THE PATTON REPORT

A Loss Control Publication

No. 4 April, 1969

SEVENTY YEARS TO NOWHERE

Fire Water

Jones,
The Underwriter said one day -
Listen to me and I'll tell you true,
This water supply will never do:
You need a pump, I'm telling you.
At least one pump and maybe two,
Or your rate goes uP a quarter.
Then,
Along came a man with a welding rig -
When he lit the torch and trash as well,
He jumped back fast and started to yell.
And finally ran for the fire bell.
But the fire roared like a slice of hell,
Owned by Satan's doughter.

Gosh,
That pump is needed right away -
The pressure is low and the risk is high,
You really should fix this water supply.
You need that pump and I'm telling you why,'
If it's not the pump it's a tank in the sky.
So Jonsey up and bought 'er.
Alas,
No fire hose was near at hand -
But there was a hose domestic fed,
That came from a pipe not painted red.
Which Jonsey 6-Jabbed and quick he sped,
Straight to the fire, he killed it dead.
So valiantly he fought 'er.

' t underwriter loved that pump -
It was pretty and new and painted red,
The gallonage must have gone to his head.
He hung around and it is said,
He'd rather the pump than his wife in bed.
He thought more of that pump than he ought'a.
Oh my,
As Jonsey stood by the black debris -
The underwriter lost his cool,
Cause Jonsey broke the sacred rule.
He clobbered Jones with a heavy tool,
While he screamed with rage,"Ycu goddam fc
"THAT'S NOT THE FIRE WATER:"
Written By: Richard M. Patton

There is no extinguishing material more widely used and more poor-

ly employed in fire protection than water. As the waters of the
seven seas were subject to fantasy and superstition in ancient
times, today the waters of fire protection are subject to prejudi-
ces, ignorance and misconceptions.

Which is the better, more universally applicable fire extinguish-

ing medium - carbon dioxide or water? Is there any question as
to the superiority of water? Why is it then that two fifty pound
cylinders of carbon dioxide can be the basis of an approved CO2
system, but a water base extinguishing system is considered impo-
tent with a supply less than 100,000 gallons, and a half million
gallons is needed for respectability.

Why? One answer, of course, is that water is cheap. It is so

cheap that fire protection technology involving water has been
permitted to deteriorate to the point where water is now the most
expensive medium of fire control. It is not expensive per unit
weight, or unit volume, but it is expensive in gross overdesign,
exorbitant waste, obsolete technology, failure of equipment, and
fire loss.

That's one answer. But there's a hidden world behind every bill
The story begins with the advent of STANDARDOLOGY. STANDARDOLOGY
is the science of solving technical problems with a standard.
STANDARDOLOGY sometimes causes STANDARDITIS. STANDARDITIS is a
debilitating disease of the brain caused by excessive exposure to
STANDARDOLOGY.

STANDARDOLOGY began in the latter part of the 19th century. At

•that time fire loss problems in industrial plants were at a dis-
astrous level. Fire protection solutions were imperative. Neces-
sity being the mother of invention, it was not long until some
very competent technicians developed a water base fire extinguish-
ing system. It worked just fine.

Once the water base extinguishing system (sprinkler system) was at

a satisfactory technical level, however, the researchers and in-
ventors were generally thought to be expendible. Some very sharp
financial experts and statisticians discovered that a few elemen-
tary rules could be formulated to link variations in protection
system design to variations in construction and occupancy. Presto-
there was a magic design to fit every need. And if things came out
wrong on occasion - well there was the sliding fire rate scale that
could be adjusted accordingly. Everything, was beautiful and they
all lived happily ever after - well, almost.

Soon, two things began to happen. Two important changes started

taking place. These changes were so gradual that many, many years
passed before the consequences became apparent.

One change was the change in industrial technology. Oh, this

c hange was apparent all right. But I am talking about the change
in industrial technology in reltion to the non changing sprinkler
system. One advanced and the o.ther did not.

The second change that took place gradually and unnoticed was the
spread of STANDARDITIS. This dread disease had a way of infecting
some of the best engineering minds employed in fire protection.
This is the way it worked. When a young man came out of college
his mind was trained to think in terms of the laws of nature and
engineering fundamentals. However, the day he entered the fire
profession a whole new magical world of magical numbers opened be-
fore his eyes.

No longer need he burn the oil,

No longer need he sweat and toil.
The answer sought is quickly found,
In the book so neatly bound.

How can you keep his mind on hydraulics after he's found the code?

As time went on technology advanced. New and more hazardous pro-

cesses were developed. Big buildings became common. Machines
stacked storage to great heights. The changes were so great that
the sprinkler system that was such a wonderful invention in the
19th century no longer sufficed. Clearly, changes were needed.
Who would do the job? Who would make new systems; as the old engi-
neers had made the old systems equal to tasks of yester year?
Clearly, this was the province of the fire specialist.

But alas, some of the leaders of protection had been infected by

STANDARDITIS. Their skills of engineering were eroded. There was
nothing they could do but look in the book. But the book didn't
say anything about the big buildings, the new and dangerous proces-
ses, the higher storage. These problems didn't exist when the book
was written. So the engineers did nothing.

Things went from bad to horrible. More and more buildings burned
down. The great men of finance became angry. Clearly, now some-
thing had to be done:

So a great council was held. All of the master writers of rule

books were assembled. They talked and talked for many hours, but
no one had any solutions. Finally, one little man rose and said,
"I think we need more water". "That's right, that's right", the
council cried, "We need more water". And so it came to pass. Now
every year there is a great meeting where experts gather and discuss
the important fires. And each year they decide to do something
about them. So they ask for more water.

Oh well, its better than ignoring the problem.

Design Principles, The Missing Ingredient

What is the point of my comments above? In case there is any mis-

understanding, here is a clarification.

1. Sprinklers, originally, were an imaginative technical solu-

tion to a fire problem.

2. Sprinkler design was then frozen into a rigid technical

standard.

3. Years passed. Industry changed. Sprinklers did not. The

gap between standard protection and industrial protection needs in-
creased year by year - for 70 years.

4. Protection engineers, accustomed over many, many years to

stylized and stereotyped solutions, have been unable to break with
tradition and develop the innovations so sorely needed.

5. Increased water supply requirements have been a substitute

for meaningful change.

6. While technical deficiencies of fire protection represent

a most serious problem, the human factor is the underlying root
cause. We must recognize the human problem in order to effective-
ly deal with the technical problem.

Sprinkler design should be a science. Unfortunately it isn't.

Sprinkler protection is design with almost total disregard of the
appropriate physical laws.
Ivor

The moment sprinkler design is put on a rational basis it will be-

come immediately obvious that major reorientation is imperative.
You cannot deal with sprinkler protection on an engineering basis
without running head on into the fallacies and deficiencies of
existing design.

These fallacies and deficiencies are not mysterious and hidden.

They are there to be seen by any who will open their eyes.

The truth, it is sad to report, is that vastly improved protection

systems could be available tomorrow. All that is needed is for
those who bar the path to move aside. It should be born in mind
that no innovation in protection design is permitted unless ap-
proved by the "Committee" in advance. So far the committee has
permitted no innovation in design except for what might be termed
creeping mediocrity.

The human element that we must deal with is fear. Fear of some
that change will make them obsolete. Fear that in a technical
world they might not be able to perform. But the only really
fearful thing is fear itself. These men need not fear change if
they help to bring it about. They will be more valuable to their
organizations, and more sure of themselves, when they attack the
problems that face us. The man who has something to fear is the
man who stands still while the world moves on.

The importance of design by basic engineering principles cannot be

overstated. Boiler design, minus the laws of thermodynamics
would be chaos. Principles are both a beacon that leads to good
design and a warning that tells the designer he is in dangerous
areas. Without principles, sprinkler design has wandered into a
labyrinth so complex and so tortuous that, as I stand at a dis-
tance, I can only 9bserve that things have gotten curiouser and
curiouser.

Industry often must pay huge sums to promide fire protection water
that is completely separated and isolated from process water. Yet
many losses are a direct result of inattention to the "idle" sup-
ply.

As an adjunct to sprinkler protection automatic smoke vents are in-

stalled in the roof at great cost. Smoke vents operate on the
"stack effect" principle. Sprinklers, however, destroy the stack
effect.

Fire detection systems are being installed at the roof along side
the sprinkler system. The sprinkler system however, is a fire de-
tection system.

One set of rules apply to fire pumps and water tanks on a public
system protecting many properties, but a different and far more
rigid set of rules apply to the same water supply components when
protecting one property.

These are but a handful of the weird gyrations of protection that

results from design without regard to fundamental principles of
design.
If aircraft design had been frozen at the level of the Sopwith
Camel of WORLD WAR I fame, and today som2one talked of sending man
to the moon, what would be our reaction? ... UNBELIEVABLE!

The science of using water to control fire was frozen into a rigid
design standard about 70 years ago. The result is unbelievable in
terms of human life and property Waste.

At this point, it is appropriate to name the principles of sprinkler

design (which are not considered when designing sprinklers).

Principles of Sprinkler Design

1. The first principle is that ceiling head operation is re-

lated to distance from the fire. Heads nearest the fire operate
first and there is a finite period of time between near head
operation and far head. operation. This may sound elementary,
but T FROM THE TIME OF FIRST SPRINKLER DESIGN DURING THE 19TH
CENTURY UNTIL TODAY THERE fiAS BEEN NO SPECIFIC EFFORT MADE TO
MEASURE AND USE THIS TIME INTERVAL TO THE ADVANTAGE OF PREVENTING
EXTRANEOUS HEAD OPERATION BEYOND THE FIRE ZONE.

There are two reasons why near heads operate first.

As heated gas flows outward from ceiling zero (a spot directly

above the fire) there is a heat transfer from hot gas to colder
surroundings. Thus there is a temperature gradient outward from
ceiling zero with nearest heads subjected to highest temperature.

The second phenomenon involved is related to velocity. A heated

gas that is immediately adjoining a colder body (fusible element)
gives up its heat rapidly. Then it acts as an insulator between
the still cool (relatively) metal and the adjoining, but slightly
more distant heated gas. When gas is flowing, however, there is
a continuing replacing of cooled gas with new combustion products.
Thus heat transfer is constant. This principle is familiar to all
soup blowers.

Heat transfer from combustion gas to fusible element is related to

velocity. As the mushroom of heated gas flows outward from ceiling
zero the velocity of flow is reduced as the square of the distance
from ceiling zero.

' These two factors provide a maLtilii_IL Ls_ILLeadoerl

JI Liaa
related to distance from ceiling zero.

2. The second principle of sprinkler design is that fire con-

trol improves with an increase in density of water discharge (GPM/
SQ. Ft. of floor area).

3. The third principle of sprinkler design is that an increase

inderIsit
_2_ reducese3 eousheadoeration
_p (operation of heads
outside the fire zone).

4. The fourth principle of sprinkler design is that, with

pressure given, the density varies as the square of the orifiep
 5. The fifth principle of sprinkler design is that water flow
in pipe, other factors being held constant, varies as the square of
the diameter.

6. The sixth principle of sprinkler design is that solid bar-

riers (partitions) act as a positive restriction to combustion gas
flow and head operation. •

7. The seventh principle of sprinkler design is that opera-

tion time is directly related to the surface area of the trigger-
ing mechanism and inversely related to the mass.

Because these principles appear "obvious" some may underestimate

their importance. It is well to remember that most principles,
once stated, become "obvious".

Now, what is the significance of these principles?

To begin with, principles ,1,'2 and 3 in combination point the way

to drastic reduction of water supplies. There is an ideal density
for an occupancy. This is the density where extraneous head opera-
tion (head operation beyond the fire zone) is eliminated. High
density directly over the fire (that starts out small) is the key
to economical design.

These principles have never been recognized and made part of

sprinkler design, nor have they (combined) been the subject of any
fire test program. Thus, there has never been an attempt made to
develop an efficient (low total water supply) system.

On the contrary sprinkler design and water supplies have been sta-
tistically tied to "fire experience" (see Patton Report No. 3).
However, with indifferent design sprinkler systems sometimes fail.
Once failure has occurred, the uncontrolled fire then proceeds to
operate hundreds of heads on the system. This extraneous head
operation brought on by system failure has been statistically fed
back into sprinkler design. Seventy years of compounding these
meaningless statistics of failure has brought water supply require-
ments probably close to a 5 to 1 distortion ratio. That is -

5000 GPM is required where 1000 GPM would suffice

3000 " " It It
600 " tt It

2000 " " II It

400 " It It

500 " " It tt

100 " It

Failure to recognize and employ principle No. 4 has produced equ-

ally disastrous results. Instead of using orifice size to vary
density, a reduction in area covered per head is employed. This
is such a ridiculously expensive method of density variation, that
it represents, in my opinion, the engineering boo-boo of the cen-
tury.

Today, head spacing in some occupancies is pulled in to 50 SQ. FT.

per head. Yet, there is clear evidence that the existing spray
pattern is adequate for 400 SQ. FT. SPACING (staggered pattern)
provided there is good vertical clearance.
 This difference in head layout represents tbe cost of installing
4000 pieces of sprinkler protection (heads, hanger, fittings, etc.)
in a 40,000 SQ. FT. building where approximately 500 would suffice.

But the cost is far, far greater than this Because of the tre-
mendous expense of close spacing of standard heads to produce a
given density it has been the custom over the years to design for
low density discharge over the fire.. This produces many sprinkler
system failures because extraneous head operation is not controlled
by the inadequate density. Instead of 4 heads opening and control-
ling the fire - four heads open and don't control the fire. Then
150 heads eventually open, and the final conclusion is that the
water supply was inadequate because there was not enough water for
150 heads.

The true cost is very expensive fire protection and continuing

fire loss.

Principle No. 5 is another key to more economical sprinkler design

with improved protection that fits in with principle No. 4.

Failure to recognize principle No. 6 is another error of vast

mgnitude. Why put in a 4 inch pipe to supply 105 sprinkler heads
in a hotel if no more than 3 heads are in any room?

rFailure to recognize this principle, along with principles 1, 2

and 3, in sprinkler design has generally prevented fire protection
!I from being installed in many thousands of nursing homes, hospitals,
hotels, motels, dormitories (and perhaps even dwellings) arieWs41
1. resulted in great loss of life and much suffering. WHAT AN UNNEC-
1 ESSARY WASTE!
rl

However, as it is difficult for the human mind to instantaneously

project from the Sopwith Camel to the Saturn 5, so I am sure it is
impossible for us now to visualize the immensity of the loss in
technology, property and life that has resulted from the freezing
of sprinkler design years ago.

Perhaps the best measure of the magnitude of the loss we can make
today is in the realization that the fire control mechanism that
still remains most fundamental to protection design is fire re-
sistant construction - that we still are designing our buildings
to perform as a furnace, to withstand a burnout, rather than de-
signing for fire suppression.

Possibly this is the closest measure we can make as to the magni-

tude of the failure of sprinkler design.

P.S.. I forgot to tell you of the significance of principle No. 7.

Oh well ... suppose you think about it.

Richard M. Patton, Loss Control Consultant, P.O. BOX 731

Plainfield, New Jersey 07061 - Telephone No. (201) 756-3386