirements in Shopping Centers and HighRise Buildings Country
Shopping Centers and High-Rise Buildings More recently, national regulators in Europe have begun to recognize that sprinklers also help to protect people from fire. Initially their concern was to prevent large loss of life in a fire, so sprinklers have been mandated in large buildings occupied by many people, such as shopping centers and high-rise buildings. Most European countries now require sprinklers in these new buildings and almost all the mandates were introduced this century. Reflecting the risk, regulators have set thresholds at which the sprinkler requirement is invoked, usually depending on the area, height, or maximum occupancy level, as indicated in Table S3.3. There are some notable gaps in this table. For example, France only requires sprinklers in commercial buildings higher than 600 ft (200 m), which impacts very few buildings, while Belgium and Italy do not require sprinklers in any high-rise buildings.
Residential Buildings More recently, regulators in some European countries have begun to make use of sprinklers to reduce the risk where most fire deaths occur: at home. Within that category, homes for the elderly, sick, and vulnerable (grouped as care homes) pose the greatest risk. It is clear that those who are unable to respond rapidly or adequately to a fire alarm are at the greatest risk from fire. In fact, figures from the United Kingdom show that the fire death rate in care homes for the elderly and for children is about 30 times greater than for the general population in houses.47 Several countries, therefore, now mandate the use of sprinklers in all new care homes. Finland has gone even further and now requires all existing care homes to conduct a governmentguided risk analysis, which often identifies a need for sprinklers. The Finnish government is conducting a survey of care homes, which is expected to show that at least half now have sprinklers installed. The last survey, in 2010, found sprinklers installed in more than 30 percent of care homes.48 Even where the sprinkler requirement is only for new care homes, in a relatively small number of years it can have a large impact. Scotland has only mandated sprinklers in new care homes since 2005, yet by 2013 a third of all existing care homes in Scotland had sprinklers.49 While not yet mandated, in The Netherlands and England, an increasing number of new care homes owners are voluntarily installing sprinklers to meet their responsibility for those in their care. In many countries, the requirement to install sprinklers in high-rise buildings extends to apartment buildings. However, Norway specifically requires sprinklers in all new apartment buildings, and Scotland requires them in new apartment buildings higher than 60 ft (18 m) or about six stories. Finland requires sprinklers in wooden apartment buildings higher than four stories and up to
Shopping Centers
Austria
>32 m or >22 m and less fire resistance
Belgium35 Czech Republic Denmark France36,37 Germany38,39
>2000 m2 >1000 m2 >2000 m2 >3000 m2 >3000 m2
Greece
Total area > 2500 m2 >8000 m2 or >13.65 m >4000 m2
Hungary Ireland Lithuania Luxemburg40,41 Netherlands42 Norway Poland43 Portugal44 Spain45 Sweden Switzerland46 Turkey
High Rise Buildings
>1500 m2 >3000 m2 >1000 m2 >1200 m2 multi-floor >10,000 m2 one floor or >2,500 m2 multifloor >28 m high or >1000 people and >2 stories >1500 m2 >2400 m2 Multi-story and >2000 m2 (new) or >3,000 m2 (existing) England and Wales >2000 m2; Scotland — all shopping centers
>200 m >60 m or >22 m without external fire separation >20 m and >400 people >30 m >30 m and phased evacuation >15 stories >60 m high >70 m high >55 m high >28 m, hotels >9 m >80m, hotels >28 m >16 stories >30.50 m (new) >51.50 m (existing)
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} United Kingdom
>30 m and phased evacuation
eight stories, while the United Kingdom has a code, BS 9991, which offers incentives such as open-plan apartment layouts in combination with sprinklers and an enhanced detection system (otherwise there must be a corridor from the apartment entrance to each room in the apartment).50 In the United Kingdom, there are also a number of incentives, such as reduced escape requirements and fire brigade access measures, which encourage the installation of sprinklers in single-family houses. Beyond that, beginning in 2016 Wales will require sprinklers in all new houses.51 Over the next 10 years, more European countries are likely to introduce requirements to install sprinklers in care homes and other residential buildings. See Table S3.4 for more information about different residential sprinkler requirements.
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1198
11/19/2015 3:44:17 PM
. ..
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
TABLE S3.4 Sprinkler Requirements in Residential Buildings Care Homes Austria
>32 m or >22 m and less fire resistance >8 stories; >4 stories and >50 apartments or >5 stories and >30 apartments with semicombustible structure; >3 stories and >20 apartments with combustible structure
Czech Republic
Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary
Residential
>1000 m2 sleeping area in multistory care home Timber-framed apartment Usually required buildings 3–8 stories following risk assessment >60 m >100 beds or >12 m >28 m >3 stories >13.65 m
Luxembourg Netherlands Norway
Open plan care homes
Poland Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom
>800 m2
All new care homes
All new care homes >30.5 m or >1500 m2 All new care homes in Scotland and Wales; in England instead of bedroom door closers
>60 m >70 m Apartment buildings >2 stories >55 m >80 m (Barcelona >50 m) >16 stories >51.5 m Scotland >18 m; England >30 m; United Kingdom: 3-story house with open-plan ground floor; 4-story house instead of second staircase; openplan apartments. Wales: all housing from 2016
1199
SPRINKLER SHIPMENTS Due to this favorable regulatory trend, more new buildings than in the past are being sprinklered. If construction levels were at the same level as in 2007, the sprinkler market in Europe in 2015 would be booming. Unfortunately, in many countries the construction market remains depressed. According to Eurostat, for the European Union in November 2014, it was down 23 percent from its peak in 2007. However, the sprinkler market has declined about half as much and is set to benefit when construction picks up, as it already has in Belgium, Germany, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Only Norway and Sweden publish accurate data about the numbers of sprinklers installed each year. In both countries the sprinkler manufacturers and distributors submit the total numbers of sprinklers they sell to a neutral party that publishes the totals. Norway is Europe’s leading installer of sprinklers, when compared to its population. In fact, Norway installs as many or perhaps more sprinklers per thousand inhabitants than the United States. (See Exhibit S3.1 and Exhibit S3.2.) Combining data from a number of sources, the European Fire Sprinkler Network (EFSN) estimates the following national sprinkler markets in Europe, as shown in Table S3.5.
SPRINKLER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE There are more studies and analyses of the performance and reliability of sprinkler systems than for any other fire safety technology. Despite that, more are needed to establish the reliability and performance of sprinkler systems in different jurisdictions. This information is needed by fire engineers when they make use of sprinklers in their designs. It is also needed to support campaigns for the greater use of sprinklers, not just as a tool to protect property but also as a measure to protect people.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 700,000 600,000 500,000
Further Regulatory Requirements
400,000
Various countries have additional regulatory requirements and incentives for installimg sprinklers in certain types of buildings. Most German states require sprinklers in assembly buildings (which includes airports and museums), several countries require sprinklers in underground car parks (and more are likely to join them in the near future), and in the United Kingdom, sprinklers are installed in a large number of new schools (they are mandatory in Scotland). In The Netherlands, many existing buildings are being converted for new uses; often they do not comply with the minimum passive fire safety measures for their new use. Therefore, sprinklers are installed to compensate.
300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Residential
Commercial
Exhibit S3.1 Norwegian Sprinkler Shipments.
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1199
11/19/2015 3:44:19 PM
. ..
1200
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Commercial
Residential
Exhibit S3.2 Swedish Sprinkler Shipments. TABLE S3.5 Estimated Sprinkler Shipments — Number of Sprinklers Sprinklers in millions Country Germany Russia and Eastern Europe United Kingdom and Ireland France Nordic Benelux Spain and Portugal Italy Austria and Switzerland TOTAL
IFSA 200752
EFSN 2014
2.8 2.5 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 14.6
3.3 2.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1 0.8 0.6 0.9 13.7
By contrast, the 2013 NFPA report of data collected from U.S. fire departments found a success rate of just 87 percent. (The report also found that 91 percent of systems operated when they should have, and of those, 96 percent controlled or extinguished the fire.) The NFPA summary excludes fires extinguished by sprinklers and not reported to the fire department. However, it is also possible that Australia and New Zealand had tougher inspection and maintenance requirements so that systems there were more reliable. FM Global analyzed the performance of sprinkler systems in the risks it insures in the United States and concluded that in 98 percent of cases, the sprinklers control or extinguish the fire.53 Given that risks insured by FM Global are more carefully managed and protected than average, it is likely that the sprinkler systems in those risks will also be more reliable. While a success rate of 87 percent might not seem much less than 98 percent, it also equates to a failure rate 6.5 times higher. The higher the failure rate, the more likely it is that additional measures will be needed to deal with fires not controlled or extinguished by the sprinkler system, so undermining the economic attraction of sprinklers. To ensure a high level of system reliability, many European countries operate detailed competency plans for installer companies. Usually run by insurance-related bodies, these plans also monitor the readiness and suitability of installed systems. There is an associated cost, but the national references strongly suggest they are delivering a higher level of system reliability. One technical difference between Europe and the United States is in valve monitoring. NFPA is the only organization to publish statistics on the causes of sprinkler system failure. Most of the failures are caused by closure of the system shut-off valve before (64 percent) or during (17 percent) the fire. For decades in many European countries, the position of this valve has been monitored and alarmed, so fewer failures of this type would be expected. However, without data this is unproven.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
As already stated, most European countries do not collect detailed fire statistics. It is therefore not possible to say, for most countries, how many fires have occurred in sprinklered buildings, nor how many deaths and injuries or how much property damage came from those fires. Even where there are such statistics, such as in the United States, the raw data is collected by the fire brigade or fire departments and does not include some fires that were so rapidly extinguished by the sprinkler system that they were not called. Anecdotal evidence from conversations between insurers and those whom they insure suggests there are many such fires.
Australia and the United States In Australia and New Zealand, about 100 years of data have been collected because every fire is required to be reported to the authorities. There, they have found a success rate for sprinklers of 99.46 percent.
Europe In Denmark, the Danish Institute of Fire Technology (DIFT) performed two studies: one in 2003 and the other in 2008.54, 55 In each study, the researchers inspected sprinkler systems installed in more than 500 buildings. They checked whether the sprinkler system was correctly designed for the risk and whether it was ready to perform. They found that, respectively, 98 percent and 97 percent of systems would perform correctly. Given that systems that meet the standard always work (otherwise the standard would be changed), these are the figures used by Danish fire engineers. Additionally, in other European countries various data has been found to support the use of sprinklers: • France: A study by CNPP for the French Insurers’ Association, FFSA, found that sprinklers controlled or extinguished 97 percent of reported fires. • Germany: A report by the German Insurers’ Association, GDV, found that 20 years of data for fires in electrical risks show that sprinkler systems controlled or extinguished the fire in 97.9 percent of cases. 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1200
11/19/2015 3:44:20 PM
. ..
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
• Netherlands: In The Netherlands data collected by the system certification body CIBV show a success rate of 99 percent. • United Kingdom: Anecdotal evidence collected by the National Fire Sprinkler Network in 2013 and 2014 found 94 successes and no failures.
Effect of Sprinklers When sprinkler systems operate successfully, which as explained above is the usual experience, they reduce temperatures, stop the fire from spreading, and limit the production of carbon monoxide and other toxic gases. Again, NFPA is the only organization to publish statistics. It found that when wet-pipe sprinklers were present in the fire area in homes that were not under construction, the fire death rate per 1,000 reported structure fires was lower by 82 percent, and the rate of property damage per reported home structure fire was lower by 68 percent.56 There are very few fire deaths in sprinklered buildings and in almost all cases the victim accidentally set fire to his or her clothes or bedding. Insurers claim that when sprinklers are installed, property losses are reduced by a factor of about six.
ECONOMICS OF SPRINKLERS All the evidence available shows that sprinklers are extremely effective and drastically reduce the impact of fires. Most fire safety regulators in Europe accept this but question whether sprinklers are a good investment. They do not believe the cost of installing sprinklers in an additional category of building occupancy could be justified by the lives saved, injuries prevented, and property damage avoided. Fire safety legislation is often disaster-led, with new regulations introduced after a high profile fire. To introduce a more rational approach and to consider situations where only one or two people die (i.e., fires that are not reported in the national news), some governments now expect an economic analysis. In 2006, an analysis in the United Kingdom showed that through reductions in insurance costs alone, sprinkler systems would pay for themselves in schools in 13 years.57 This time would be considerably shortened if sprinklers are used to justify savings along with other fire safety measures, such as fire doors and staircases. When it comes to housing, fire insurance premiums in Europe are already low so there is little incentive for insurance reductions to pay for sprinklers. Here the main economic benefit is the reduction in fire deaths and injuries. A cost and benefit analysis in these cases is only possible if one assigns a value to a life, more politely expressed as what society is prepared to pay to save a life. Many governments have a figure, even if it is not made public, and use it to decide when and where to invest in road safety measures. It can also be used for fire protection. The higher this figure, the greater the investment in safety that can be justified. Here are some values that have been made public in various countries:
1201
United Kingdom £1.35 million (2006) United States $6.6 million: Department of Transportation (an old value) United States $7.9 million: Consumer Product Safety Commission (2007) United States $9.1 million: Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Using damages awarded by courts and evidence of risk aversion in the general population, it is possible to determine an appropriate figure for this controversial concept. It was pioneered by Professor W. Kip Viscusi of Harvard University, whose work was referenced to produce the 2011 EPA value. It is easier to assign costs for fire injuries (the cost of treatment), and costs related to property losses, system installation, and maintenance are available from insurers and installers. Analysis by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United Kingdom found an economic case for installing sprinklers in new apartments and care homes, but not in houses. An analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States did find an economic case for installing sprinklers in houses. NIST reached the opposite conclusion from BRE because it did the following: • Used the CPSC value for a statistical life, which is several times higher than the British figure. • Analysed a sprinkler system integrated with the domestic plumbing, for which no maintenance is required. BRE assumed an annual maintenance cost, which over a 50-year lifetime weighs more than the initial investment
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
Norway Switzerland
NOK 40 million (2010) CHF 5 million (2011)
BRE has also analysed the installation of sprinklers in warehouses, finding an economic case for warehouses larger than 2000 m2.
TRENDS Although sprinklers have been around in Europe for more than 100 years, they are still far from reaching their potential. Sprinklers will be used in more new buildings than in the past, as new technologies improve their performance, economics, and aesthetics.
Residential Sprinklers About 250,000 residential sprinklers were installed in Europe in 2013. This market has tripled in size in the past decade, yet it is almost all in just three countries: Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Over the next 10 years, it should triple in size again to more than 750,000 sprinklers as the United Kingdom increases usage of residential sprinklers and other European countries begin to do so, as indicated by the following information: • Starting in 2016, Wales will require sprinklers in all new housing. • In September 2014, the Scottish government awarded a tender to some economists to study the case for installing sprinklers in houses and apartments.
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1201
11/19/2015 3:44:20 PM
. ..
1202
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
• Several countries require sprinklers in high-rise residential buildings. With space at a premium in cities, there are likely to be more high-rise apartment buildings with sprinklers. • Many local authorities in England are installing sprinklers in social housing. • Several governments are considering mandating sprinklers in care homes. • For economic and environmental reasons governments wish to convert unused buildings to uses for which they were not designed and which would not be approved for this new use without sprinklers.
Car Parks An increasing number of countries require sprinklers in enclosed car parks. This trend is likely to continue as senior fire officers in several more European countries have called for sprinklers in enclosed car parks.
Fire Engineering In Europe, fire codes require sprinklers in far fewer types of new buildings than in the United States. Instead, they rely more on compartmentation. European fire engineers are, therefore, making increasing use of sprinklers to come up with fire safety designs that open up buildings with larger, sprinkler-protected compartments. Sprinklers are also often used to compensate for limited fire brigade access, such as where a building is behind others or the access road to it is narrow. In a number of countries fire engineers apply sprinklers to permit longer escape corridors in buildings, which can save the cost and space for a staircase. Here again, many projects involve a new use for a building. Draft European guidance from CEN on the incorporation of sprinklers in fire-engineered building designs will support their increasing use. In parallel, fire engineering is becoming increasingly accepted in Northern Europe and is likely to be accepted in the future in Southern Europe, where regulators are under pressure to find ways to build more cheaply and fire engineering is a way to achieve it.
Specifically, looking at the design practices and inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures that have been successful around the world will assist countries that are developing regulations and legislation for the inclusion of sprinklers in new construction projects. The collection of data on these topics is vital to ensure code-making bodies and code enforcement entities make the proper course corrections as new technology and new fire threats emerge.
References 1. CEA 4001 – Sprinkler Systems – Planning and Installation (edition 2013-08), www.insuranceeurope.eu. 2. VdS Vertrauen durch Sicherheit, www.vds.de. 3. APSAD R1, Extinction automatique à eau de type sprinkleur, mars 2015, www.cnpp.com. 4. EN 12845:2015 Fixed firefighting systems. Automatic sprinkler systems. Design, installation and maintenance. 5. EN 12259-1:1999 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for sprinkler and water spray systems. Sprinklers. 6. EN 12259-2:1999 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for sprinkler and water spray systems. Wet alarm valve assemblies. 7. EN 12259-3:2000 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for sprinkler and water spray systems. Dry alarm valve assemblies. 8. EN 12259-4:2000 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for sprinkler and water spray systems. Water motor alarms. 9. EN 12259-5:2002 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for sprinkler and water spray systems. Water flow detectors. 10. Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. 11. Mandate M/109 for CEN Technical Committee 191 Fixed Firefighting Systems. 12. NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2016 edition. 13. NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Oneand Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2016 edition. 14. CEN-CLC-TC4 Project Committee – Services for fire safety and security systems, www.nadl.din.de. 15. Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market. 16. The Geneva Association, www.genevaassociation.org. 17. The socio-economic costs of fire in Denmark, Danish Emergency Management Agency, Birkerød, Denmark, February 2001. 18. The economic cost of fire: estimates for 2008, Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UK, February 2011. 19. OIB-Richtlinie 2 Brandschutz, Österreichisches Institut für Bautechnik, March 2015. 20. KB-AR 07/07/1994 Bijlage 6 Industriegebouwen, Ministry of Internal Affairs, December 2006.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
New Technologies Sprinkler manufacturers are continually inventing more efficient sprinklers, more economic valves and pumps, and new piping systems. All these innovations make sprinkler systems financially more attractive. This will encourage their use in their traditional markets, such as factories and warehouses.
SUMMARY While there are many differences in how various countries around the world approach the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems, one of the common threads is the success of these systems and the need for further development of standards and enforcement.
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1202
11/19/2015 3:44:20 PM
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers
21. Communication from Czech Fire & Rescue Service, 2005. 22. Bygningsreglement 2010, Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen, 2010. 23. Arrêté du 5 août 2002 relative à la prévention des sinistres dans les entrepôts couverts soumis à autorisation sous la rubrique 1510, Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement Durable, 2002. 24. Muster-Richtlinie über den baulichen Brandschutz im Industriebau, Fachkommission Bauaufsicht der Bauministerkonferenz, July 2014. 25. Communication from Greek Chamber of Commerce, 2010. 26. Decree on National Fire Safety Regulations, Ministry of the Interior, 2011. 27. Building Regulations 2006 – Technical Guidance Document B – Fire Safety, Department of the Environment, 2006. 28. Stationariosios Gaisrų Gesinimo Sistemos. Projektavimo ir Įrengimo Taisyklės, Interior Ministry, 2007. 29. Bouwbesluit 2012, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, June 2015. 30. Technical Regulations to the Planning and Building Act, Kommunal- og Regionaldepartmentet, 2010. 31. Real Decreto 786/2001, de 6 de julio, por el se que aprueba el Reglamento de Seguridad contra incendios en los establecimentos industriales, Ministerio de Cienca y Tecnología, July 2001. 32. Boverkets byggregler – föreskrifter och allmänna råd, BBR, Boverket 2011. 33. Regulation about Fire Protection in Buildings 2009, translated by TUYAK. 34. The Building Regulations 2010 Fire Safety Approved Document B, HM Government, 2013. 35. ARAB-RGBT art.52, Ministry of Employment, 1978. 36. Règlement du 25 juin 1980, Ministère de l’Intérieur, June 1980. 37. Arrêté du 30 décembre 2011 portant règlement de sécurité pour la construction des immeubles de grande hauteur et leur protection contre les risques d’incendie et de panique, Ministère de l’Intérieur, 2013. 38. Muster-Verordnung über den Bau und Betrieb von Verkaufstätten, Fachkommission Bauaufsicht der Bauministerkonferenz, 2014. 39. Muster-Ricthlinie über den Bau und Betrieb von Hochhäusern, Fachkommission Bauaufsicht der Bauministerkonferenz, 2008.
1203
40. ITM-SST 1508.3 Prescriptions de prévention incendie – Dispositions Spécifiques – Etablissements de vente – Centres Commerciaux, Inspection du Travail et des Mines. 41. ITM-SST 1503.2 Prescriptions de prévention incendie – Dispositions Spécifiques – Bâtiments élevés – Centres Commerciaux, Inspection du Travail et des Mines. 42. Brandveiligheid in hoge gebouwen – Praktijkrichtlijn, SBR, 2005. 43. Rozporzadzenie Ministra spraw Wewnetrznych I Administracji, 2006. 44. Decreto-Lei no. 220/2008, Ministerío da Administraçao Interna, 2008. 45. Real Decreto 2267/2004, Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, 2004. 46. Brandschutznorm, Vereinigung Kantonaler Versicherung, 2015. 47. Cost Benefit Analysis of residential sprinklers – Final Report Prepared for: The Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA), BRE Global, Report Number 264227, March 2012. 48. Sprinklers in Care Homes in Finland, Kirsi Rajaniemi, Finnish Ministry of the Interior, European Fire Sprinkler Network International Sprinkler Conference, Brussels, April 2010. 49. Survey by Scottish Fire & Rescue Service, 2014. 50. BS 9991:2015 Fire safety in the design, management and use of residential buildings, BSI. 51. 2013 No. 2727 (W. 262) (C. 109) Building and Buildings, Wales, The Domestic Fire Safety (Wales) Measure 2011 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2013, October 2013. 52. International Fire Sprinkler Association: www.sprinklerworld.org. 53. Sprinkler and Sprinkler System Reliability, Research Technical Memorandum, R.G. Bill, Jr., W. Doerr, L. Krasner, J. Kahan, December 2007. 54. Reliability of sprinkler systems, Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, 2003. 55. Reliability of Automatic Water Sprinkler systems, Report 2008:02, DBI, 2008. 56. “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers,” National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2014. 57. A cost analysis of sprinklers in schools for the Department for Education and Skills, 2007.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1203
11/19/2015 3:44:20 PM
..
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp3.indd 1204
11/19/2015 3:44:20 PM
4
Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
Supplement
Editor’s Note: Supplement 4 contains a table highlighting the significant technical changes to NFPA 13 for the 2016 edition, along with a brief comment explaining the reason for the change. For a complete record of all changes, along with the full committee statements for both editorial and technical changes, consult the NFPA 13 document page at www.nfpa.org.
2016 Section
Reason for Change
1.2.2
Editorial.
1.6.3
Revised conversion approach from exact conversion to approximate conversion methodology.
3.3.5.1
New definition added for cloud ceiling.
3.3.21
Requirement revised to define the concept of a cloud ceiling and sizes of small openings through overall dimensions of the ceiling area.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 3.5.6
New definition added for extension fitting.
3.3.23
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 25.
3.6.4.1
New definition added for CMDA sprinklers in storage applications.
3.8.1.3
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.8.1.4
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.8.1.12
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.8.1.14.2
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.8.1.15.2
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.8.2.1.1
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.8.2.1.6
Revised definition to correlate with NFPA 24.
3.9.1.17
New definition added for low-piled storage (See Chapter 13).
5.6.1.1.1.1
Revised requirement to address the different product/packaging/shipping components that comprise the commodity.
5.6.3.3.2 through 5.6.3.4.1
Revised requirement to address mixed plastic commodities.
6.1.1.6
Requirement revised to address compatibility requirements.
6.2.1.1.1
Requirement revised to allow dry sprinklers to be reinstalled to correlate with NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D.
1205
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp4.indd 1205
11/19/2015 3:51:17 PM
..
1206
Supplement 4 • Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
2016 Section
Reason for Change
6.2.9.3
Added clarification that spare sprinkler cabinet room no longer needs to be kept at 100°F (38°C).
6.3.8 through 6.3.11.3
Requirement revised to move requirements regarding metallic pipe out of the nonmetallic pipe section.
Table 6.3.1.1
Table revised to address stainless steel pipe.
6.4.8 through 6.4.8.5.1
New requirements added to address the installation allowances and hydraulic calculation requirements for extension fittings.
6.6.4.1
New requirement added to include an identification sign for the newly required air vent.
7.1.5 through 7.1.5.1
New requirement added mandating air venting for all system installations.
7.2.6.6.3.1
New requirement added that each dry system needs its own dedicated air maintenance device.
Figure 7.6.3.1 and Figure 7.6.3.4
Revised piping arrangements for antifreeze systems.
8.2.4.1
Revised requirement allowing floor control valve assembles to be located on a level remote from the level being served.
8.2.4.4
New exception added stating that the floor control valve assembly requirements do not apply to dry systems in parking garages.
8.3.3.1
New requirement added permitting CMSA and ESFR sprinklers in light hazard areas.
8.4.1
New guidance added for EC sprinklers under overhead doors.
8.4.7.2 (deleted)
The requirement to use galvanized pipe for dry and preaction systems has been deleted.
8.5.5.3.1 through 8.5.5.3.1.4
New requirement added to clarify the proper location for sprinklers below obstructions such as wide ducts and open grate flooring.
8.5.5.3.3.1
Requirement revised to permit standard response sprinklers beneath overhead doors.
8.5.7.1.1
Revised language to clarify sprinkler requirements for skylights.
8.6.4.1.2
Requirement revised for designs using concrete tee construction.
8.6.4.1.4 through 8.6.4.1.4.4
Editorial requirement addressed to delete text that is repetitive with the section title.
8.6.4.1.4.5
Requirement revised to provide flexibility as to where to position the first sprinkler at an eave for hip roofs.
Figure 8.6.5.1.2(b)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
Figure 8.6.5.1.2(c)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
8.6.5.3.6
New requirement added to clarify sprinkler location below large obstructions.
8.6.5.3.7
New requirement added to address sprinkler location for round ducts.
8.7.4.1.4 through 8.7.4.1.4.3
New requirement added providing guidance for standard spray sidewalls where soffit/cabinet installations have been installed.
8.7.5.2.1.3 and Figure 8.7.5.2.1.3(a) and (b)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
8.8.4.2.1
New requirement added clarifying how to position the deflector where sprinklers are installed under slightly sloped roofs.
Figure 8.8.5.1.2(b)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
Figure 8.8.5.1.2(c)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp4.indd 1206
11/19/2015 3:51:17 PM
..
Supplement 4 • Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
2016 Section
1207
Reason for Change
Figure 8.8.5.2.1.3(a)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
Figure 8.8.5.2.1.3(b)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
8.8.5.3.5
New requirement added to clarify sprinkler location below large obstructions.
8.8.5.3.6
New requirement added to address sprinkler location for round ducts.
8.9.4.1.3.1
Requirement revised to eliminate the need to put a sprinkler under certain soffit installations.
Figure 8.9.5.1.3
Figure revised to correlate with code and table text.
Figure 8.9.5.2.1.3(a)
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
Figure 8.9.5.2.1.3(b)
Figure revised to correlate with code text. Text has been added on upright and pendent residential sprinklers and the deflector orientation under the ceiling or roof.
8.10.4.7
New guidance added on upright and pendent residential sprinklers and the deflector orientation under the ceiling or roof.
8.12.5.3.3
Guidance added to determine when multiple small obstructions must be treated like a single large obstruction.
8.15.1.6.1
Guidance added to clarify that measurement can be taken deck to deck or deck to ceiling.
8.15.8.1.1
Clarification added that sprinklers can be omitted from small bathrooms in all dwelling units, not just hotel ad motel dwelling units.
8.15.8.2
Removal of least dimension requirement revised to correlate with NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D.
8.15.15.1, 8.15.15.2, 8.15.15.5
Requirement revised to allow for the use of a membrane product that is listed to be installed beneath sprinklers.
8.15.24.1 through 8.15.24.2.5
Requirement revised to redefine the concept of a cloud ceiling and where sprinklers can be omitted above cloud ceiling panels.
8.15.25
Clarification added that sprinklers are not required in revolving door enclosures.
8.15.26
Revised requirement to address the use of sprinkler protected glazing assemblies used in atriums, on exterior walls, and other applications.
8.16.2.4.6 through 8.16.2.4.6.3
Requirements placed here for main drain tests to avoid confusion for the user of NFPA 13, NFPA 14, and NFPA 15.
8.16.6
New venting clarification added to indicate that a single air vent, even one located at the highest point of a system, cannot be expected to expel all of the air from the system.
8.17.2.3
Requirement revised to permit the FDC pipe size to be larger than the size of the riser for single systems.
8.17.2.6.1
Requirement revised to correspond to the language in NFPA 24.
8.17.4.5.1
New requirement added for test outlet for backflow preventer (see NFPA 25).
8.18.1
Clarification added that sprinkler systems must not be used for grounding of electrical systems.
8.18.2
Clarification added on when sprinkler system can be used for bonding.
9.1.1.5.2
Requirement revised to indicate that the section is intended to apply to both hanger and hanger rods that are formed from mild steel rod.
9.1.1.7.7
Requirement revised to include rods.
9.1.1.7.8
Requirement revised to correlate with changes made to 9.1.1.7.7.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp4.indd 1207
11/19/2015 3:51:18 PM
..
1208
Supplement 4 • Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
2016 Section
Reason for Change
9.1.3.10, 9.1.4.5, and 9.1.5.3
Requirement revised to apply to all thread rod and for consistency.
9.2.6.3.2, 9.2.6.3.3, 9.2.6.4.1, 9.2.6.4.2, 9.2.6.4.3, 9.2.6.4.4, 9.2.6.4.4.1, 9.2.6.4.5, 9.2.6.4.5.1, 9.2.6.5.1, 9.2.6.5.2, 9.2.6.5.3, 9.2.6.7, 9.2.6.7.1, 9.2.6.7.2
Requirement revised to allow for pipe stands.
9.3.4.5
Requirement revised to increase the coupling distance to within 24 in. below the floor, platform, or foundation.
9.3.5.12
New requirements added for using fasteners, specifically concrete anchors.
9.3.5.2
Requirement revised to clarify that testing a brace at multiple angles is needed to confirm the listed load rating at 90 degrees is conservative.
9.3.5.5.2.4
New requirement added to address mains of varying sizes.
9.3.5.5.10 through 9.3.5.5.10.3
Revisions made to lateral sway bracing requirements for branch lines and cross mains.
9.3.5.9.6.1
Requirement revised to look at the Cp values as well as a means for determining when the calculation is needed for long riser nipples.
9.3.6.1
Requirement revised to indicate that CPVC hangers exist that are listed to provide restraint.
9.3.6.4
Requirement revised to add red brass piping to the revised table for branch line restraints.
9.3.8 through 9.3.8.2
Updated requirements for pipe stand sizing.
10.10.2.1.3
Requirement revised to comply with changes to 10.10.2.1.2 of NFPA 24.
10.10.2.1.3.1
Requirement revised to comply with changes to 10.10.2.1.3 of NFPA 24.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 11.1.2
Requirement revised to address the location and dimensioning for the aisle underneath the change in hazard.
11.1.6.3.1
New requirement added to clarify how the flow for a standpipe system is to be calculated.
11.2.3.1.5 through 11.2.3.1.5.1
Editorial clarifications made on design requirements where unsprinklered concealed spaces exist.
11.3.1.3
Requirement revised to address revisions to small room rule requirements
11.3.1.4.1
New requirement added regarding the use of residential sprinklers that need to be replaced but are no longer available.
11.3.5
New requirement added to correlate with new sprinkler-protected glazing requirements.
12.1.3.1.2 through 12.1.3.1.3.2
New requirements added for measuring building and storage heights based on construction methods.
12.1.3.1.4 and 12.1.3.1.4.1
New requirement added clarifying the proper design requirements for changes in ceiling height over storage areas.
12.6.7.1
Requirement revised to indicate that due to limited amounts of storage within Chapter 13, any ESFR design should provide adequate protection for storage arrangements outlined in that chapter.
12.6.7.2
Requirement revised to indicate that due to limited amounts of storage within Chapter 13, any CMSA design should provide adequate protection for storage arrangements outlined in that chapter.
12.9
Revisions made to mirror changes made to Chapter 11.
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp4.indd 1208
11/19/2015 3:51:18 PM
..
Supplement 4 • Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
2016 Section
1209
Reason for Change
Chapter 13
New title added to address low-piled storage.
13.1
Editorial clarifications made to address what is covered by Chapter 13.
13.1.3
Clarifications address in-rack sprinkler requirements where solid shelving is used for low-piled storage.
14.1.3
Clarifications made that protection criteria for Group A plastics are permitted for the protection of the same storage height and configuration of Class I, II, III, and IV commodities.
Table 14.4.1
Table revised to address appropriate sprinkler orientations for each storage arrangement.
15.2.1 and 15.2.2
Requirement revised for consistency.
15.2.7
Clarifications made to address that the ceiling-only protection criteria specified in Chapter 17 for group A plastic commodities are permitted to be used for solid-piled and palletized storage of the same commodity at the same height and clearance to ceiling.
16.1.2.2
Clarifications made to address that protection criteria for Group A plastics are permitted for the protection of the same storage height and configuration of Class I, II, III, and IV commodities.
16.1.2.4
New alternative protection scheme added for mixed commodity arrangements.
16.1.4.1
Requirement revised to provide a consistent measuring point to clarify whether columns in flue space, at the end of racks, or in aisles are considered “within the rack structure.”
16.1.6.7 and 16.1.6.8
New requirement to replace the term solid shelf rack with solid shelving.
16.1.8.4
Requirement relocated from 16.2.1.4.2.3 and revised to only apply where in-rack sprinklers are installed within a longitudinal flue. Some increases with requirements storage heights/ arrangements occurred.
16.2.2.1.1
New allowance added to use CMSA at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
16.2.3.2
Revised allowance to use ESFR at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
16.3.1.3.2.5
Clarification added for installation criteria of in-rack sprinklers.
16.3.1.3.2.6
Clarification added for installation criteria of in-rack sprinklers.
16.3.1.3.2.7
Clarification added for installation criteria of in-rack sprinklers.
16.3.2.1.1
New allowance added to use CMSA at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
16.3.3.2.1
Revised allowance to use ESFR at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
Figure 17.1.2.1
Figure revised to correlate with code text.
17.1.2.9
New alternative protection scheme added for mixed commodity arrangements.
17.1.7.4
Clarification added on in-rack spacing requirements.
17.2.2.1.1
New allowance added to use CMSA at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
17.2.3.1.2
Revised allowance to use ESFR at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp4.indd 1209
11/19/2015 3:51:18 PM
..
1210
Supplement 4 • Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
2016 Section
Reason for Change
17.2.3.5 through 17.2.3.5.8.4
New requirements added for exposed, expanded Group A plastic design protocol for storage under 25 ft (9.1 m).
17.3.2.1.1
New allowance added to use CMSA at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
17.3.3.1.1
Revised allowance to use ESFR at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are installed below each level of shelving.
17.3.3.5
New requirements added for exposed, expanded Group A plastic design protocol for storage over 25 ft (9.1 m).
18.3
Requirement revised to consolidate water supply information to Chapter 19.
19.1.1.1
Requirement revised to consolidate water supply information to Chapter 19.
21.1.2
Requirement revised to address the other design requirements and their applicability to the design protocol in Chapter 21.
21.1.2.1
New requirement added to address the other design requirements and their applicability to the design protocol in Chapter 21.
21.2.1.1
New requirement added to address the other design requirements and their applicability to the design protocol in Chapter 21.
21.1.2.2
New requirement added to address the other design requirements and their applicability to the design protocol in Chapter 21.
21.1.2.2.1
New requirement added to address the other design requirements and their applicability to the design protocol in Chapter 21.
21.3.2
New requirement added for new sprinkler design criteria to be included in the alternative storage design chapter.
Figure 23.3.5.1.2(a)
Updated summary sheet.
23.3.5.2
Requirement revised to include additional items needed on the summary sheet.
23.4.1.4
Clarification added that NFPA 13 does not establish a maximum velocity for water in sprinkler systems.
24.1.3.3
Requirement revised to simplify the distinction between fire system water demand and all other water demands served by a single main.
25.2.2.1.1
New requirement added for dry and preaction systems to be air tested.
25.6.2
Requirement revised to require original trip test data recorded for future tests.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp4.indd 1210
11/19/2015 3:51:18 PM
Xchange
™
Sprinkler Identification Card ❘ NFPA 13 Handbook ❘ 2016 Edition Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) Sprinkler (3.6.4.3)
Quick Response (QR) Standard Spray Sprinkler (3.6.4.8)
Typically used in high challenge fire occupancies such as warehouses.
Used to protect various light, ordinary, and extra hazard occupancies.
Often allows protection without additional in‐rack sprinklers.
Response is determined by the fusible glass element thickness – 3mm or less for a QR sprinkler.
Viking® K-16.8 (left) and K-22.4 (right) from Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.
Victaulic Quick-Response Standard Spray Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Victaulic®)
Concealed Sprinkler (3.6.2.1)
Pendent Sprinkler (3.6.2.3) Used to protect various light, ordinary, and extra hazard occupancies.
Typically used for protection in office occupancies. Sprinkler is hidden for aesthetics.
Standard Model G Concealed Ceiling Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
nfpa.org/Xchange
Cover plates cannot be painted except by the manufacturer as part of assembly listing.
Recessed Sprinkler (3.6.2.4)
Standard Spray Pendent Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Response is determined by the fusible glass element thickness – 5mm or less for a standard response sprinkler.
Sidewall Sprinkler (3.6.2.5)
Used to protect various light, ordinary, and extra hazard occupancies.
Typically used to protect areas where ceiling sprinklers are not practical.
Sprinkler is partially hidden for architectural aesthetics.
Should not mistake residential sidewall sprinklers with commercial ones as they can look almost identical but can have very different K‐factors.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} Recessed Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Upright Sprinkler (3.6.2.6)
Horizontal Sidewall Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Dry Sprinkler (3.6.3.2) Typically used to protect specific rooms or small areas where freeze protection is required but, due to a limited number of sprinklers required for coverage, a dry pipe system is not warranted.
Typically used to protect areas where ceiling sprinklers are not practical.
Upright Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Care should be taken not to mistake residential sidewall sprinklers with commercial ones as they can look almost identical but can have very different K‐ factors.
Institutional Sprinkler (3.6.3.3)
Institutional Sprinkler.
Viking Model E Dry Pendent Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Viking®)
The water filled pipe is run outside of the chilled area and these are used to then drop into the protected area.
Extended Coverage (EC) Sprinkler (3.6.4.4)
Typically a flush type of sprinklers specifically designed to be tamper resistant.
Used to protect various light, ordinary, and extra hazard occupancies.
For use in occupancies, such as institutional mental health occupancies, correctional facilities, or anywhere a likelihood of tampering with fire sprinklers by the occupants exists.
These have specific ceiling and obstruction requirements but can allow designer to increase coverage from each sprinkler reducing required piping. EC Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Viking®)
..
Sidewall-Type EC Sprinkler (3.6.4.4)
Quick-Response EC Sidewall Sprinkler (3.6.4.8.2) Used to protect various light and ordinary hazard occupancies.
Used to protect various light and ordinary hazard occupancies.
Sidewall-Type EC Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Viking®)
Can allow the designer to increase coverage from each sprinkler reducing required piping.
Can allow the designer to increase coverage from each sprinkler reducing required piping. Quick-Response EC Sidewall Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Corrosion‐Resistant Sprinkler (6.2.6.1)
Residential Sprinkler (3.6.4.9) Used to protect various residential and some light hazard occupancies.
Used for special applications where corrosion of the sprinkler is a concern.
Residential sprinklers are tested to different listing criteria than commercial sprinklers and should not be interchanged in designs. Viking Listed Residential Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Viking®)
The 3 mm element indicates a quick response sensitivity.
Residential sprinklers are tested primarily as life safety devices with different criteria (and fire control capabilities) than commercial sprinklers.
Intermediate Level Sprinkler (8.5.5.3.4)
All corrosion coatings must be factor applied and tested as part of the listing. Corrosion-Resistant Sprinkler. (Courtesy of American Fire Sprinkler Association)
Intermediate Level Sprinkler with a Shield (6.2.8) Used in specific cases per NFPA 13 to protect the sprinkler from premature “cooling” from the discharge of sprinklers above such as those at ceiling level.
Used in specific cases per NFPA 13 to protect the sprinkler from premature “cooling” from the discharge of sprinklers above such as those at the ceiling level. Some sprinklers are listed as intermediate sprinklers without the requirement of a large water shield above the deflector.
Some sprinklers are listed as intermediate sprinklers without the requirement of a large water shield above the deflector.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
Intermediate Level Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Tyco Fire Protection Products LP)
Intermediate Level Sprinkler with a Shield. (Courtesy of Viking®)
Sprinkler Identification Factors Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN) (6.2.2) All sprinklers are permanently marked with the SIN. Identifies sprinkler operating characteristics in lieu of traditional laboratory approval marking. Helps identify sprinklers installed in the field and minimize confusion resulting from the growing number and varieties of available sprinklers. Viking Sprinkler Showing SIN on Deflector (Courtesy of Viking®)
Variations in K-Factors: Thread Size (6.2.3.1)
Sprinklers with K-factors of 2.8, 5.6, and 25.2. (Courtesy of Tyco Fire Products LP)
Variations in K-Factors: Orifice Size (6.2.3.1)
K‐factors compared for three sprinklers.
K‐factors compared for three sprinklers.
Two appear to both have ½ in. threads thus the only way to determine the K‐factor is by internal inspection or careful review of the product information sheet.
Comparison of orifices of sprinklers with K‐ factors of 2.8, 5.6, and 25.2.
© 2016 National Fire Protection Association
Orifices of sprinklers with K-factors of 2.8, 5.6, and 25.2. (Courtesy of Tyco Fire Products LP)
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
..
IMPORTANT NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS CONCERNING NFPA® STANDARDS NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY CONCERNING THE USE OF NFPA STANDARDS NFPA® codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides (“NFPA Standards”), including the NFPA documents contained herein, are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus on fire and other safety issues. While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in NFPA Standards. The NFPA disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or other damages of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance on NFPA Standards. The NFPA also makes no guaranty or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein. In issuing and making NFPA Standards available, the NFPA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is the NFPA undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone using this document should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances. The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of NFPA Standards. Nor does the NFPA list, certify, test, or inspect products, designs, or installations for compliance with this document. Any certification or other statement of compliance with the requirements of this document shall not be attributable to the NFPA and is solely the responsibility of the certifier or maker of the statement.
with an NFPA Standard. The users of NFPA Standards bear the sole responsibility for determining the validity of any such patent rights, as well as the risk of infringement of such rights, and the NFPA disclaims liability for the infringement of any patent resulting from the use of or reliance on NFPA Standards. NFPA adheres to the policy of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) regarding the inclusion of patents in American National Standards (“the ANSI Patent Policy”), and hereby gives the following notice pursuant to that policy: NOTICE: The user’s attention is called to the possibility that compliance with an NFPA Standard may require use of an invention covered by patent rights. NFPA takes no position as to the validity of any such patent rights or as to whether such patent rights constitute or include essential patent claims under the ANSI Patent Policy. If, in connection with the ANSI Patent Policy, a patent holder has filed a statement of willingness to grant licenses under these rights on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to applicants desiring to obtain such a license, copies of such filed statements can be obtained, on request, from NFPA. For further information, contact the NFPA at the address listed below. Law and Regulations Users of NFPA Standards should consult applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of its codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so. Copyrights NFPA Standards are copyrighted. They are made available for a wide variety of both public and private uses. These include both use, by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-regulation, standardization, and the promotion of safe practices and methods. By making these documents available for use and adoption by public authorities and private users, the NFPA does not waive any rights in copyright to these documents. Use of NFPA Standards for regulatory purposes should be accomplished through adoption by reference. The term “adoption by reference” means the citing of title, edition, and publishing information only. Any deletions, additions, and changes desired by the adopting authority should be noted separately in the adopting instrument. In order to assist NFPA in following the uses made of its documents, adopting authorities are requested to notify the NFPA (Attention: Secretary, Standards Council) in writing of such use. For technical assistance and questions concerning adoption of NFPA Standards, contact NFPA at the address below.
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} ADDITIONAL NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS Updating of NFPA Standards Users of NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides (“NFPA Standards”) should be aware that these documents may be superseded at any time by the issuance of new editions or may be amended from time to time through the issuance of Tentative Interim Amendments or corrected by Errata. An official NFPA Standard at any point in time consists of the current edition of the document together with any Tentative Interim Amendments and any Errata then in effect. In order to determine whether a given document is the current edition and whether it has been amended through the issuance of Tentative Interim Amendments or corrected through the issuance of Errata, consult appropriate NFPA publications such as the National Fire Codes® Subscription Service, visit the NFPA website at www. nfpa.org, or contact the NFPA at the address listed below. Interpretations of NFPA Standards A statement, written or oral, that is not processed in accordance with Section 6 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards shall not be considered the official position of NFPA or any of its Committees and shall not be considered to be, nor be relied upon as, a Formal Interpretation. Patents The NFPA does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights referenced in, related to, or asserted in connection
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-DIsc.indd 1233
For Further Information All questions or other communications relating to NFPA Standards and all requests for information on NFPA procedures governing its codes and standards development process, including information on the procedures for requesting Formal Interpretations, for proposing Tentative Interim Amendments, and for proposing revisions to NFPA standards during regular revision cycles, should be sent to NFPA headquarters, addressed to the attention of the Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101; email: [email protected] For more information about NFPA, visit the NFPA website at www.nfpa.org.
11/20/2015 8:22:54 PM