NFPA 13 Handbook (2016) 1201 1235

. ..
Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System

1179
4RN1 RN1
3 2 3 2
1″1¹⁄₄″ 1 1¹⁄₄″ 1
1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
8 RN2 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″ 8 RN2 7′–0″ 1v
7 14′–0″ 7 14′–0″
1″ 1¹⁄₄″ CM1 14′–0″ 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ CM1 14′–0v
10 RN3 1¹⁄₄″ 10 RN3 1¹⁄₄″
7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″
1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 14′–0″ 6 1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 14′–0″ 6
14′–0″ 5 14′–0″ 5
7′–0″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″ 7′–0″
3″ 9 CM2 3″ 9 CM2
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 and pressure (P) that would be required from the first branch line
how we ultimately determine how much water would flow from the (CM1) to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq). (Keq = Q ÷ p )
sprinklers in the attachment path. (See Exhibit S2.25.) We will use that equivalent K to represent the outlet in our pri-
mary path and this will be how we ultimately determine how much
water would flow from the sprinklers on the second branch line. (See
Use K-factor
from 1st path Exhibit S2.27.)
RN1 3 2 1
1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
8 RN2 7′–0″ 1″
7 14′–0″
1″ 1¹⁄₄″ CM1 14′–0″
10 RN3 1¹⁄₄″ RN1 3
7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″ 2
1″ 1¹⁄₄″ 14′–0″ 6 1¹⁄₄″ 1
14′–0″ 5 1¹⁄₄″
7′–0″ 7′–0″ 1″
7′–0″ 14′–0″
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD}
3″
47′–0″ CM3
9 CM2
10 RN3
1″ 1¹⁄₄″
CM1
14′–0″
7′–0″ 7′–0″
3” 9 CM2
47′–0″ CM3 Use K-factor
3″ from CM1
BOR
3″
BOR
Exhibit S2.25 Plugging in an Equivalent K-factor for First
Attachment Path.
The second attachment path is where water leaves the primary Exhibit S2.27 Plugging in an Equivalent K-factor for Second
path at node CM2 and flows to Sprinklers 5, 6, 7, and 8. (See Exhibit S2.26.) Attachment Path.
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 Next, we will need to identify the third attachment path. This
an equivalent K-factor to describe all of the pipe and fittings in the path is where water leaves the primary path at Node CM3 and flows
second attachment path. As we did previously, we’ll first calculate the to Sprinklers 9 and 10. (See Exhibit S2.28.) We would choose to list the
attachment path and then use the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) nodes for this path as 10-RN3-CM3. Of the two sprinklers on this path,
to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq). we would choose to start with Sprinkler 10 as it will be the more chal-
If you examine the pipe and fitting arrangement of the entire lenging sprinkler to which we must deliver water.
second branch line, you will see that the second branch line is iden- Water flows away from this attachment at Node RN3 and goes
tical to the first branch line. So, rather than perform two calcula- out to Sprinkler 9. We will need to describe the piping that goes
tions for identical branch lines, we will use the minimum flow (Q) 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

. ..

1180
RN1 3 RN1 3
2 1 2 1
Use K-factor 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
from 1st path 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
1″ 1″
7′–0″ 14′–0″ 7′–0″ 14′–0″
(4-RN1) 14′–0″ 14′–0″
10 RN3 CM1 CM1
1″ 1¹⁄₄″
7′–0″ 7′–0″
3” 9 CM2 3″ CM2
47′–0″ CM3 47′–0″
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
attachment paths. And with Exhibit S2.31, we can see the primary path
required at Sprinkler 9 and through the pipe feeding it. Then, we
that is used to perform the final calculations. We are finally ready to walk
will use that information to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq).
through the actual calculation procedures for the system on our project.
(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.)
Use K-factor
from 1st path RN1 3 2 1
1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
1″
7′–0″ 14′–0″
RN1 14′–0″
3 2 CM1
Use K-factor 1¹⁄₄″ 1
from 1st path 1¹⁄₄″
1″
(4-RN1)
RN3
7′–0″ 14′–0″
CM1
14′–0″ 3″ CM2
1¹⁄₄″ 47′–0″ Use K-factor
CM3
from CM1
7′–0″
3″ 9 CM2 Use K-factor
from 3rd path
47′–0″ CM3
3″
BOR
3″
BOR
Exhibit S2.31 Primary Path with Outlets for the Attachment Paths.
Exhibit S2.29 Outrigger at Third Attachment Path. STEP SEVEN: Calculate how much energy and flow
will be needed for the entire remote area because
of that first sprinkler.
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 We have discussed how much water must flow from individual sprin-
10-RN3-CM3. Now we will be prepared to calculate the minimum klers and from created virtual paths for waterflow in our project sys-
flow (Q) and pressure (P) that would be required in the third attach- tem. It is now time to consider what amount of energy it will take
ment path. We will use that information to determine an equivalent to do the work of flowing water to the sprinklers. We will also con-
K-factor (Keq). (Keq = Q ÷ p .) We will use that equivalent K-factor to sider the turbulence and resulting friction losses created by fittings,
represent the outlet (CM3) in our primary path. (See Exhibit S2.30.) valves, and other devices.
Now with all three attachment paths defined, we can visualize We are ready to walk through the calculation procedures to com-
only the primary path and the points where we will account for our plete the calculation for this project. We will start with the attachment
2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook

. ..

1181
paths and finish with the primary path. The following steps are generally Step 7.1: Complete the hydraulic analysis form
used to calculate the piping in a path: using the data known for your path.
1. Complete a hydraulic analysis form using the data known for The first thing we will do is start entering data onto the NFPA
your path. hydraulic calculation forms. We will use the pipe analysis form for
2. Determine the minimum required starting pressure for your performing calculations manually. This detailed worksheet is Fig-
end outlet. ure 23.3.5.1.2(d) in NFPA 13. Exhibit S2.32 shows the standards we
3. Determine the flow from the outlet (q) (if the pipe segment has will use for rounding the numbers in our calculation. Be sure to use
a K-factor shown). these standards if you would like to get the same results that are
4. Verify that Q, K, and P are valid each time a new pipe segment shown in this supplement.
is started. We will calculate the waterflow through the attachment paths
5. Determine the total flow (Q) in the pipe segment. to determine their equivalent K-factors. Then we will calculate the
6. Determine if any fitting modifiers would apply to the pipe primary path. Enter the data we know for the first attachment path.
segment. We described this in Step Six as 4-RN1. We have entered the known
7. Determine the friction loss per foot. data for this path in Exhibit S2.33.
8. Determine the friction loss for the entire pipe segment. We know the following data about this path and should enter it
9. Determine any elevation loss or gain. in the appropriate place on the form:
10. Total the required pressures to create a new total pressure (Pt)
for the next pipe segment. 1. Node tags (4 and RN1)
11. Use the total pressure to begin again at Step 3 of this list on the 2. Elevation of each node (19 ft and 16 ft)
next pipe segment. 3. K-factor for the sprinkler (5.6)
12. When you reach the end of an attachment path, create an 4. Minimum required flow [Qs = As × density (D) = 126 × 0.15 =
equivalent K-factor to place in the primary path. 18.9 gpm]
13. When you reach the end of the primary path, compare the 5. Pipe size and actual internal diameter (1 in. and 1.049)
needed flow and pressure to that available from the water 6. Length of pipe (L) is 7 ft
supply. 7. Tee fitting. There is a tee attached to this pipe, and the energy we
14. Be sure to consider any requirement for hose allowance. Let’s walk would lose to friction by going through that fitting is the same as
through this process, one item at a time. if we went through 5 ft of pipe. (See Table 22.4.3.1.1, Tee or Cross.)
Node
1
Elev 1
K flow added-
factor this step (q)
Nominal ID fittings- L ft C Pt total
qty and
F ft Pf per Pe elev notes
Node equiv
Elev 2 total flow Actual ID foot
2 length T ft Pf frict
(Q)
0.1 0.1 Nom 1/4 or L 0.1 C= Pt 0.1

0.10 q
ID 1/2 (see Equivalent K-factors 0.22
F 0.1 Pe 0.1
(see notes) Fitting Modifiers 0.333
0.1 Q 0.1 Act 0.333
notes) 0.333 0.1
ID T Pf 0.1
Pt 0.1
Exhibit S2.32 Rounding Standards for NFPA Calculations.
Node K flow added- C Pt total

Elev 1 Nominal ID fittings- L ft
1 factor this step (q) qty and
Node equiv
(Q)
4 19.0 18.9 Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt

5.60 q 1
ID
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe
RN1 19.0 Q Act
1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf
Exhibit S2.33 Known Data in First Attachment Path (4-RN1).

. ..

1182
8. Total equivalent length of pipe (12 ft). riser will be accounted for twice. The water will turn going into the
9. C-factor (120). 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
Item 7 in the list above has us adding a certain amount of feet
also include a tee in the pipe segment that describes the riser nipple.
of pipe to represent the energy lost when we turn a corner or go
Exhibit S2.36 shows where the fittings should be included.
through a piece of equipment that creates moderate turbulence. We
turn the corner through tees and elbows. Welded outlets are consid-
ered tees in NFPA 13 calculations. Equipment, like gate valves and
This tee is accounted
check valves, also causes enough turbulence for us to consider in our for on both pipes.
calculations. When you place the nodes on the form, place the one
1″
closest to the water supply on the second line. We should determine 1¹⁄₄″
1¹⁄₄″
what valves and devices are between the two nodes and if there is 1″
a fitting at the node closest to the water supply. When determining
3″
which fitting should be at the “upstream” node, you should again “be A tee turn will need to be
accounted for at the bottom
the water.” If you were flowing through the pipe described by these of the riser nipple and should
end nodes, turn around to see what fittings you came through to get be included on the pipe that
is the riser nipple.
into this pipe. Exhibit S2.34 shows the concept of how to choose fit-
tings for the pipe.
Exhibit S2.36 Fittings for the Branch Line.
1. Consider the direction

water will flow.
Step 7.2: Determine the minimum required starting
1″
pressure for your end outlet.
1¹⁄₄″
1¹⁄₄″
1″ 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
3″ 2. Turn around and see from the sprinkler is 18.9 gpm. Using the K-factor from Line 1 of the
the fittings the water had
to come through to get Hydraulic Analysis Form, we can now determine the minimum required
into and through this pipe. 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.
Exhibit S2.34 Accounting for the Fittings.
P = (Q ÷ K)2
P = (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2
P = 11.4 psi
When adding fittings to the hydraulic calculations, you should
be aware that certain fittings do not add enough turbulence to be We should enter this pressure total on the Hydraulic Analysis
included in the process. In 23.4.4.7.1 of NFPA 13, there are 10 items Form in the field labeled Pt. We should also make notes that include
that include direction on which fittings to include. It also gives guid- how we determined the minimum required flow and pressure at this
ance on which fittings do not need to be included. Exhibit S2.35 point. (See Exhibit S2.37.)
shows two of the situations where fittings are not included. When you start with the first outlet, you may skip the next item
For the branch line shown, we do need to include the tees at in the list (Step 7.3) and move on to Step 7.4.
the top of the riser nipple and at the bottom. The tee at the top of the
Step 7.3: If the pipe segment has a K-factor shown,
determine the flow from the outlet (q).
The fitting attached Anytime that you are calculating a pipe segment that is not the first
directly to the sprinkler
does not need to be pipe segment in your path, you will add the data in the pressure col-
considered. umn together, and enter that total into the Pt field on the next pipe
1″ segment. Once you enter that data, you should look to the left side
1¹⁄₄″
1¹⁄₄″ of the form for this pipe segment and see if there is a K-factor that
1″
applies. If so, you will need to determine what the flow will be. Every
3″ time we have a K-factor and a pressure in the data for the pipe seg-
No fitting required for
water running straight ment, you will need to determine the flow from that outlet. (See the
through a tee. 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 .
Exhibit S2.35 Fittings Not Required to Be Included. You will enter this data into the field labeled “flow added this step (q).”

. ..

1183

Node equiv
(Q)
Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe
Act P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf (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 Step 7.6: Determine if any fitting modifiers would
a new pipe segment is started. apply to the pipe segment.
The variables of Q, K, and P should always be verified by the formula Q = Table 23.4.3.1.1 of NFPA 13 is what we use to determine the equiva-
K × p . Verifying these numbers will ensure accuracy in the calculation lent length of pipe and fittings for the purposes of hydraulic calcula-
procedure. This is often a step in verifying reports that were printed from tions. You can instead choose to use the values for equivalent lengths
calculation software. Exhibit S2.38 shows the fields we are discussing. 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 1. Are we using Schedule 40 steel pipe?
segment. 2. Does the pipe segment have a C-factor of 120?
The “total flow (Q)” field should now be determined. Add the Q (total If you answer “yes” to both of these questions, then you can
flow) from the previous step to the q (flow added in this step). In the use the equivalent lengths shown in the table. However, if you
first pipe segment of a path, Q is always the same as the q because answered “no” to either of these questions, then you must adjust
there is no previous flow to add. We will see this step required when these lengths to ensure that we are using the correct amount of
we calculate the third attachment path. (See Exhibit S2.39.) energy loss in the fitting.
Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe
Act P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.38 Verifying Q, K, and Pt.

Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe
Act P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.39 Entering Total Flow (Q).

. ..

1184
If you are not using Schedule 40 steel pipe, then you must mod- Where:
ify the equivalent lengths using a formula based on a comparison of p = frictional resistance (psi per ft of pipe)
the actual internal diameter of the pipe and the internal diameter of Q = flow (gpm)
Schedule 40 pipe. The following formula is found in 23.4.3.1.3.1. 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
If the pipe segment does not have a C-factor of 120, then you it into your calculator as:
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 dif- p = 4.52 × Q1.85 ÷ C1.85 ÷ d4.87
ferent format), by multiplying the value of the fitting lengths by the
following values, based on the C-factor of the pipe segment. If the Generally, when performing hydraulic calculations for water-
pipe segment is neither Schedule 40, nor C-factor = 120, then you based fire protection systems, we use the Hazen– Williams formula to
must apply both fitting length modifiers as follows: 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
Total Fitting Equivalent Lengths (F) × New Adjusted a p of 0.117 psi/ft. You should enter this result in the “Pf per foot” field
=
Non-S40 Modifier × C-factor Modifier Length (Fadj) on the hydraulic calculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.40.
Step 7.8: Determine the friction loss for the entire

TABLE S2.1 C Value Multiplier. pipe segment.
C Value Multiplier 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
100 0.713 determine the total friction loss for the pipe segment (Pf). In our pipe
130 1.16 segment this would be expressed as follows:
140 1.33
150 1.51
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.
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 seg- We must take any elevation change into account that occurs in our
ment, we can calculate the amount of friction loss that will occur in pipe segment. When the water flows uphill, there will be more energy
each foot (and equivalent foot) of pipe. Generally, when performing needed. This is represented by entering a positive value in the Pe(elev)
hydraulic calculations for water-based fire protection systems, we use field. When the water flows downhill, there will be energy gained.
the Hazen–Williams formula to determine this most important piece This is represented by entering a negative value in the Pe(elev) field
of information. The Hazen–Williams Formula as it appears in NFPA 13 (because this is energy we are getting back).
is as follows: 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
4.52Q1.85 2 fields. Therefore, we should enter 0.0 psi for the Pe(elev) field in the
P=
C 1.85d 4.87 hydraulic calculation form as shown in Exhibit S2.42.

Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.40 Determining Friction Loss per Foot (Pf ).

..

1185

Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Exhibit S2.41 Determining Total Friction Loss (Pf – frict).

Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (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 this becomes the beginning pressure and should be used to deter-
new Total Pressure (Pt) for the next pipe segment. mine 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
The only thing left in calculating this path is to add the needed pres- attachment path in Step 7.14.
sures together and determine the total pressure (Pt) we will need.
When there are more pipe segments in the path, this total will be the
Step 7.12: When you reach the end of an
beginning pressure for the next pipe segment.
attachment path, create an equivalent
Add the pressure column and enter the result in the Pt(total) field
K-factor to place in the primary path.
on the next line of the hydraulic calculation form. See Exhibit S2.43.
We have completed the calculation of the minimum required pres-
sure (Pt) and flow (Q) for the first attachment path. This is the informa-
Step 7.11: Use the total pressure to begin again at
tion we need in order to create the equivalent K-factor that describes
Step 3 on the next pipe segment.
all of the calculations we have just performed. When we know the P
As stated earlier, this total will be the beginning pressure for the next and the Q, we can determine an equivalent K-factor in the following
pipe segment. When there are additional pipe segments in the path, manner.

Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Pt 12.8
Exhibit S2.43 Determining Total Pressure (Pt ) required for our pipe segment.

. ..

1186
K = Q ÷ p water flow out of sprinkler 10 because it is on smaller pipe and will

Keq = 18.9 gpm ÷ 12.8 psi need more energy to flow enough water than will Sprinkler 9. See
Keq = 5.28 Exhibit S2.46.
This should be shown in the notes section of the h

ydraulic cal
culation form as shown in Exhibit S2.44.
RN1 3 2 1
1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
Step 7.13: When you reach the end of the primary 7′–0″ 14′–0″
1″
14′–0″
path, compare the needed flow and pressure to 10 RN3 CM1
that available from the water supply. 1″ 1¹⁄₄″
7′–0″ 7′–0″
See the calculation of the primary path that follows for the final pres- 3″ 9 CM2
9
sure and flow that will be required for our system. 47′–0″ CM3
10-RN3-CM3
Step 7.14: Be sure to consider any requirement for
hose allowance. Water flows away from the third
3″
attachment path here and goes
The insurance company for our sample project has told us to add any BOR to Sprinkler 9.
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 opera- Exhibit S2.45 Third Attachment Piping Layout.
tions when they arrive at the fire scene. When we complete the cal-
culations for the system, we will add 250 gpm to the demand before
comparing the needed flow to that flow available from the water RN1 3 2 1
supply. 1¹⁄₄″ 1¹⁄₄″
1″
7′–0″ 14′–0″
14′–0″
Calculating the Third Attachment Path 10 RN3 CM1
1″
The third attachment path requires us to create an equivalent K-factor 7′–0″
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.
3″
47′–0″ CM3
CM2
Create K-factor
We will need to describe the piping that goes from 9-RN3 as an outlet for 9-RN3
in the third attachment path. See Exhibit S2.45.
We will first calculate the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P)
3″
that would be required at Sprinkler 9 and through the pipe feed-
ing it. Then, we will use that information to determine an equiva- BOR
lent 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 Exhibit S2.46 Determining the Equivalent K-factor (Keq ) for the
on the third attachment path. It will be more demanding to make Third Attachment Path.

Node equiv
(Q)

4 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5’ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN1 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Pt 12.8 Keq@RN1 = Q ÷ √Pt = 5.28
Exhibit S2.44 Determining the Equivalent K-factor (Keq ) for the First Attachment Path.

. ..

1187
When we walk through the same process we used for the first After we have entered the friction losses for the first pipe, we
attachment path, the results for the 9-RN3 pipe segment should be can total the pressure column and enter the total pressure (Pt) for
as shown in Exhibit S2.47. We establish an equivalent K-factor for this the next pipe segment (RN3-CM3). However, this is the first time we
pipe segment, and we will insert it into our third attachment path. have encountered a second pipe segment in a path. And as we said
With the remaining sprinkler at Node 10 and an equivalent K at node previously, when we enter the Pt data on a new pipe segment, we
RN3, we are all set to describe our third attachment path as 10-RN3-CM3. must look to the left side of the hydraulic analysis form to see if this
Now we are prepared to calculate the minimum flow (Q) and pressure (P) segment has a K-factor. We can see that this second pipe segment
that would be required in the third attachment path. We will use that infor- (RN3-CM3) has the equivalent K-factor we created for the pipe seg-
mation to determine an equivalent K-factor (Keq) (Keq = Q ÷ p ). We will use ment labeled 9-RN3. Therefore, we must use it to determine how
that equivalent K-factor to represent the outlet for this attachment path at much water would actually flow out to Sprinkler 9 when we flow
CM3 in our primary path. See Exhibit S2.30. As always, we enter the known the minimum required flow from Sprinkler 10. So we will use Q =
information about our attachment path. See Exhibit S2.48. K × p to determine that this outlet will flow 19.7 gpm as shown in
We can complete the calculation for friction loss per foot and for Exhibit S2.50.
the total equivalent pipe length for this segment. Enter the data as Now we can combine the “flow added this step (q)” from the out-
shown in Exhibit S2.49. let with the “total flow (Q).” This would be 19.7 + 18.9 = 38.6 gpm,

Node equiv
(Q)

9 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1 1/4
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 6′ F 6.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.031 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.380
ID T 13.0 Pf 0.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Pt 11.8 Keq@RN3 = Q ÷ √Pt = 5.50
Exhibit S2.47 Calculation for Third Attachment Equivalent K-factor.
10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 5.0 Pe
Act P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
RN3 19.0 Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt

5.50 q 1 1/2
ID
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 Pe = .433 × 3′ = 1.3 psi
CM3 16.0 Q Act
1.610
ID T 11.0 Pf
Exhibit S2.48 Calculating Third Attachment Flow and Pressure.

10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 6.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 13.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
RN3 19.0 Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt

5.50 q 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 19.4 gpm
CM3 16.0 Q Act
ID T 11.0 Pf
Exhibit S2.49 Calculating Third Attachment Friction Loss and Total Equivalent Pipe Length.

. ..

1188

10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt 12.8

RN3 19.0 5.50 q 19.7 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 19.7 gpm
CM3 16.0 Q Act
ID T 11.0 Pf
Exhibit S2.50 Calculating Flow for Sprinkler 9.
and we enter the data into the “total flow (Q)” field for this pipe seg- the next line. So we add Pt + Pe + Pf for this pipe segment to determine
ment as shown in Exhibit S2.51. the Pt for the next line:
With this flow determined, we can now calculate the friction
12.8 + 1.3 + 0.6 = 14.7 psi
losses (Pf per foot, Pf for total length) for this pipe segment. We enter
this data as shown in Exhibit S2.52. Enter this data and determine the result as shown in Exhibit S2.53.
Once we have completed the fields that apply to this pipe seg- We have completed the calculation of the minimum required
ment, total the pressure column and place the result in the Pt field on pressure (Pt) and flow (Q) for the third attachment path. This is the

10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt 12.8

RN3 19.0 5.50 q 19.7 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 19.7 gpm
CM3 16.0 Q 38.6 Act
ID T 11.0 Pf
Exhibit S2.51 Calculating Third Attachment Total Flow.

10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt 12.8

RN3 19.0 5.50 q 19.7 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 19.7 gpm
CM3 16.0 Q 38.6 Act 0.055
ID T 11.0 Pf 0.6
Exhibit S2.52 Calculating Friction Losses.

10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt 12.8

RN3 19.0 5.50 q 19.7 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 19.7 gpm
CM3 16.0 Q 38.6 Act 0.055
ID T 11.0 Pf 0.6
Pf 14.7
Exhibit S2.53 Calculating Pt (Total Pressure).


. ..

1189
information we need in order to create the equivalent K-factor that we did not perform the calculations for Branch line 2. If you will remem-
describes the piping arrangement we just calculated as an outlet ber, we said that since Branch line 2 is the exact same piping arrangement
in our primary path. When we know the P and the Q, we can deter- as Branch line 1, we will determine an equivalent K-factor at CM1 for use
mine an equivalent K-factor in the following manner. at CM2 as we calculate the primary path. This means that it is time for us to
K = Q ÷ P finish this calculation by performing the calculations for the primary path.
Keq = 38.6 gpm ÷ √14.7 psi
Keq = 10.07 Primary Path Calculations
This should be shown in the notes section of the hydraulic calcu- We will continue following the process described earlier by first entering
lation form as shown in Exhibit S2.54. all of the data we know for the primary path onto the hydraulic analysis
Now that we have calculated the first and third attachment paths, we form. This includes the equivalent K-factors for the first and third attach-
can calculate the remaining primary path. You might be wondering why ment paths. See Exhibit S2.55.

10 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
1T = 5′ F 5.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
RN3 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 12.0 Pf 1.4 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt 12.8

RN3 19.0 5.50 q 19.7 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.5 × √12.8 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3 19.7 gpm
CM3 16.0 Q 38.6 Act 0.055
ID T 11.0 Pf 0.6
Pf 14.7 Keq@CM3 = Q ÷ √Pt = 10.07
Exhibit S2.54 Calculation for Third Attachment Equivalent K-factor.

1 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
F 0.0 Pe 0.0
Act P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
2 19.0 Q 18.9 1.049
2 19.0 5.60 q
ID
Nom
ID
1 1/4
T 14.0
L 14.0 C = 120 Pt
Pf (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
F 0.0 Pe 0.0
Q Act
3 19.0 1.380 Pf
ID T 14.0
3 19.0 Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt

5.60 q 1 1/4
ID
1T = 6’ F 6.0 Pe 0.0
RN1 19.0 Q Act
1.380 T 13.0
ID Pf
Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt
RN1 19.0 5.28 q 1 1/2
ID
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3
Q Act
CM1 16.0 1.610 Pf
ID T 11.0
CM1 16.0 Nom L 9.0 C = 120 Pt

q 3
ID
F 0.0 Pe 0.0
CM2 16.0 Q Act
3.068 9.0
ID T Pf
Nom L 9.0 C = 120 Pt
CM2 16.0 ?? q 3
ID
1T = 5′ F 0.0 Pe 0.0
Q Act
CM3 16.0 3.068 Pf
ID T 9.0
CM3 16.0 Nom L 47.0 C = 120 Pt

10.13 q 3
ID
E+G+C F 24.0 Pe 6.5
BOR 1.0 Q Act
ID 3.068 7+1+16 T 71.0 Pf
Pt
Exhibit S2.55 First and Third Attachment Hydraulic Data.

..

1190
Be sure to enter the correct equivalent K-factor values for the the second pipe segment. We show the results you should obtain in
attachment paths. Note the question marks that are entered at CM2 to Exhibit S2.56.
remind us to determine an equivalent K-factor from CM1 to describe Using the new Pt for the second pipe segment (Nodes 2 and
the second attachment path, which is the same piping arrangement 3), we can determine the flow that will come from the second sprin-
that we will calculate for the first branch line. kler on our most remote branch line. Using the formula, Q = K × p ,
At this point you should be able to walk through the proce- will result in a flow (q) of 20.2 gpm from Sprinkler 2. This is shown in
dure for calculating the first pipe segment and determine the Pt for Exhibit S2.57.

1 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
F 0.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
2 16.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 14.0 Pf 1.6 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 14.0 C = 120 Pt 13.0

2 19.0 5.60 q 1 1/4
ID
F 0.0 Pe
3 19.0 Q Act 1.380
ID T 14.0 Pf
Exhibit S2.56 Calculating Pt for Second Pipe Segment.

1 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
F 0.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
2 16.0 Q 18.9 1.049
ID T 14.0 Pf 1.6 (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
Nom L 14.0 C = 120 Pt 13.0

2 19.0 5.60 q 20.2 1 1/4
ID Q = K × √P = 5.6 × √13.0 =
F 0.0 Pe 0.0 20.2 gpm
3 19.0 Q 39.1 Act 1.380 0.118
ID T 14.0 Pf 1.7
Pt 14.7
Exhibit S2.57 Calculating Flow for Sprinkler 2.
Exhibit S2.57 also shows the total flow in this step (Q), the fric- This should be shown in the notes section of the hydraulic calcu-
tion loss per foot (0.118), the total friction loss (Pf), and the new total lation form as shown in Exhibit S2.58.
pressure (Pt) of 14.7 that will be used to determine the flow from the One of the benefits of using the primary path method to calculate
outlet in the next pipe segment. As you can see, this starts to become systems is that once all of the equivalent K-factors have been deter-
very repetitive. mined, you can continue the calculations through the primary path
We must complete the calculations for Branch line 1 so that until you reach the water supply. Exhibit S2.59 shows the remainder of
we can determine the equivalent K-factor that will apply to Branch the calculations for the primary path.
line 2. Exhibit S2.58 shows the data entered in the first portion The sprinkler system for our project requires a minimum flow
of the primary path, stopping at the end of Branch line 1 (Node and pressure of 214.1 gpm @ 33.7 psi. We will need to add a hose
CM1). allowance of 250 gpm at the base of the riser (Node BOR). We will
Exhibit S2.58 shows the minimum required pressure (Pt) and add the hose allowance to the required flow without changing the
flow (Q) for Branch line 1. This is the information we need in order required minimum pressure.
to create the equivalent K-factor that describes the piping arrange-
Sprinkler System Requirement: 214.1 gpm at 33.7 psi
ment 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. Hose Allowance: +250.0 gpm
When we know the P and the Q, we can determine an equivalent K Total Required Flow and Pressure: 464.1 gpm at 33.7 psi
in the following manner.
Congratulations for making it this far. You have learned more than the typ-
K = Q ÷ P ical engineer and designer in the fire protection industry. It is time to see if
Keq = 83.1 gpm ÷ √22.0 psi all of our work has paid off. Move on to Step Eight to see if your calculation
Keq = 17.72 can be considered successful.

. ..

1191

1 19.0 5.60 q 18.9 1
ID 126 × .15 = 18.9 gpm
F 0.0 Pe 0.0
Act 0.117 P = (Q ÷ K)2 =
2 16.0 Q 18.9 1.049 Pf (18.9 ÷ 5.6)2 = 11.4 psi
ID T 14.0 1.6
2 19.0 20.2 Nom L 14.0 C = 120 Pt 13.0

5.60 q 1 1/4
ID Q = K × √P = 5.6 × √13.0 =
F 0.0 Pe 0.0 20.2 gpm
3 19.0 Q 39.1 Act 0.118
1.380 T 14.0
ID Pf 1.7
Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 14.7
3 19.0 5.60 q 21.5 1 1/4
ID Q = K × √P = 5.6 × √14.7 =
1T = 6′ F 6.0 Pe 0.0 21.5 gpm
Act 0.266
RN1 19.0 Q 60.6 1.380 3.5
ID T 13.0 Pf
RN1 19.0 5.28 Nom L 3.0 C = 120 Pt 18.2 Flow to first attachment path
q 22.5 1 1/2
ID Q = K × √P = 5.8 × √18.2 =
1T = 8′ F 8.0 Pe 1.3
Act 22.5 gpm
CM1 16.0 Q 83.1 1.610 0.225
ID T 11.0 Pf 2.5 Pe = 3′ × 0.433 psi = 1.3 psi
Nom L 9.0 C = 120 Pt 22.0

CM1 16.0 q 3
ID
F 0.0 Pe 0.0 Keq@CM1 = Q + √Pt = 17.72
Q Act
CM2 16.0 3.068 Pf
ID T 9.0
Exhibit S2.58 Primary Path Hydraulic Data.
Nom L 9.0 C = 120 Pt 22.0

CM1 16.0 q 0.0 3
ID
F 0.0 Pe 0.0 Keq@CM1 = Q + √Pt = 17.72
Act 0.010
CM2 16.0 Q 83.1 3.068 Pf
ID T 9.0 0.1
CM2 16.0 83.3 Nom L 9.0 C = 120 Pt 22.1 Flow to second attachment path
17.72 q 3
ID Q = K × √P = 17.72 × √22.1 =
CM3 16.0 Q 166.4 Act
ID
3.068
F
T
0.0
9.0
0.035
Pe
Pf
0.0
0.3
83.3 gpm
Nom L 62.0 C = 120 Pt 22.4 Flow to third attachment path

CM3 16.0 10.07 q 47.7 3
ID Q = K × √P = 10.07 × √22.4 =
E+G+C F 24.0 Pe 6.5
Act 47.7 gpm
Q 3.068 0.056
BOR 1.0 214.1 7+1+16 T 86.0 Pf 4.8 Pe = 15′ × 0.433 psi = 6.5 psi
ID
Pt 33.7
Exhibit S2.59 Primary Path Hydraulic Data Calculated to Base of Riser.
STEP EIGHT: Compare the waterflow and pressure to indicate an increasing demand as sprinklers open during a fire
you think is needed to the flow and pressure that event. It is not an accurate representation of water flowing during a
is available at the water supply. If the demand is fire. See Exhibit S2.61.
We should next draw a line showing that we added the hose
less than that available, the calculation can be
allowance that is required from NFPA 13, Chapter 11. NFPA 13 requires
considered successful.
an allowance of 250 gpm for systems designed to protect ordinary
Now compare the results of our calculation to the available water hazard occupancies. See Exhibit S2.62.
supply for this project. The available water supply is shown in We add the hose allowance to the sprinkler demand without
Exhibit S2.60. revising the required pressure. This can be stated as follows:
Next, identify the point on the graph that represents our sprin-
Sprinkler System Requirement: 214.1 gpm at 33.7 psi
kler 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 Hose Allowance: +250.0 gpm
and 0.0 psi), and goes to the system demand. This line is drawn Total Required Flow and Pressure: 464.1 gpm at 33.7 psi

. ..

1192
80
Static:
72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual:
58 psi 1200 gpm
60
50 Water supply available

at the base of the
40 system riser
30
20
10
0
A 0 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
B 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
C 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Exhibit S2.60 Available Water Supply.
80
Static:
72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual:
58 psi 1200 gpm
60
50
40
Sprinkler system
requirement
30 33.7 psi
214.1 gpm
20
10
0
A 0 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
B 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
C 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Exhibit S2.61 Sprinkler System Demand.
This total needs to be indicated on the water supply graph as shown In Exhibit S2.63, we can see that have approximately 69 psi avail-
in Exhibit S2.62. It becomes apparent that the minimum required able from the water supply when 464.1 gpm are flowing. The differ-
flow and pressure for our project system does not exceed the avail- ence between the available pressure and the required pressure is
able water supply. In fact, we need to indicate the available flow and often called the safety factor or buffer. There is no minimum safety
pressure as shown in Exhibit S2.63. factor required by NFPA 13. The NFPA 13 calculation process has

. ..

1193
80
Static:
72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual:
58 psi 1200 gpm
60
50 Sprinkler system
requirement
33.7 psi
40 214.1 gpm
30 Total project water

Hose allowance requirement
250 gpm 33.7 psi
20
464.1 gpm
10
0
A 0 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
B 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
C 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Exhibit S2.62 Adding Hose Allowance.
80
Static:
72 psi 0 gpm
70
Residual:
Available flow 58 psi 1200 gpm
60 and pressure
+/– 69 psi
464.1 gpm
50 Sprinkler system
requirement
33.7 psi
40 214.1 gpm
30 Total project water

Hose allowance requirement
250 gpm 33.7 psi
20
464.1 gpm
10
0
A 0 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
B 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
C 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Exhibit S2.63 Comparing Available Supply to the Demand.
built in safety factors that allow designers to simply have a demand iping so that the demand came closer to the available water supply.
p
that is less than the available supply. We could say that this system By so doing, the designer will save the owner money without lowering
calculation was successful since the available water pressure of 69 the minimum required level of safety for their project. And ultimately,
psi and a system demand of 33.7 psi would leave a safety factor of we should be trying to design and install the lowest cost system that
35.3 psi. However, it would seem prudent to resize this system’s meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.

. ..

1194
systems. While this might have been an entire supplement of “alpha-

SUMMARY
bet soup,” you have learned about A, As, Qs, D, gpm, psi, K, C, d, L, F, T,
We have covered a lot of territory in this supplement that simply can- Pt, Pe, Pf, q, Q, Keq, BL, RN, and CM. (Whew!) And if you managed to stay
not be fully addressed in such a manner. We have hopefully given you with the flow of this text (pardon the pun), you have learned how to
the tools needed to review or begin the calculations of fire sprinkler perform a hydraulic calculation, step-by-step.

. ..
3
Supplement
The European Experience

with Fire Sprinklers
Alan Brinson
HISTORY APSAD R13 design and installation rule for sprinkler systems recog-
nized by French insurers.
The British claim that the sprinkler concept was invented in the In 2004, the European standards body, Comité Européen de
United Kingdom by William Congreve, with the first system installed Normalisation (CEN), produced the first European sprinkler system
at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, in 1812. Although this system had installation standard, EN 12845, again drawing heavily on the FOC
a network of pipes, it did not include sprinklers. Instead, it used a concepts. Two amendments have been made and at the time of writ-
series of holes in the pipes to distribute water. Later that century, in ing, the text of a first revision of EN 12845 has been approved for pub-
1864, Major Stewart Harrison of the First Engineer London Volunteers lication in 2015.
designed the first automatic sprinkler but did not patent his idea or While there are differences between CEA 4001, APSAD R1, and
commercialize it. EN 12845,4 they are growing together and contradictions have already
Thus, it was only after sprinklers were commercialized in the been eliminated. Many of the technical innovations in NFPA 13 are
United States that they began to be used in Europe, starting in the not yet reflected in these documents so for certain occupancies, in
United Kingdom. The first risks to be protected were textile mills in particular for storage, designers often successfully argue that NFPA 13
the Manchester area. William Mather, of the engineering firm Mather
& Platt, met Frederic Grinnell in 1882 and purchased the rights to the
(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
Grinnell sprinkler for all areas outside North America. Mather & Platt a number of other NFPA standards.
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.
COMPONENT STANDARDS
EN 12845 was written to support a series of component standards
under EN 12259:
INSTALLATION STANDARDS
• Part 1 — sprinklers5
In 1885, John Wormald wrote the first installation rules for auto-
• Part 2 — wet alarm valve assemblies6
matic sprinkler systems. A second edition was published in 1886
• Part 3 — dry alarm valve assemblies7
by his employer, the Mutual Fire Insurance Corporation Limited of
• Part 4 — water motor alarms8
Manchester, United Kingdom. The London Fire Offices’ Committee
• Part 5 — flow switches9
(FOC) adopted an 1888 edition of these rules and regularly published
• Part 9 — deluge valves
updates, with the twenty-ninth and final edition being published in
• Part 12 — pumps
1968. The FOC rules greatly influenced the development of sprinkler
• Part 13 — pump assemblies
installation rules in other European countries, and in turn led to the
• Part 14 — residential sprinklers
Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA – European Insurers) rule, CEA
4001.1 In Germany, VdS,2 a laboratory and certification body owned Parts 9 through 14 have not yet been finalized, but the exis-
by the German Insurance Association, administers the German ver- tence of these standards allows regulators to reference them. Their
sion of CEA 4001. Most sprinkler systems installed in Germany are technical requirements are similar to those in UL and FM test proto-
designed using VdS CEA 4001. Similarly in France, CNPP, a labora- cols. Prior to the existence of these standards, test bodies in different
tory and certification body with strong insurance links publishes the countries applied different test protocols, so different sprinklers had
1195

. ..
Supplement 3 • The European Experience with Fire Sprinklers

1196
to be manufactured for different national markets. Today, the same FIRES AND FIRE SAFETY CODES
sprinkler can be installed across Europe and in the United States. That
is the reason these standards were produced: under the Construc- Few European countries produce detailed fire statistics. Most do not
tion Products Directive, which has been replaced by the Construc- even record the total number of fire deaths each year, let alone the
tion Products Regulation (CPR),10 barriers to cross-border trade in sex and age of those who died, or in what type of building and where
construction products within the European Union must be removed. in it the fire started. In those countries that do collect data, it is not
To facilitate that, the European Commission has mandated that CEN necessarily collected on a consistent basis. This lack of interest in fire
produce standards for all types of construction products, including protection is reflected in far less use of sprinklers in Europe than in
sprinklers.11 Where there is a harmonized European standard for a North America. Nevertheless, for more than 20 years, the Geneva
sprinkler component, that component must bear the CE mark, which Association has published an overview of world fire statistics, using
requires testing by a laboratory accredited by one of the European data from fire brigades and the World Health Organization.16 There
Union member states to the relevant standard. It is illegal to offer are some large differences between the two figures in some countries
such a sprinkler component for sale in Europe without the CE mark. but it is clear that there are well over 3000 and probably over 4000 fire
This regulation does not apply to products for which a harmonized deaths each year in the European Union, and that the fire death rate
European standard does not exist. For example, EN 12259-1 does is higher in Northern and Eastern Europe than in Southern Europe.
not include large orifice sprinklers, so they cannot be CE marked but This difference is to be expected when one considers that in Northern
they can be sold in the European Union. System standards cannot be Europe people spend more time indoors, their homes have more car-
harmonized because the CPR only applies to products. This means peting and curtains, furniture is more deeply upholstered, and they
that with the approval of the authority having jurisdiction, standards make greater use of candles. In Eastern Europe, more use is made of
other than EN 12845, such as NFPA 13, can be used to design sprinkler wood-burning stoves for heating and cooking. See Table S3.1.
systems. 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
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER STANDARDS 1 percent of GDP.17,18
Residential sprinklers are still a new concept in much of Europe, with In the United States, the federal government does not have
many countries yet to see the first system installed. One hindrance jurisdiction over fire safety codes. In Europe, each country (member
is the lack of a national installation standard to which regulators can state) of the European Union has jurisdiction over its fire safety code.
refer (NFPA 13R12 and NFPA 13D13 are foreign standards that are writ- In some countries, similar to the United States, this responsibility is
ten in English and not accepted by most regulators). CEN is therefore delegated to states, provinces, or regions within the country. Some
drafting a residential system design and installation standard, draw-
ing on the concepts in NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D. The standard will be
countries cover all the regulatory requirements in one document,
complemented by Part 14 of EN 12259, which is based on UL 1626 TABLE S3.1 Extract from GAIN Statistics for Fire Deaths (2010)
and specifies the test protocol for the residential sprinklers to be used
Country Fire Brigade WHO
in these systems.
Austria 39
Czech Republic 131 62
COMPETENCY STANDARDS Denmark 66
Finland 90 79
Central and Northern European countries have national accreditation
France 475 (2009)
schemes for sprinkler installers. These schemes are usually drafted Germany 373
on behalf of insurers, who only recognize sprinkler systems installed Greece 89
by companies accredited under them. Among other requirements, Hungary 119 140
each national scheme requires an installing company to show it has Ireland 43
a quality control system, and to nominate people to sit for a sprinkler Italy 191
Netherlands 65 39
examination. It could be argued that these private schemes consti-
Norway 38
tute a barrier to cross-border trade. For that reason, CEN and its sister Poland 568
organization for electrical standards, CENELEC, have formed a joint Portugal 61
committee, CEN/TC 4,14 to draft standards for individuals and com- Romania 247 397
panies who supply security services. The mandate for this commit- Slovenia 9
tee stems from the European Services Directive,15 legislation which Spain 188
Sweden 80
is opening up Europe to cross-border trade in services. The scope of
Switzerland 21
work for CEN/TC 4 includes active fire protection systems, with sprin-
United Kingdom 292
klers specifically named.

. ..

1197
while others have separate regulatory documents for different build- break-up of industry-wide insurance tariff and discount agreements
ing types. In practice, the codes are usually drafted by government for sprinklers under anti-trust legislation, the influence of insurers
officials, sometimes with the assistance of nationally recognized fire on the sprinkler market has weakened. Furthermore, insurers today
safety experts, and they are written in the national language. After employ far fewer loss prevention engineers than in the past. Fortu-
they are developed, codes are reviewed far less frequently than NFPA nately, regulators have mandated the fitting of sprinklers in many
or ICC codes and often remain unchanged for decades. of the risks where they were already commonly fitted at the insis-
As a result of the separate and different arrangements for draft- tence of insurers, such as in new, large factories and warehouses.
ing fire codes, the regulatory fire safety requirements differ widely Such regulatory requirements have also been justified as a means
across Europe. Sprinklers are not required in most new buildings. to prevent environmental damage, to protect fire fighters, and to
Instead, the emphasis is on compartmentation, and even fire detec- preserve employment. Often they were introduced as buildings,
tion is not yet a universal requirement. 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
SPRINKLER MARKETS have introduced these requirements since 2000, setting a threshold
As explained above, fire safety codes in European countries do not gen- for the sprinkler requirement in the form of an area limit, height
erally call for sprinklers. However, most European countries do require limit, or maximum specific fire load. Looking ahead, while there are
sprinklers for some types of buildings, and the list is growing. some national gaps in this overview, it is unlikely that the European
sprinkler market as a whole will see major market growth in indus-
trial risks. New, large warehouses in most countries are routinely fit-
Industrial
ted with sprinklers. There is scope for greater regulatory pressure
In Europe, sprinklers have traditionally been used at the insistence to fit sprinklers in new factories. But in practice many new, large
of insurers to mitigate industrial property fire losses. With the factories are already being voluntarily fitted with sprinklers, either
TABLE S3.2 Sprinkler Requirements in Factories and Warehouses
Country Industry Warehouses
Austria19 Larger compartments Generally >1800 m2

Belgium20 >25,000 m2 and <350 MJ/m2 >5000 m2
>10,000 m2 and >350 MJ/m2
>5000 m2 and >900 MJ/m2
Czech Republic21 >20 m3 of flammable liquids Postal stores >800 m2
>50 m3 of flammable liquids
Denmark22 >2000 m2 and >200 MJ/m2 >5000 m2 other fire load >2000 m2 and >200 MJ/m2
>5000 m2 other fire load
France23 >3000 m2
Germany24 fire load >15 kWh/m2 and >400 m2 fire load >45 >1200 m2 or
kWh/m2 and <400 m2 May increase travel distance Storage >7.5 m high
by 15 m for <5 m high or by 20 m for <10 m high
Greece25 >2000 MJ/m2 or >1000 MJ/m2 and >2000 m2 >2,000 MJ/m2 or
>1000 MJ/m2 and >2000 m2
Hungary26 >3000 m2 or
>6 m high and >1500 MJ/m2
Ireland27 Single story >14,000 m2 normal and >1000 m2 high hazard
Lithuania28 >2000 m2 with combustible goods >2000 m2
Netherlands29 >1000 m2 Fireworks storage
>2500 m2 fire compartment
Norway30 >800 m2 >800 m2
Spain31 >3500 m2 and >350 MJ/m2 Maximum compartment >2000 m2 and >850 MJ/m2
sizes reduced further if the fire load is higher or Maximum compartment sizes reduced further if the fire load
the building adjoins others is higher or building adjoins others
Sweden32 >800 MJ/m2 and >5000 m2 >800 MJ/m2 and >2500 m2
Turkey33 >15,000 m2, or with easily ignitable and flammable >5000 m2, or with easily ignitible and flammable materials
materials >6000 m2 >1000 m2
United Kingdom34 >20,000 m2 or >18 m height

. ..

1198
to secure better insurance cover or to mitigate concerns raised by TABLE S3.3 Sprinkler Requirements in Shopping Centers and High-
corporate risk assessments. Rise Buildings
Country Shopping Centers High Rise Buildings

Shopping Centers and High-Rise Buildings
Austria >32 m or >22 m and less
More recently, national regulators in Europe have begun to recognize fire resistance
that sprinklers also help to protect people from fire. Initially their con- Belgium35 >2000 m2
cern was to prevent large loss of life in a fire, so sprinklers have been Czech Republic >1000 m2
Denmark >2000 m2
mandated in large buildings occupied by many people, such as shop-
France36,37 >3000 m2 >200 m
ping centers and high-rise buildings. Most European countries now Germany38,39 >3000 m2 >60 m or >22 m without
require sprinklers in these new buildings and almost all the mandates external fire separation
were introduced this century. Reflecting the risk, regulators have set Greece Total area > >20 m and >400 people
thresholds at which the sprinkler requirement is invoked, usually 2500 m2
depending on the area, height, or maximum occupancy level, as indi- Hungary >8000 m2 or >30 m
>13.65 m
cated in Table S3.3.
Ireland >4000 m2 >30 m and phased
There are some notable gaps in this table. For example, France
evacuation
only requires sprinklers in commercial buildings higher than 600 ft
(200 m), which impacts very few buildings, while Belgium and Italy do Lithuania >1500 m2 >15 stories
not require sprinklers in any high-rise buildings. Luxemburg40,41 >3000 m2 >60 m high
Netherlands42 >1000 m2 >70 m high
Norway >1200 m2
Residential Buildings multi-floor
Poland43 >10,000 m2 one floor >55 m high
More recently, regulators in some European countries have begun or >2,500 m2 multi-
to make use of sprinklers to reduce the risk where most fire deaths floor
occur: at home. Within that category, homes for the elderly, sick, and Portugal44 >28 m high or >1000 >28 m, hotels >9 m
vulnerable (grouped as care homes) pose the greatest risk. It is clear people
that those who are unable to respond rapidly or adequately to a fire and >2 stories
Spain45 >1500 m2 >80m, hotels >28 m
alarm are at the greatest risk from fire. In fact, figures from the United
Sweden >16 stories
Kingdom show that the fire death rate in care homes for the elderly Switzerland46 >2400 m2
and for children is about 30 times greater than for the general popu-
lation in houses.47 Several countries, therefore, now mandate the use
Turkey Multi-story and
>2000 m2 (new) or
>30.50 m (new)
>51.50 m (existing)
of sprinklers in all new care homes. Finland has gone even further >3,000 m2 (existing)
and now requires all existing care homes to conduct a government- United England and Wales >30 m and phased
Kingdom >2000 m2; Scotland evacuation
guided risk analysis, which often identifies a need for sprinklers. The
— all shopping
Finnish government is conducting a survey of care homes, which is
centers
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 eight stories, while the United Kingdom has a code, BS 9991, which
homes, in a relatively small number of years it can have a large offers incentives such as open-plan apartment layouts in combina-
impact. Scotland has only mandated sprinklers in new care homes tion with sprinklers and an enhanced detection system (otherwise
since 2005, yet by 2013 a third of all existing care homes in Scotland there must be a corridor from the apartment entrance to each room
had sprinklers.49 While not yet mandated, in The Netherlands and in the apartment).50
England, an increasing number of new care homes owners are vol- In the United Kingdom, there are also a number of incen-
untarily installing sprinklers to meet their responsibility for those tives, such as reduced escape requirements and fire brigade
in their care. access measures, which encourage the installation of sprinklers in
In many countries, the requirement to install sprinklers in single-family houses. Beyond that, beginning in 2016 Wales will
high-rise buildings extends to apartment buildings. However, Nor- require sprinklers in all new houses.51 Over the next 10 years, more
way specifically requires sprinklers in all new apartment buildings, European countries are likely to introduce requirements to install
and Scotland requires them in new apartment buildings higher sprinklers in care homes and other residential buildings. See
than 60 ft (18 m) or about six stories. Finland requires sprinklers in Table S3.4 for more information about different residential sprin-
wooden apartment buildings higher than four stories and up to kler requirements.

. ..

1199
TABLE S3.4 Sprinkler Requirements in Residential Buildings SPRINKLER SHIPMENTS

Care Homes Residential Due to this favorable regulatory trend, more new buildings than in
the past are being sprinklered. If construction levels were at the same
Austria >32 m or >22 m and less
level as in 2007, the sprinkler market in Europe in 2015 would be
fire resistance
Czech Republic >8 stories; >4 stories and booming. Unfortunately, in many countries the construction market
>50 apartments or >5 remains depressed. According to Eurostat, for the European Union in
stories and >30 November 2014, it was down 23 percent from its peak in 2007. How-
apartments with ever, the sprinkler market has declined about half as much and is set
semicombustible to benefit when construction picks up, as it already has in Belgium,
structure; >3 stories
Germany, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
and >20 apartments
Only Norway and Sweden publish accurate data about the num-
with combustible
structure bers of sprinklers installed each year. In both countries the sprinkler
Denmark >1000 m2 sleeping manufacturers and distributors submit the total numbers of sprinklers
area in multistory care they sell to a neutral party that publishes the totals. Norway is Europe’s
home leading installer of sprinklers, when compared to its population. In
Finland Usually required Timber-framed apartment fact, Norway installs as many or perhaps more sprinklers per thousand
following risk buildings 3–8 stories
inhabitants than the United States. (See Exhibit S3.1 and Exhibit S3.2.)
assessment
Germany >60 m Combining data from a number of sources, the European Fire
Greece >100 beds or >12 m >28 m Sprinkler Network (EFSN) estimates the following national sprinkler
Hungary >3 stories >13.65 m markets in Europe, as shown in Table S3.5.
Luxembourg Open plan care homes >60 m

Netherlands >70 m
SPRINKLER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Norway All new care homes Apartment buildings >2 There are more studies and analyses of the performance and reli-
stories
ability of sprinkler systems than for any other fire safety technology.
Poland >800 m2 >55 m
Spain >80 m (Barcelona >50 m) Despite that, more are needed to establish the reliability and perfor-
Sweden All new care homes >16 stories mance of sprinkler systems in different jurisdictions. This information
Turkey >30.5 m or >1500 m2 >51.5 m is needed by fire engineers when they make use of sprinklers in their
United All new care homes in Scotland >18 m; England designs. It is also needed to support campaigns for the greater use of
Kingdom Scotland and Wales;
in England instead
>30 m;
United Kingdom: 3-story
sprinklers, not just as a tool to protect property but also as a measure
to protect people.
of bedroom door house with open-plan
closers ground floor; 4-story
house instead of
second staircase; open- 700,000
plan apartments.
Wales: all housing from 600,000
2016
500,000
400,000
Further Regulatory Requirements
Various countries have additional regulatory requirements and 300,000
incentives for installimg sprinklers in certain types of buildings.
Most German states require sprinklers in assembly buildings (which 200,000
includes airports and museums), several countries require sprinklers
in underground car parks (and more are likely to join them in the 100,000
near future), and in the United Kingdom, sprinklers are installed in
a large number of new schools (they are mandatory in Scotland). In 0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The Netherlands, many existing buildings are being converted for
new uses; often they do not comply with the minimum passive fire Residential Commercial
safety measures for their new use. Therefore, sprinklers are installed
to compensate. Exhibit S3.1 Norwegian Sprinkler Shipments.

. ..

1200
By contrast, the 2013 NFPA report of data collected from U.S. fire
600,000 departments found a success rate of just 87 percent. (The report also
found that 91 percent of systems operated when they should have,
500,000 and of those, 96 percent controlled or extinguished the fire.) The NFPA
summary excludes fires extinguished by sprinklers and not reported
400,000 to the fire department. However, it is also possible that Australia and
New Zealand had tougher inspection and maintenance requirements
300,000 so that systems there were more reliable.
FM Global analyzed the performance of sprinkler systems in the
200,000 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
100,000 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
0 more reliable. While a success rate of 87 percent might not seem much
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 less than 98 percent, it also equates to a failure rate 6.5 times higher.
Residential Commercial The higher the failure rate, the more likely it is that additional mea-
sures will be needed to deal with fires not controlled or extinguished
by the sprinkler system, so undermining the economic attraction of
Exhibit S3.2 Swedish Sprinkler Shipments.
sprinklers. To ensure a high level of system reliability, many European
countries operate detailed competency plans for installer companies.
TABLE S3.5 Estimated Sprinkler Shipments — Number of Usually run by insurance-related bodies, these plans also monitor the
Sprinklers readiness and suitability of installed systems. There is an associated
Sprinklers in millions cost, but the national references strongly suggest they are delivering
a higher level of system reliability.
Country IFSA 200752 EFSN 2014 One technical difference between Europe and the United States
is in valve monitoring. NFPA is the only organization to publish statis-
Germany 2.8 3.3 tics on the causes of sprinkler system failure. Most of the failures are
Russia and Eastern Europe 2.5 2.5
caused by closure of the system shut-off valve before (64 percent) or
United Kingdom and Ireland 2.2 1.7
France 1.6 1.5 during (17 percent) the fire. For decades in many European countries,
Nordic
Benelux
1.4
1.3
1.4
1
the position of this valve has been monitored and alarmed, so fewer
failures of this type would be expected. However, without data this is
Spain and Portugal 1.2 0.8 unproven.
Italy 0.9 0.6
Austria and Switzerland 0.7 0.9
TOTAL 14.6 13.7
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,
As already stated, most European countries do not collect the researchers inspected sprinkler systems installed in more than
detailed fire statistics. It is therefore not possible to say, for most coun- 500 buildings. They checked whether the sprinkler system was cor-
tries, how many fires have occurred in sprinklered buildings, nor how rectly designed for the risk and whether it was ready to perform. They
many deaths and injuries or how much property damage came from found that, respectively, 98 percent and 97 percent of systems would
those fires. Even where there are such statistics, such as in the United perform correctly. Given that systems that meet the standard always
States, the raw data is collected by the fire brigade or fire departments work (otherwise the standard would be changed), these are the fig-
and does not include some fires that were so rapidly extinguished by ures used by Danish fire engineers.
the sprinkler system that they were not called. Anecdotal evidence Additionally, in other European countries various data has been
from conversations between insurers and those whom they insure found to support the use of sprinklers:
suggests there are many such fires.
• France: A study by CNPP for the French Insurers’ Association,
FFSA, found that sprinklers controlled or extinguished 97 per-
Australia and the United States
cent of reported fires.
In Australia and New Zealand, about 100 years of data have been • Germany: A report by the German Insurers’ Association, GDV,
collected because every fire is required to be reported to the found that 20 years of data for fires in electrical risks show that
authorities. There, they have found a success rate for sprinklers of sprinkler systems controlled or extinguished the fire in 97.9 per-
99.46 percent. cent of cases.

. ..

1201
• Netherlands: In The Netherlands data collected by the system United Kingdom £1.35 million (2006)
certification body CIBV show a success rate of 99 percent. United States $6.6 million: Department of
• United Kingdom: Anecdotal evidence collected by the National Transportation (an old value)
Fire Sprinkler Network in 2013 and 2014 found 94 successes and United States $7.9 million: Consumer Product
no failures. Safety Commission (2007)
United States $9.1 million: Environmental
Protection Agency (2011)
Effect of Sprinklers
Using damages awarded by courts and evidence of risk aversion
When sprinkler systems operate successfully, which as explained in the general population, it is possible to determine an appropriate
above is the usual experience, they reduce temperatures, stop the fire figure for this controversial concept. It was pioneered by Professor W.
from spreading, and limit the production of carbon monoxide and Kip Viscusi of Harvard University, whose work was referenced to pro-
other toxic gases. Again, NFPA is the only organization to publish sta- duce the 2011 EPA value.
tistics. It found that when wet-pipe sprinklers were present in the fire It is easier to assign costs for fire injuries (the cost of treatment),
area in homes that were not under construction, the fire death rate and costs related to property losses, system installation, and mainte-
per 1,000 reported structure fires was lower by 82 percent, and the nance are available from insurers and installers.
rate of property damage per reported home structure fire was lower Analysis by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the
by 68 percent.56 There are very few fire deaths in sprinklered buildings United Kingdom found an economic case for installing sprinklers
and in almost all cases the victim accidentally set fire to his or her in new apartments and care homes, but not in houses. An analysis
clothes or bedding. Insurers claim that when sprinklers are installed, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the
property losses are reduced by a factor of about six. United States did find an economic case for installing sprinklers in
houses. NIST reached the opposite conclusion from BRE because it
ECONOMICS OF SPRINKLERS did the following:
All the evidence available shows that sprinklers are extremely effec- • Used the CPSC value for a statistical life, which is several times
tive and drastically reduce the impact of fires. Most fire safety regula- higher than the British figure.
tors in Europe accept this but question whether sprinklers are a good • Analysed a sprinkler system integrated with the domestic plumb-
investment. They do not believe the cost of installing sprinklers in an ing, for which no maintenance is required. BRE assumed an an-
additional category of building occupancy could be justified by the nual maintenance cost, which over a 50-year lifetime weighs
lives saved, injuries prevented, and property damage avoided. more than the initial investment
Fire safety legislation is often disaster-led, with new regula-
BRE has also analysed the installation of sprinklers in warehouses,
tions introduced after a high profile fire. To introduce a more rational
finding an economic case for warehouses larger than 2000 m2.
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 TRENDS
Kingdom showed that through reductions in insurance costs alone, Although sprinklers have been around in Europe for more than 100
sprinkler systems would pay for themselves in schools in 13 years.57 years, they are still far from reaching their potential. Sprinklers will
This time would be considerably shortened if sprinklers are used to be used in more new buildings than in the past, as new technologies
justify savings along with other fire safety measures, such as fire doors improve their performance, economics, and aesthetics.
and staircases. When it comes to housing, fire insurance premiums in
Europe are already low so there is little incentive for insurance reduc-
tions to pay for sprinklers. Here the main economic benefit is the Residential Sprinklers
reduction in fire deaths and injuries. About 250,000 residential sprinklers were installed in Europe in 2013.
A cost and benefit analysis in these cases is only possible if one This market has tripled in size in the past decade, yet it is almost all in
assigns a value to a life, more politely expressed as what society is just three countries: Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Over
prepared to pay to save a life. Many governments have a figure, even the next 10 years, it should triple in size again to more than 750,000
if it is not made public, and use it to decide when and where to invest sprinklers as the United Kingdom increases usage of residential sprin-
in road safety measures. It can also be used for fire protection. The klers and other European countries begin to do so, as indicated by the
higher this figure, the greater the investment in safety that can be following information:
justified. Here are some values that have been made public in various
countries: • Starting in 2016, Wales will require sprinklers in all new housing.
• In September 2014, the Scottish government awarded a tender
Norway NOK 40 million (2010) to some economists to study the case for installing sprinklers in
Switzerland CHF 5 million (2011) houses and apartments.

. ..

1202
• Several countries require sprinklers in high-rise residential build- Specifically, looking at the design practices and inspection, testing,
ings. With space at a premium in cities, there are likely to be more and maintenance procedures that have been successful around the
high-rise apartment buildings with sprinklers. world will assist countries that are developing regulations and leg-
• Many local authorities in England are installing sprinklers in so- islation for the inclusion of sprinklers in new construction projects.
cial housing. The collection of data on these topics is vital to ensure code-making
• Several governments are considering mandating sprinklers in bodies and code enforcement entities make the proper course cor-
care homes. rections as new technology and new fire threats emerge.
• For economic and environmental reasons governments wish to
convert unused buildings to uses for which they were not de- References
signed and which would not be approved for this new use with-
out sprinklers. 1. CEA 4001 – Sprinkler Systems – Planning and Installation (edi-
tion 2013-08), www.insuranceeurope.eu.
2. VdS Vertrauen durch Sicherheit, www.vds.de.
Car Parks 3. APSAD R1, Extinction automatique à eau de type sprinkleur,
An increasing number of countries require sprinklers in enclosed car mars 2015, www.cnpp.com.
parks. This trend is likely to continue as senior fire officers in several 4. EN 12845:2015 Fixed firefighting systems. Automatic sprinkler
more European countries have called for sprinklers in enclosed car systems. Design, installation and maintenance.
parks. 5. EN 12259-1:1999 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for
sprinkler and water spray systems. Sprinklers.
Fire Engineering 6. EN 12259-2:1999 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for
sprinkler and water spray systems. Wet alarm valve assemblies.
In Europe, fire codes require sprinklers in far fewer types of new build- 7. EN 12259-3:2000 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for
ings than in the United States. Instead, they rely more on compart- sprinkler and water spray systems. Dry alarm valve assemblies.
mentation. European fire engineers are, therefore, making increasing 8. EN 12259-4:2000 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for
use of sprinklers to come up with fire safety designs that open up sprinkler and water spray systems. Water motor alarms.
buildings with larger, sprinkler-protected compartments. Sprinklers 9. EN 12259-5:2002 Fixed firefighting systems. Components for
are also often used to compensate for limited fire brigade access, sprinkler and water spray systems. Water flow detectors.
such as where a building is behind others or the access road to it is 10. Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of
narrow. In a number of countries fire engineers apply sprinklers to the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions
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 the marketing of construction products and repealing Coun-
cil Directive 89/106/EEC.
for a building. 11. Mandate M/109 for CEN Technical Committee 191 Fixed Fire-
Draft European guidance from CEN on the incorporation of fighting Systems.
sprinklers in fire-engineered building designs will support their 12. NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in
increasing use. In parallel, fire engineering is becoming increasingly Low-Rise Residential Occupancies, National Fire Protection Asso-
accepted in Northern Europe and is likely to be accepted in the future ciation, Quincy, MA, 2016 edition.
in Southern Europe, where regulators are under pressure to find ways 13. NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One-
to build more cheaply and fire engineering is a way to achieve it. and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, National
Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2016 edition.
New Technologies 14. CEN-CLC-TC4 Project Committee – Services for fire safety and
Sprinkler manufacturers are continually inventing more efficient security systems, www.nadl.din.de.
sprinklers, more economic valves and pumps, and new piping sys- 15. Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the
tems. All these innovations make sprinkler systems financially more Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.
attractive. This will encourage their use in their traditional markets, 16. The Geneva Association, www.genevaassociation.org.
such as factories and warehouses. 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
SUMMARY
Communities and Local Government, London, UK, February 2011.
While there are many differences in how various countries around 19. OIB-Richtlinie 2 Brandschutz, Österreichisches Institut für
the world approach the design and installation of automatic sprinkler Bautechnik, March 2015.
systems, one of the common threads is the success of these systems 20. KB-AR 07/07/1994 Bijlage 6 Industriegebouwen, Ministry of
and the need for further development of standards and enforcement. Internal Affairs, December 2006.

1203
21. Communication from Czech Fire & Rescue Service, 2005. 40. ITM-SST 1508.3 Prescriptions de prévention incendie – Disposi-
22. Bygningsreglement 2010, Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen, 2010. tions Spécifiques – Etablissements de vente – Centres Commer-
23. Arrêté du 5 août 2002 relative à la prévention des sinistres dans les ciaux, Inspection du Travail et des Mines.
entrepôts couverts soumis à autorisation sous la rubrique 1510, 41. ITM-SST 1503.2 Prescriptions de prévention incendie – Disposi-
Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement Durable, 2002. tions Spécifiques – Bâtiments élevés – Centres Commerciaux,
24. Muster-Richtlinie über den baulichen Brandschutz im Industrie- Inspection du Travail et des Mines.
bau, Fachkommission Bauaufsicht der Bauministerkonferenz, 42. Brandveiligheid in hoge gebouwen – Praktijkrichtlijn, SBR, 2005.
July 2014. 43. Rozporzadzenie Ministra spraw Wewnetrznych I Administracji,
25. Communication from Greek Chamber of Commerce, 2010. 2006.
26. Decree on National Fire Safety Regulations, Ministry of the Inte- 44. Decreto-Lei no. 220/2008, Ministerío da Administraçao Interna,
rior, 2011. 2008.
27. Building Regulations 2006 – Technical Guidance Document B – 45. Real Decreto 2267/2004, Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Com-
Fire Safety, Department of the Environment, 2006. ercio, 2004.
28. Stationariosios Gaisrų Gesinimo Sistemos. Projektavimo ir 46. Brandschutznorm, Vereinigung Kantonaler Versicherung, 2015.
Įrengimo Taisyklės, Interior Ministry, 2007. 47. Cost Benefit Analysis of residential sprinklers – Final Report Pre-
29. Bouwbesluit 2012, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en pared for: The Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA), BRE Global,
Koninkrijksrelaties, June 2015. Report Number 264227, March 2012.
30. Technical Regulations to the Planning and Building Act, Kommu- 48. Sprinklers in Care Homes in Finland, Kirsi Rajaniemi, Finnish
nal- og Regionaldepartmentet, 2010. Ministry of the Interior, European Fire Sprinkler Network Interna-
31. Real Decreto 786/2001, de 6 de julio, por el se que aprueba el tional Sprinkler Conference, Brussels, April 2010.
Reglamento de Seguridad contra incendios en los establecimen- 49. Survey by Scottish Fire & Rescue Service, 2014.
tos industriales, Ministerio de Cienca y Tecnología, July 2001. 50. BS 9991:2015 Fire safety in the design, management and use of
32. Boverkets byggregler – föreskrifter och allmänna råd, BBR, residential buildings, BSI.
Boverket 2011. 51. 2013 No. 2727 (W. 262) (C. 109) Building and Buildings, Wales,
33. Regulation about Fire Protection in Buildings 2009, translated by The Domestic Fire Safety (Wales) Measure 2011 (Commence-
TUYAK. ment No. 1) Order 2013, October 2013.
34. The Building Regulations 2010 Fire Safety Approved Document 52. International Fire Sprinkler Association: www.sprinklerworld.org.
B, HM Government, 2013. 53. Sprinkler and Sprinkler System Reliability, Research Technical
35. ARAB-RGBT art.52, Ministry of Employment, 1978. Memorandum, R.G. Bill, Jr., W. Doerr, L. Krasner, J. Kahan, Decem-
36. Règlement du 25 juin 1980, Ministère de l’Intérieur, June 1980.
37. Arrêté du 30 décembre 2011 portant règlement de sécurité pour
ber 2007.
54. Reliability of sprinkler systems, Danish Institute of Fire and Secu-
la construction des immeubles de grande hauteur et leur pro- rity Technology, 2003.
tection contre les risques d’incendie et de panique, Ministère de 55. Reliability of Automatic Water Sprinkler systems, Report 2008:02,
l’Intérieur, 2013. DBI, 2008.
38. Muster-Verordnung über den Bau und Betrieb von Verkaufstätten, 56. “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers,” National Fire Protection Asso-
Fachkommission Bauaufsicht der Bauministerkonferenz, 2014. ciation, Quincy, MA, 2014.
39. Muster-Ricthlinie über den Bau und Betrieb von Hochhäusern, 57. A cost analysis of sprinklers in schools for the Department for
Fachkommission Bauaufsicht der Bauministerkonferenz, 2008. Education and Skills, 2007.

..

4
Technical/Substantive Supplement
Changes from the

2013 Edition to the
2016 Edition of NFPA 13
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.
3.5.6
3.3.23
New definition added for extension fitting.
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.
3.8.1.14.2 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

..
Supplement 4 • Technical/Substantive Changes from the 2013 Edition to the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13
1206
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) Figure revised to correlate with code text.
and (b)
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.

..
1207
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
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 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.

..
1208
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, Requirement revised to allow for pipe stands.
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
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.
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.

..
1209
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
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 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.
16.3.3.2.1 Revised allowance to use ESFR at the ceiling for solid shelf arrangements where in-racks are
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.

..
1210
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).
17.3.3.5 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.
21.1.2.2.1 New requirement added to address the other design requirements and their applicability to the
21.3.2 New requirement added for new sprinkler design criteria to be included in the alternative storage
{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} 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.

Sprinkler Identification Card ❘ NFPA 13 Handbook ❘ 2016 Edition Xchange ™
nfpa.org/Xchange
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 Used to protect various light,

fire occupancies such as ordinary, and extra hazard
warehouses. occupancies.
Often allows protection without Response is determined by the
additional in‐rack sprinklers. fusible glass element thickness –
Viking® K-16.8 (left) and K-22.4 (right) Victaulic Quick-Response Standard
3mm or less for a QR sprinkler.
from Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Spray Sprinkler. (Courtesy of
Co., Inc. Victaulic®)
Concealed Sprinkler (3.6.2.1) Pendent Sprinkler (3.6.2.3)
Typically used for protection in Used to protect various light,

office occupancies. ordinary, and extra hazard
occupancies.
Sprinkler is hidden for aesthetics.
Response is determined by the
Cover plates cannot be painted fusible glass element thickness –
except by the manufacturer as 5mm or less for a standard
Standard Model G Concealed Ceiling Standard Spray Pendent Sprinkler.
part of assembly listing. (Courtesy of Reliable Automatic
response sprinkler.
Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable
Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.) Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Recessed Sprinkler (3.6.2.4) Sidewall Sprinkler (3.6.2.5)
Used to protect various light, Typically used to protect areas

ordinary, and extra hazard where ceiling sprinklers are not
occupancies. practical.
Sprinkler is partially hidden for Should not mistake residential

{2FC84572-0B19-4D3C-B16A-15DE6BAFE1FD} architectural aesthetics. Horizontal Sidewall Sprinkler.
sidewall sprinklers with
commercial ones as they can
(Courtesy of Reliable Automatic
look almost identical but can
Recessed Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
have very different K‐factors.
Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.)
Upright Sprinkler (3.6.2.6) Dry Sprinkler (3.6.3.2)
Typically used to protect areas Typically used to protect specific

where ceiling sprinklers are not rooms or small areas where freeze
protection is required but, due
practical.
to a limited number of sprinklers
Care should be taken not to required for coverage, a dry pipe
mistake residential sidewall system is not warranted.
sprinklers with commercial ones The water filled pipe is run
as they can look almost identical outside of the chilled area and
Upright Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable but can have very different K‐ Viking Model E Dry Pendent Sprinkler. these are used to then drop into
Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.) factors. (Courtesy of Viking®) the protected area.
Institutional Sprinkler (3.6.3.3) Extended Coverage (EC) Sprinkler (3.6.4.4)

Typically a flush type of sprinklers Used to protect various light,
specifically designed to be ordinary, and extra hazard
tamper resistant. occupancies.
For use in occupancies, such These have specific ceiling and
as institutional mental health obstruction requirements but
occupancies, correctional can allow designer to increase
facilities, or anywhere a likelihood coverage from each sprinkler
of tampering with fire sprinklers reducing required piping.
Institutional Sprinkler.
by the occupants exists. 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 Used to protect various light and
ordinary hazard occupancies. ordinary hazard occupancies.
Can allow the designer to increase
Can allow the designer to coverage from each sprinkler
increase coverage from each reducing required piping.
Sidewall-Type EC Sprinkler. sprinkler reducing required Quick-Response EC Sidewall
(Courtesy of Viking®) piping. Sprinkler. (Courtesy of Reliable The 3 mm element indicates a
Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.) quick response sensitivity.
Residential Sprinkler (3.6.4.9) Corrosion‐Resistant Sprinkler (6.2.6.1)
Used to protect various residential

Used for special applications
and some light hazard occupancies.
where corrosion of the sprinkler
Residential sprinklers are tested is a concern.
to different listing criteria than
commercial sprinklers and should not All corrosion coatings must be
be interchanged in designs. factor applied and tested as
part of the listing.
Viking Listed Residential Sprinkler.
Residential sprinklers are tested
(Courtesy of Viking®) primarily as life safety devices with
different criteria (and fire control Corrosion-Resistant Sprinkler. (Courtesy
of American Fire Sprinkler Association)
capabilities) than commercial
sprinklers.
Intermediate Level Sprinkler (8.5.5.3.4) Intermediate Level Sprinkler with a Shield (6.2.8)
Used in specific cases per NFPA Used in specific cases per NFPA
13 to protect the sprinkler from 13 to protect the sprinkler from
premature “cooling” from the premature “cooling” from the
discharge of sprinklers above such discharge of sprinklers above
as those at the ceiling level. such as those at ceiling level.
Some sprinklers are listed as
Some sprinklers are listed as
Intermediate Level Sprinkler.
intermediate sprinklers without
the requirement of a large water Intermediate Level Sprinkler with a
intermediate sprinklers without
the requirement of a large water
(Courtesy of Tyco Fire Protection Shield. (Courtesy of Viking®) shield above the deflector.
Products LP)
shield above the deflector.
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) Variations in K-Factors: Orifice Size (6.2.3.1)
K‐factors compared for three K‐factors compared for

sprinklers. three sprinklers.
Two appear to both have ½ in. Comparison of orifices
threads thus the only way of sprinklers with K‐
to determine the K‐factor factors of 2.8, 5.6, and
is by internal inspection or Orifices of sprinklers with K-factors of 2.8, 5.6, 25.2.
careful review of the product and 25.2. (Courtesy of Tyco Fire Products LP)
Sprinklers with K-factors of 2.8, 5.6, information sheet.
and 25.2. (Courtesy of Tyco Fire
Products LP)
© 2016 National Fire Protection Association 2016 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook
..
IMPORTANT NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS CONCERNING NFPA® STANDARDS
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY with an NFPA Standard. The users of NFPA Standards bear the sole
CONCERNING THE USE OF NFPA STANDARDS responsibility for determining the validity of any such patent rights,
as well as the risk of infringement of such rights, and the NFPA
NFPA® codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides disclaims liability for the infringement of any patent resulting from
(“NFPA Standards”), including the NFPA documents contained the use of or reliance on NFPA Standards.
herein, are developed through a consensus standards development NFPA adheres to the policy of the American National Standards
process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This Institute (ANSI) regarding the inclusion of patents in American
process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints National Standards (“the ANSI Patent Policy”), and hereby gives
and interests to achieve consensus on fire and other safety issues. the following notice pursuant to that policy:
While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to
promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not inde- NOTICE: The user’s attention is called to the possibil-
pendently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information ity that compliance with an NFPA Standard may require
or the soundness of any judgments contained in NFPA Standards. use of an invention covered by patent rights. NFPA takes
The NFPA disclaims liability for any personal injury, property no position as to the validity of any such patent rights or
or other damages of any nature whatsoever, whether special, as to whether such patent rights constitute or include es-
indirect, consequential or compensatory, directly or indirectly sential patent claims under the ANSI Patent Policy. If, in
resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance on NFPA connection with the ANSI Patent Policy, a patent holder
Standards. The NFPA also makes no guaranty or warranty as to the has filed a statement of willingness to grant licenses under
accuracy or completeness of any information published herein. these rights on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms
In issuing and making NFPA Standards available, the NFPA and conditions to applicants desiring to obtain such a li-
is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or cense, copies of such filed statements can be obtained, on
on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is the NFPA undertaking request, from NFPA. For further information, contact the
to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone NFPA at the address listed below.
else. Anyone using this document should rely on his or her own Law and Regulations
independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a Users of NFPA Standards should consult applicable federal, state,
competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of
care in any given circumstances. its codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides, intend to
The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and these
enforce compliance with the contents of NFPA Standards. Nor documents may not be construed as doing so.
does the NFPA list, certify, test, or inspect products, designs, or
installations for compliance with this document. Any certification Copyrights
or other statement of compliance with the requirements of this NFPA Standards are copyrighted. They are made available for a
document shall not be attributable to the NFPA and is solely the
responsibility of the certifier or maker of the statement.
wide variety of both public and private uses. These include both use,
by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-regula-
tion, standardization, and the promotion of safe practices and meth-
ADDITIONAL NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS ods. By making these documents available for use and adoption by
public authorities and private users, the NFPA does not waive any
Updating of NFPA Standards
rights in copyright to these documents.
Users of NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides
Use of NFPA Standards for regulatory purposes should be
(“NFPA Standards”) should be aware that these documents may be
accomplished through adoption by reference. The term “adoption
superseded at any time by the issuance of new editions or may be
by reference” means the citing of title, edition, and publishing
amended from time to time through the issuance of Tentative Interim
information only. Any deletions, additions, and changes desired by
Amendments or corrected by Errata. An official NFPA Standard at
the adopting authority should be noted separately in the adopting
any point in time consists of the current edition of the document
instrument. In order to assist NFPA in following the uses made of its
together with any Tentative Interim Amendments and any Errata then
documents, adopting authorities are requested to notify the NFPA
in effect. In order to determine whether a given document is the cur-
(Attention: Secretary, Standards Council) in writing of such use. For
rent edition and whether it has been amended through the issuance of
technical assistance and questions concerning adoption of NFPA
Tentative Interim Amendments or corrected through the issuance of
Standards, contact NFPA at the address below.
Errata, consult appropriate NFPA publications such as the National
Fire Codes® Subscription Service, visit the NFPA website at www.
For Further Information
nfpa.org, or contact the NFPA at the address listed below.
All questions or other communications relating to NFPA Standards
Interpretations of NFPA Standards and all requests for information on NFPA procedures governing its
A statement, written or oral, that is not processed in accordance with codes and standards development process, including information
Section 6 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA on the procedures for requesting Formal Interpretations, for pro-
Standards shall not be considered the official position of NFPA or posing Tentative Interim Amendments, and for proposing revisions
any of its Committees and shall not be considered to be, nor be to NFPA standards during regular revision cycles, should be sent
relied upon as, a Formal Interpretation. to NFPA headquarters, addressed to the attention of the Secretary,
Standards Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101,
Patents Quincy, MA 02269-9101; email: stds_admin@nfpa.org
The NFPA does not take any position with respect to the validity of For more information about NFPA, visit the NFPA website at
any patent rights referenced in, related to, or asserted in connection www.nfpa.org.
BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-DIsc.indd 1233 11/20/2015 8:22:54 PM

NFPA 13 Handbook (2016) 1201 1235

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Вам также может понравиться

NFPA 13 Handbook (2016) 1201 1235

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NFPA 13 Handbook (2016) 1201 1235

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

. ..

Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System

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

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

0.1 0.1 Nom 1/4 or L 0.1 C= Pt 0.1

Exhibit S2.32 Rounding Standards for NFPA Calculations.

Node K flow added- C Pt total

4 19.0 18.9 Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt

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

Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System

1. Consider the direction

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

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

Exhibit S2.37 Determine and Enter the Starting Pressure.

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

Exhibit S2.38 Verifying Q, K, and Pt.

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

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

Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System

Step 7.8: Determine the friction loss for the entire

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

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

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

Exhibit S2.41 Determining Total Friction Loss (Pf – frict).

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

Exhibit S2.42 Determining Total Friction Loss (Pf – frict).

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook 2016

BK-NFPA-13HB16-150270-Supp2.indd 1185 11/19/2015 3:37:54 PM

Supplement 2 • Step-by-Step Hydraulic Calculations for a Fire Sprinkler System

K = Q ÷ p water flow out of sprinkler 10 because it is on smaller pipe and will

This should be shown in the notes section of the h

lent K-factor (Keq) (Keq = Q ÷ p ). We will use that equivalent K-factor

Node K flow added- C Pt total

Nom L 7.0 C = 120 Pt 11.4 q = As × density =

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

Node K flow added- C Pt total