With installaion change with compulsory fire sprinklers?

[Alarm]

Apart from the substantial cost of installlation, and the ongoing expense of maintenance, sprinklers in houses are totally impractical. The main reason can be found on that website mentioned above:

Residential Sprinklers typically use only about 60 litres of water a minute.

That kind of flow from a domestic water supply simply isn't going to happen.

Well it shows you should not be commenting on this then.
Just done a house with the required flow rates.
Most maybe not, new builds with new mains installed ( remember the roads all dug up a while back) will. As refurbishments with the new mains running.

 

[JohnW2]

Just done a house with the required flow rates. Most maybe not, new builds with new mains installed ( remember the roads all dug up a while back) will.

How many sprinklers are there in a 'typical' residential instal, and how many of them does the available water flow rate have to be able to serve simultaneously? As flameport suggested, I would be surprised if that many 'existing' properties would be able to provide 60 litres/min, let alone multiples thereof (assuming the website means 60 l/m per sprinkler).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[OwainDIYer]

In terms of saving lives it would probably be better to concentrate on retrofitting decent fire protection to houses/flats over 3 storeys and houses in multiple occupation.

Recent build housing is already going to have fairly good smoke detector systems which should get people out in time.

 

[Alarm]

Just done a house with the required flow rates. Most maybe not, new builds with new mains installed ( remember the roads all dug up a while back) will.

How many sprinklers are there in a 'typical' residential instal, and how many of them does the available water flow rate have to be able to serve simultaneously? As flameport suggested, I would be surprised if that many 'existing' properties would be able to provide 60 litres/min, let alone multiples thereof (assuming the website means 60 l/m per sprinkler).

Kind Regards, John.

Thats when an extra tank comes into play. Also not all will be going off
at the same time. Misting can be used rather than full flow rates.

 

[JohnW2]

Thats when an extra tank comes into play.

How does that work? Presumably you don't use pumps, since you don't want to have to rely on an electricity supply being present. Can you get enough presure to push 60 l/min, let alone multiples thereof, through sprinkler(s) by gravity feed from a roofspace tank to the ceiling of the floor immediately below (or even the ceiling of the floor below that)?

Also not all will be going off at the same time. Misting can be used rather than full flow rates.

That's why I asked how many simultaneous sprinklers you had to design for (water flow-wise). What is the design flow rate for a domestic install?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Alarm]

I`ll have to get the design spec and run thru it in reference to your questions. So bare with me if you would.

 

[JohnW2]

I`ll have to get the design spec and run thru it in reference to your questions. So bare with me if you would.

Thanks. If that'snot to much trouble, I'd be interested. There's certainly no hurry, since it's basically only a matter of interest/curiorisity.

Kind Regards,John.

 

[Alarm]

I organised it for a m8 doing a house conversion. He has the specs but is away for a few days. when he is back i`ll get them off him.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So the only way they can work is with serious mains pressure or a pump.

The sprinklers are connected to pipework, usually filled with water, which is supplied either from the water mains or from a storage tank via a pump.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

To achieve a gravity flow of 60lts/min with a 1000mm head you would need 50mm pipe. And your house would need some serious reinforcement to support the weight of the water tank - guessing 200 gallons which is getting on for a ton.
So the only way they can work is with serious mains pressure or a pump.

That's what my intuition was telling me - and I presume the pump option is a no-no (since one can't guarantee that electricity will be available when there is a fire). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that one couldn't have a useful sprinkler system, with flows much lower than 60 l/min - that I don't know.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I presume the pump option is a no-no (since one can't guarantee that electricity will be available when there is a fire).

Or water....

But usually both will be.

 

[JohnW2]

I presume the pump option is a no-no (since one can't guarantee that electricity will be available when there is a fire).

Or water....But usually both will be.

I would have thought that it's far, far more likely that electricity (rather than water, or both) will be lost when a building is on fire. There probably wouldn't be enough of the building left worth saving by the time a fire had resulted in failure of the water supply.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[viewer]

I've seen comparison fires set in old council houses (in Wrexham). No alterations to water supply. Kitchen fire started. With sprinklers damage to kitchen; without whole house. Very impressive. They work by using wax-like plugs which melt at a certain temperature, so only the hot room receives the water. A low water pressure will reduce performance, but they will still work. In states in USA where they are compulsory then the number of lives lost has dropped incredibly. You still should have an alarm, but some people can sleep through 120dB and if stoned no chance. Don't worry about electrical protection; it's water, you can sort it. If the house burns down you don't need to sort anything. Guy from Redrow is pushing 'too expensive' - perhaps sell the company jet?