PATTON REPORT NO.
41
FIRE LIFE SAFETY-PHASE II
0 1975 Patton Life Safety Systems, Inc.
Within the last ten years a most significant change has come
about in fire safety. There has been a shift in emphasis. Until
this change came about, fire safety was almost totally property
protection oriented. The rules were set up to protect the
buildings.
Now there is a growing concern for human life within the
structure. It is no longer enough to protect the building — to
fireproof the steel so that after the fire the structure will be
standing. Now, fire protection engineers throughout the
country are seeking better ways to guarantee safety to those
who are "within the furnace." A new period of human safety
has been born. We have begun the era of "life safety" systems.
And, I must admit that the birth of the new fire safety was not
without pain. Change does not come easy.
But we have no time and no justification to sit around and
congratulate ourselves. When we weigh that which has been
done against that which needs to be done — our
accomplishments are miniscule. We have nibbled away at the
periphery — but virtually the whole of the problem remains.
What we need now is the big effort against the big problem.
THE BIG PROBLEM
Life safety in the home. There is the big piece. In fact, it is
almost the entire pie. Out of every one hundred persons who
die in a building fire — almost 90 die in the home.
The most tragic fire of all is the fire that kills the child in
his home. The dwelling fire is the one that kills the children —
and in vast numbers in comparison to the other fires. The
dwelling fire kills the children — and it kills them by the
thousands
A MOST DIFFICULT SOLUTION
There are several reasons why the solution to the dwelling
fire may prove to be the hardest nut of all to crack.
First, there are the time and size factors. The smaller the
building, the more rapid the total involvement. Mobil homes
have the highest death rate. In the confined area of a mobil
home a little fire can be a big killer.
A single family dwelling, or an apartment, is but a small
step upward. With air handling ducts to carry the gases, a fire
can find and kill the children within a few short minutes of
ignition.
The second thing that makes a solution in the dwelling
difficult is the cost factor. From a practical viewpoint, the cost
of safety must be modest — or it just won't sell. Homes are
already excessively costly.
Maintenance is another. Who will inspect and maintain a
system in the home Will the homeowner have the interest?
Sleep time is the fourth problem. For one third of the day
all occupants are unconscious, completely at the mercy of a
chance fire.
Problem number five may prove to be the biggest problem
of all. It is resistance to change in fire safety. Because of the
uniqueness of the dwelling problem the solutions must be
radically different — so much so that there may be fierce
resistance to the needed innovations.
All of these are most formidable obstacles to success. But,
on the other side of the coin, there is one excellent reason to
be optimistic. It is that the reward will be so great. The solving
of the dwelling fire problem will represent a solving of 90% of
the "life safety from fire" problem of buildings. This is a great
incentive.
THE PARTIAL SOLUTIONS
To set the stage for a complete solution to the dwelling fire
problem, it is first necessary to discuss several "partial
solutions" that are being promoted today. There is nothing
wrong with these partial solutions except that they are partial
solutions. At best, they offer only a modest reduction in loss
of life. They are:
A. Emergency Plans. It's O.K. to distribute brochures
telling a family to "feel the door before you open it",
"crouch low", "plan a second way out", etc.. No
doubt, some lives will be saved that otherwise would
be lost. But there are four reasons why this "solution"
will have but marginal success.
1. The "smokey" fire can kill a family while it
sleeps.
2. The "fast" fire can reach the killer stage before
the family is alert and ready to react, and kill
them before they can reach the door.
3. Most families just aren't going to take the time
and effort needed. The father will pay less
attention to the fire instructions than he will to
the beer ads.
4. Even if the family tries — fire is such an
overwhelming experience that the chances are
great that chaos and panic will occur when flames
roll down the hallway ceiling.
B. The Smoke Detector. Many people are considering the
smoke detector to be the solution to the dwelling fire.
Well, it is a big step forward, but not a complete
solution. There are three reasons why.
1. The smoke detector is an "early warning" device
only when it is in the room where the fire starts.
But this would require a smoke detector in every
room, which would be very costly.
2. Even when the smoke detector operates "early",
the fast fire can be so fast that the family can be
tripped and killed anyway.
3. Too often, children or non-mobil adults are left in
the home unattended. Even when the parents are
present, the logistics of gathering up and getting
out a large family in an extremely short time,
under conditions of smoke and panic, is too great.
C. The Building Code. The building code regulates
contruction. Fine! But it is the contents of the home
that represent the fire threat. There is no practical
way to eliminate combustibles in the dwelling. Those
who keep yacking at plastics in construction are
si mply barking at the moon.
2
THE TEN GPM LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM
There is a solution to the dwelling fire problem. On the
surface it is a rather simple solution. That is, in theoretical
terms it is simple. But, it is not enough to produce the solution
on paper. It must be executed. This involves many factors
including financial, legal, technical and political problems. The
execution requires the many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle be put
together. This will not be easy. But, they say that when it is
ti me for an idea to be born — it will be born. In my
judgement, the time is right. Here are the pieces that must be
fitted together.
A. The Key. Every problem has a solution. Always there
is a key to the solution. Some years back, when I
discovered that 6 gallons of water per minute could
completely extinguish a one room fire in three
minutes — even after the fire in that room had
progressed to the flashover stage — I knew we had the
key to the dwelling fire. Only 20 gallons of water
total! That is less than the amount of water contained
in the water heater. That's how much it takes to make
a totally involved room — totally extinguished, using a
small hose and spray nozzle.
Every home in America contains the seed of fire safety.
The problem is, however, how to use it.
B. The Old vs New. Five short years ago, in America
it was virtually impossible to design and market a
water base automatic suppression system using less
than 50,000 gallons of water. (Depending on the
"authority having jurisdiction" water supply
"minimums" usually ranged between 500 GPM to
1,000 GPM, times one hour, and the "minimum"
stored water tank size was usually 50,000 gallons.)
Sure, there were a very few instances of smaller
pressure tanks employed, but this application was
"approved" so rarely, and required so many costly
controls, that a fire protection business could not
sustain itself marketing such systems.
Those days are over now. Our Life Safety System shattered
the old attitudes. More practical water supplies are the order
of the day today.
But, to make a dwelling protection system practical, the
step that we must take today is much bigger than that which
has already been taken. A dwelling is fed by a 3/4 inch supply.
It will deliver sometimes no more than 10 to 15 GPM. That's
how much water we have to work with. The Dwelling
Protection System must do the job with 10 GPM when need
be. That's a disign parameter we have to work with.
When compared with the traditional automatic sprinkler
system, 10 GPM seems impossibly small. But when compared
with the 6 GPM needed to extinguish a totally involved one
room fire (with a hose line) it is enough, especially since the
sprinkler opens prior to flashover.
The job at hand, then, is to develop a Life Safety System
technology based on a 10 GPM delivery system. This is the key
to the solution needed.
 C. Smoke. Heat activiated fire suppression is not enough.
There is still the problem of smoke and the slow fire.
Over a period of several hours, a very slow fire could
create toxic conditions throughout a home, doing it
all so slowly that heat sufficient to activate a tempera-
ture set device might not develop. The total solution
must deal with this matter. Usually, one smoke detec-
tor in a sprinklered home will suffice.
THE COST
There is no sense developing a fire safety system that is so
costly that it won't sell. Just what is a "top price" from a
practical viewpoint I don't really know. But I am going to
proceed on the assumption that a 2% cost is tolerable, and that
with government help it will sell. On this assumption, the cost
of a system for a $50,000.00 home should not exceed
$1,000.00. I consider this attainable. We may be able to beat it
substantially. Then we must establish programs that will make
it attractive to install the system. Here are my
recommendations.
A. The Codes. In order to gain recognition for a life
safety system in a dwelling the codes must recognize
it, give credit for it and possibly require it.
There are at least three areas where the codes must allow
trade offs in order to encourage complete fire safety in the
home. They are:
1. Construction materials. The builder should be
allowed the option of installing only
non-combustible interior sheathing (gypsum
wallboard or equivalent); or installing a Life
Safety System. Combustible sheathing, such a
wood paneling, would not be permitted in a new
non-sprinklered home.
2. Fire Cut-Off and Exit. The builder should be
allowed the option of installing a built-in
protection system, or installing an automatic fire
rated door between the living area and the
bedrooms, and providing some reasonable
secondary exit (not necessarily a second
stairway).
3. In multiple dwellings, the builder should be
restricted much more severely in height, and area,
when not sprinklered.
B. Insurance. Insurance companies should allow an
automatic 30% reduction in fire rate for an installed
system, and a 50% reduction if it is properly inspected
(and maintained) each year.
C. Fire Department The fire department should set up
an annual inspection program for dwelling systems.
The department may charge a fee for this service
which should not exceed the insurance rebate,
preferably no more than 50% of it.
D. Tax (Local Property). Fire protection costs represent
a substantial portion of municipal expenditures. A
protection system increases the value of property,
hence the tax base. This creates a negative tax. Those
3
who protect themselves pay a higher percentage of the
public fire protection bill. This should be reversed.
The non-sprinklered building should have a
substantially higher tax rate than the sprinklered
building.
E. Tax (Federal). A federal tax credit should be allowed
for taxpayers who purchase installations in existing
buildings. This should allow for a substantial
recapture of the cost over, say, a five year period, if
not a full payout.
F. Water Charges. There must be no special water charges
applied because of the sprinkler in the home. In fact,
such charges which are not uncommon for presently
sprinklered properties must be removed.
G. Materials. It is necessary that plastic pipe be
recognized as one of several acceptable piping systems
because it is essential that the cost-effectiveness of the
system be maximized. Plastic pipe has these
characteristics:
1. A high water delivery rate (low friction loss) per
dollar cost.
2. An attractive labor cost factor — especially in the
retrofit category.
H. Other Innovations. Other innovations that will
produce economies include:
1. Recognition for a low pressure rating of 100 psi.
2. Recognition of a "concealed pipe" category
where a high temperature rating for the pipe itself
will not be required.
3. Simplified controls.
THERE'S MORE
INVOLVED THAN HUMAN LIFE
Saving life is our primary goal. But there is another equally
i mportant reason for success. It is freedom from excessive
governmental controls.
In recent years there has been an awesome proliferation of
fire regulations that have been applied to a variety of building
types — but not dwellings. However, since dwellings represent
90% of the fire deaths in buildings, it is unrealistic to expect
that those controls which are being applied elsewhere — will
not be applied to the private dwelling in the future.
Further, since the combustible interior contents represent
the primary fire hazard, regulations applicable to the interior
contents can be expected to increase. This is an open door for
eventual Federal inspections and controls of a man's private
domicile. Those who believe this could never occur in America
had best look back at the events of the past few years.
The secondary goals of this program are to:
1. Head off structural and contents regulations for
the dwelling.
2. Use the low cost, extremely effective, life safety
suppression system, as a foundation for a "roll
back" of structural and contents regulation for
other building types.
THE COMING TEST PROGRAM
We are now beginning a program of fire research and live
fire tests in Ohio which, we are confident, will lead to the
following:
A. Recognition of plastic pipe life safety fire sprinkler
systems and further cost reductions.
B. Practical life safety fire sprinkler systems for single
and multiple family dwellings, and mobil homes.
C. Other refinements in sprinkler design to make fire
protection more practical for a variety of special
problems. (For example, the protection of electrical
equipment, the protection of restaurants, etc..)
Organizations that have shown an interest in our plans and
who have promised help and cooperation are the Plastic Pipe
Institute, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Building
Officials and Code Administrators, Intl., and others. There is
room for additional support from others who would have a
genuine interest in this program.
THE BACKGROUND
Bringing about a major change in fire safety is not new to
us. In the late 1960's and early 70's we created the Life Safety
Fire Sprinkler System which eventually led to the new
sprinkler design standard, BOCA-100. In turn, this forced the
NFPA to very dramatically revise their sprinkler standard; and
then in turn, Underwriter's Laboratory was forced to
recognize and approve a whole new family of sprinklers in the
extended spray range. The ripples are not yet stilled.
PATTON LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.
6075 Cleveland Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43229
PATTON, INC
7545 GALLANT C/RCLE
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610
916 - 726-4071
But, looking into the future, the new theories of fire safety
which we pioneered have even more significance. Those
concepts which we stated in the 1960's and 70's, and which
were first considered so radical, are now moving close to being
universally recognized. Some of the more salient points are:
A. It is the internal combustible contents, not the
structure itself, that sets the fire characteristics of a
facility.
B. Therefore, the structural shell (fireproof building) can
never be more than an excellent furnace.
C. There is no feasable way to make the human
environment "fireproof" and there also is no way to
make combustibles "safe", or their combustion
products "non-toxic".
D. The automatic fire sprinkler system represents the
most practical solution to the interior fire because it is
the most economical and reliable way to control the
contents fire and terminate the production of toxic
gases.
E. To achieve its maximum control potential and
reliability, and to become practical for all properties,
major revision in the old sprinkler design rules were,
and continue to be, necessary.
F. When truly reliable protection against the interior fire
is provided, dramatic liberalization of building codes,
and cost reductions in building construction, will be
feasable.
Today, these concepts enumerated above, which were so
"radical" just a few short years ago, are not so radical
anymore. In fact, they are moving very close to being very
fashionable.