# Plumbing-based sprinklers cut costs



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

My analysis shows that plumbers can install plumbing-based sprinklers for 40 percent less than traditional sprinkler systems. So why do sprinkler advocates fail to promote this technology? I give my reasons in "Why the residential sprinkler initiative has stalled: The tyranny of mindsets" at www.fdexcellence.com.


----------



## highpoint (Mar 3, 2009)

Uponor has this system.
I've never installed one but I know a local plumber here who did in his own house. Said it paid for itself in a couple years with the lower house insurance premiums


----------



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Uponor is one of two manufacturers doing them. The other is Heatlink, but they are just getting started. You are right about the insurance savings. The owner of the home I am monitoring will get over a 40 percent reduction in premiums.


----------



## drain surgeon (Jun 17, 2010)

If I remember correctly it was a wirzbro system that we did in Maine several years ago.
Every floor had a manifold that were daisy chained. Also at least one sprinkler head on one floor connected to one on the next floor. One problem we ran into was that the well pump had to be a veriable speed . This house used blown in insulation made from recycled denim and was blown from the inside useing a reinforced sheeting stapled to the studs before dry wall. We had a few staples hit our pex and had to do some repairs. One thing I always worried about is the possibility of a staple hitting the pex and the pex sealing its self around the staple and not showing up until the staple rusted out.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

Here is a good article from Fire Engineering regarding the benefits of Residential Sprinklers and the ongoing fight for implementation of the code.



> The homebuilders may have lost the national ICC appeal, but they have started the fight on another level, state by state.


Keep up the good work Paddy!
Sooner or, Later We'll Get Them!
It's just a question of how many needless deaths have to occur first!


----------



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Thanks Red. My post on why the residential sprinkler initiative has stalled addresses the mindsets of fire officials, who do not recognize the tremendous cost savings of plumbing-based systems. As we work to change that mindset, we also need to convince the plumbing industry to make residential sprinklers another part of the trade.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

I think that most professional fire officials recognize the cost savings and other benefits of residential sprinklers and want them. However, out in the sticks where the volunteer fire chief is also the local general contractor that may not be the case...

The real fight is when political appointees to the fire commissioners board and on up through the politicians become the audience for acceptance...

The section about the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council (RAC) in the article is of particular interest of what happens when politics rears it ugly head...



> *In 2009, Pennsylvania passed legislation (HB 1096), recreating the Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council (RAC). Its purpose is to “ ... inform the [Labor and Industry] department of any code provisions that should be excluded from the Uniform Construction code ....” *Of interest, North Dakota passed similar legislation but added the following words in its version: “Neither the state building code nor a building code adopted by a city, township or county may include a requirement that fire sprinklers be installed in a single-family dwelling or a residential building that contains not more than two dwelling units.”
> 
> The Pennsylvania Residential Fire Sprinkler Coalition was appalled by the North Dakota language and feared that the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code RAC would attempt to exclude from the Uniform Construction Code the legally adopted provisions of the IRC as they pertain to the installation of residential sprinklers. This should not be permitted. Statistics have proven the fire problem in the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in the residential sector; to exclude them from the code defies any logic.
> 
> ...


In Politics bad pennies keep coming back...:laughing:


----------



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

I understand why the home builders associations fight potential sprinkler requirements. They simply do not want any regulations that add to the costs of homebuilding, period. Sadly, their anti-sprinkler rants prevent them from seeing how plumbing-based sprinklers can make sprinklers cost-neutral.


----------



## FL pipe dope (Dec 3, 2014)

A couple things to consider when comparing multipurpose systems with stand-alone systems: number one, pex can only be used in multipurpose system. They are not cost-effective because the heads are very expensive and take a lot of tubing to supply the required GPM. If using CPVC, flow rates are similar to just fire suppression. Heads are the same as in a standalone system. If the water is ever shut off as in a vacation or seasonal home you have disabled the fire protection system if it is a multipurpose system. Also keep in mind if there is water treatment in line you have dramatically reduced the flow rate. Most residential water softeners only pass seven GPM. That's half of what a sprinkler head needs. Look Into liability and licensing as well. The liability for fire protection is substantially more costly than Plumbing I am told. Look at all sides of the issue before you decide to get into something besides plumbing. Most Florida companies that offer both have it structured as two separate companies.


----------



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Someone has given you misinformation about multipurpose systems, and I want to give you the facts:

1. Cost of heads - They are more expensive because they include the fitting with the head and eliminate the time-consuming process of assembling drops between the fittings and heads. The reduced labor cost makes them quite price-competitive. And remember that the catalog price is not the actual price. It will be significantly less for contractors who do higher volumes.

2. Amount of tubing - When I compared a stand-alone and PEX system for the same floor plan, the PEX system used more tubing. So how can it cost less? Practically no fittings compared to stand-alone systems, which need elbows and tees to change direction, and nipples for the drop assemblies. You can see the comparison at my blog site, www.fdexcellence.com.

3. Water shutoffs - NFPA 13D, Section 7.1, Valves, you cannot shut a 13D system without shutting off the domestic water at the same time. The only exception is when you install a supervised alarm valve that sounds constantly when the valve is shut off, or a valve that is locked open.

4. Water softeners and flow rates - NFPA 13D, Section 6.5.3 requires an automatic bypass around water softeners it their output is not high enough to supply the sprinkler system's hydraulic demand.

5. Contractor insurance - National insurance industry experts tell me that they do not increase liability rates for plumbers who install 13D systems. If you want to find out for yourself, I can refer you to the person who gave me that information. He is highly respected in the sprinkler and plumbing industry.

I hope that this sets the record straight. I'll be happy to supply additional documentation if you or your information source (I'll bet his first name starts with a B) desire.

Best regards,

Pat Coughlin


----------



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

A quick note on why sprinkler contractors create separate companies to install 13D systems. In my experience, the reason is the difference in overhead costs. If they only installed 13D systems, their overhead costs would be much lower. They would not need fabrication shops, design and engineering personnel, etc., but would instead pick up their parts at local distributors just like residential plumbers do. That cuts overhead costs by one half or more, which makes them more competitive.

Pat


----------



## dhal22 (Jul 30, 2010)

Paddy said:


> Someone has given you misinformation about multipurpose systems, and I want to give you the facts:
> 
> 1. Cost of heads - They are more expensive because they include the fitting with the head and eliminate the time-consuming process of assembling drops between the fittings and heads. The reduced labor cost makes them quite price-competitive. And remember that the catalog price is not the actual price. It will be significantly less for contractors who do higher volumes.
> 
> ...


It appears someone knows what he's talking about here.................


----------



## Paddy (Sep 2, 2011)

I appreciate your reply. Here is a brief recap of the problem - and the solution:

Around 3000 people die in house fires each year. When someone reports a house fire, even the best fire departments take 6 or more minutes to arrive. House fires begin to kill occupants a few minutes after ignition. In a home protected with sprinklers, a sprinkler will operate in 45-60 seconds, stopping the fire and giving occupants time to evacuate.

The fire sprinkler industry developed residential sprinklers in the 1980's. Studies from cities that require residential sprinklers show that they reduce deaths by over 90 percent. In spite of that record, home builders oppose them because of their installation costs. Plumbers are installing plumbing-based sprinklers for one half to one third the cost of stand-alone systems, with good profit margins to boot. 

Plumbing-based sprinklers are clearly the way to go.


----------



## GAN (Jul 10, 2012)

In Illinois a Licensed Plumber may only install a system with 20 or fewer heads.

Section 890.1130
d) Fire Safety Systems. The installation of any fire safety system involving the potable water supply system shall be protected against backflow as follows: 

1) Backflow protection is not required for fire safety systems constructed as follows: 

A) The system shall be looped, with no dead ends, to allow circulation, to prevent the stagnation of water in the line;

B) The system shall not have any non-potable connections or a fire department hose (Siamese) connection;

C) The system shall have 20 sprinkler heads or less; and

D) The system shall be constructed of potable water supply quality pipe in accordance with Appendix A.Table A.


Even so installation shall not be such that a head is over 24" away from a section of the water supply system that is active so a dead end does not occur.


The residential systems are only designed to provide "10 minutes" of protection. They may extinguish some small fires, but are not designed to do so.

If you are out in an area where you do not have access to supplied potable water, the tank is required to have 300 gallons.

General costs for a 13D system off of a municipal supply in my area is near $2.00 to $2.75 per square foot and must be designed by licensed personnel.

In Illinois the State Fire Marshall attempted to mandate these systems as listed in the 2012 I.R.C. through a life safety act. It caused such an uproar in the industry with the Fire Marshall of Chicago putting out a letter to "not support" this. The State Fire Marshall sent out a letter pulling his proposal.

Are they good, yes. The flash over from modern materials compared to materials 15 or 20 years ago in a residential application is 10 fold faster. Getting the industry to get behind it, questionable.

Maybe the problem may be offset by the new section dealing with floor protection in the 2012 I.R.C. As the "I-Joists" fail in near 4 to 5 minutes. In my jurisdiction we left this section in although our Board left the 13D systems as an option when we adopted the 2012 I.R.C.

R501.3 Fire protection of floors. Floor assemblies, not
required elsewhere in this code to be fire-resistance rated,
shall be provided with a 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum wallboard
membrane, 5/8-inch (16 mm) wood structural panel membrane,
or equivalent on the underside of the floor framing member.
Exceptions:
1. Floor assemblies located directly over a space protected
by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance
with Section P2904, NFPA13D, or other
approved equivalent sprinkler system.
2. Floor assemblies located directly over a crawl space
not intended for storage or fuel-fired appliances.
3. Portions of floor assemblies can be unprotected
when complying with the following:
3.1. The aggregate area of the unprotected portions
shall not exceed 80 square feet per
story
3.2. Fire blocking in accordance with Section
R302.11.1 shall be installed along the perimeter
of the unprotected portion to separate
the unprotected portion from the remainder
of the floor assembly.
4. Wood floor assemblies using dimension lumber or
structural composite lumber equal to or greater than
2-inch by 10-inch (50.8 mm by 254 mm) nominal
dimension, or other approved floor assemblies demonstrating
equivalent fire performance.


----------

