NO.
32
HOW SACRED THE SHELL GAME?
@ 1973 Patton Fire Protection & Research, Inc.
Background: Following the development of the
Life Safety System, the Council of American
Building Officals (CABO) prepared a proposed
national engineering standard for the design of this
system, and recommended it to the three inde-
pendent National Model Building Code organiza-
tions for adoption. (BOCA, Inc.; !CB° and SBBC -
Basic, Uniform and Southern Standard Building
Codes). Building Officials and Code Administrators.
Int. (BOCA) was the first to act, and in its annual
meeting in Philadelphia the National Fire Protec-
tion Association and its allies opposed its adoption.
Because the issues are complex BOCA put off the
decision until its January 1974 meeting. The fol-
lowing report explains the issues.
The research that led to the development of the Life
Safety System and then in turn to a major revision in
NFPA-13 represented the first breath of fresh air admit-
ted to a stagnant atmosphere in more than 50 years.
Now that the NFPA Sprinkler Committee has belatedly
responded to the LSS Standard by incorporating some of
the innovations into NFPA-13,there are many who argue
that there is no longer a need for the LSS Standard. They
argue that now the NFPA Standard is nearly equal to the
LSS, therefore there is no need for two independent
standards.
The issue is more complex than the counting up and a
matching of the innovations, however. If we look only to
a matching of specific provisions we can fail to see the
forest because the trees are blocking our view.
PROGRESS VERSUS CONTINUED STAGNATION
Technological change has been stagnant in the sprinkler
field for many years. Now, within the space of a few
short years we have proven a number of major innova-
tions that can reduce the cost of protection by some-
ti mes more than 50% without compromising quality. In
fact, reliability is increased. Those who were blind to the
innovations already proven and who rejected most of
these innovations until they were forced upon them, con-
tinue to be blind to further innovations which we have
not yet proven — but which are quite practical.
It takes more than a few years to undo the damage of 70
years of improper controls and restraints. The LSS code
in its present form is little more than an open door to the
fire safety systems of tomorrow that will have fantasti-
cally benefical results.
Those who can see nothing beyond that which is already
proven, and those who place profits above human life
are quite willing to accept the relatively small gains that
have already been accomplished, and once again slam
the door closed on progress.
The NFPA Sprinkler Committee has incorporated some
of our innovations into their own archaic code, and hav-
ing done so they now proclaim there is little more to do.
Nonsense! If these men were fit judges of what was need-
ed they would have acted long ago before they were
forced to do so by our actions.
There is much work yet to be done, including:
• We need to develop a practical combined sprinkler
and alarm system for the one-family dwelling.
• We need to develop a good fire safety system for
mobile homes.
• We need to develop even more economical sprin-
kler systems that will make fire safety practical for
virtually all properties.
• We need to develop a whole family of new nozzles
(sprinklers) for a variety of applications.
• We need to build the same cost saving innovations
that are presently in the Life Safety System into
the industrial sprinkler system.
• We need to go much further in developing a total
fire safety concept for high rise buildings to include
sprinklers, electrical alarms, structural innovations,
improved coordination with fire departments, and
other facets, all combined into one total systems
approach to human protections.
ENGINEERING VERSUS AUTOMATED DESIGN
NFPA-13 is founded on the premise that a design stand-
ard can cover every conceivable feature of a fire protec-
tion system in such detail that nontechnically trained
"engineers" (draftsmen) can design a system through the
si mple process of "following the rules". Similarity, mass
produced inspectors presumably can evaluate protection
adequacy by checking the installed system against the
rules of a rule book.
This basic philosophy that a well programmed technician
is preferable to a graduate design engineer is one of the
root causes of fire technology that often borders on
the ridiculous.
In how many professions can one find virtually the en-
tire membership — en masse — accepting such diverse
rules as: on the one hand water supplies in the yard
( where the fire isn't) must be 1,000 to 3,000 GPM. On
the other hand the "pipe size and pressure at the top of
the riser" rules of NFPA produce systems that are often
incapable of delivering even 50 gallons of this demanded
water supply to the fire site, at a density that is capable
of controlling the expected fire.
The blind application of the sprinkler rules and the Insur-
ance Services Office rules often results in water supplies
in the yard that are 10 to 20 times as great as the quan-
tity of water that can actually be delivered to the fire
site. How can such technical inconsistency survive in this
technically sophisticated age; and indeed, even be pro-
moted with a straight face and sold on a national basis?
The fact that a fire protection community can — in
masse — accept such levels of improper design should be
a warning to us all. If such technical "mumbo-jumbo" is
routinely accepted by our fire protection establishment —
is it not time that we ask the question, "What have we
done to our engineers?".
When technical capabilities are prostituted to the point
where political and financial factors wipe technical com-
petency off as being unacceptable within the framework
of the profession, then damage is being done beyond
measure. The NFPA regulations routinely produce sys-
tems that have a fantastic 4% failure rate. Yet, just as
routinely, protection innovations that represent real
economy are rejected on the premise that "reliability
cannot be compromised".
The NFPA regulations have been so devoid of engineer-
ing sense that a legitimate engineer must either be driven
from the sprinkler profession or else he must adjust his
thinking to such fuzzy parameters as to become techno-
logically sterile.
There is a saying in the sprinkler field that true engineers
(graduate engineers) make terrible "sprinkler engineers".
Why is this so? The truth to this saying lies in the fact
that a graduate engineer actually is a rarity in the sprin-
kler field. A true "thinking" engineer will find the NF PA
sprinkler regulations intolerable.
The LSS Sprinkler Standard, to the contrary, defines a
sprinkler system in basic engineering terms. It establishes
a straightforward method of fitting protection to an occu-
pancy in terms of density, water flow, hydraulics, piping
system performance, ceiling height, room configuration,
fire loading, and spray pattern.
The NFPA code rejects engineering. The LSS code is en-
gineering. This is the single most important difference
between the two standards.
FREE ENTERPRISE VERSUS MARKET CONTROLS
The prostitution of the sprinkler system did not come
about as a lark. The 70 years of rigid controls that have
stifled innovation and progress did not just "happen".
The powerful forces which have controlled fire protec-
tion as a private domain have not been unaware of the
innovations that have been incorporated in the Life Safe-
ty System. To the contrary, those who control the fire
regulations had previously and knowingly rejected such
innovations intentionally.
The sprinkler system standard produced by NFPA may
be an engineering monstrosity — but it is also a brilliant
marketing tool. It makes sprinklers practical enough for
the industrial market (where sprinklers are needed to
make fire insurance practical), but far too costly for
application to the small homogeneous "risks" (which fall
within the parameters of the insurance system without
need of sprinkler protection). The sprinkler regulations
have been gerrymandered to produce a reasonably prac-
tical fire protection system to protect the large properties
where the insurance industry needs protection, and to
make sprinklers generally impractical for small properties
where high insurance rates produce higher profits.
It is only when one understands the profit motives and
the marketing controls that have been built around the
sprinkler system that one can understand the regula-
tions. If we see only the inconsistencies of the sprinkler
regulations from an engineering viewpoint we wonder
how "engineers" can support such technology. But when
we look at the broader picture, and realize that the sprin-
kler rules are being jockeyed to fit markets instead of
technology, then they make sense; not technically but
financially.
The blunt truth is that the sprinkler system has been
prostituted and human lives have been sacrificed on the
alter of the almighty dollar. This is the plain, simple
truth.
While the net result of the prostitution of the sprinkler
system was a reduced sprinkler market (and a far more
profitable fire insurance market) there was compensation
for the sprinkler installer as well. The NFPA sprinkler
standard and related fire insurance restrictions which
discouraged "nonapproved" installers from entering the
sprinkler field. Thus, the sprinkler manufacturers and
installers accepted a smaller market for sprinklers, but
they were protected within that market from exces-
sive competition.
The manner by which powerful forces have attempted to
kill the LSS attests to the fact that the field of fire pro-
tection is still an economic battleground where human
safety is of secondary importance.
The argument presented at the recent BOCA meeting in
Philadelphia that "two standards are against the public
interest" was little more than a red herring. NFPA pub-
lishes no less than seven separate and independent stand-
ards for fire alarm systems. But NF PA does not consider
this an "excessive" number of standards. Why? Is it be-
cause all of these NFPA standards are under "proper
control"?
In summary, the second major difference between the
NFPA Standard and the LSS Standard is that the NFPA
Standard is under NFPA control while the LSS Standard
is in the hands of independent and competent engineers
who have not been "indoctrinated onwhat can't be done".
NOW YOU SEE IT — NOW YOU DON'T
The LSS represents much more than some new innova-
tions in sprinkler design. For the first time ever the sprin-
kler system as a whole has been defined in simple easy-
to-understand engineering terms. The sprinkler system is
now defined in terms of fire loading, water density, plat
size, spray pattern, hydraulics, piping, and reliability.
The defining of the overall sprinkler system in basic en-
gineering terms is a key innovation of the LSS code.
The reason why this is so important is because of fur-
ther progress is to come about in sprinkler technology
it is first necessary to establish known and measurable
bench marks in order to evaluate performance. Progress
usually is a direct result of improving performance based
on measurable parameters.To understand the tremendous
i mportance of designing to measurable criteria we must
first understand some of the inconsistencies that have
been built into the NFPA Sprinkler Standard. NFPA-13
tells us that one sprinkler head may cover 130 square
feet in an "ordinary hazard" property but only 90 square
feet in an "extra hazard" property. But what does this
mean? Presumably the amount of water (density in
GPM/sq ft) will be greater in an extra hazard property.
But will it really?
Actually, density not only depends on the area of cover-
age per head, it also depends on orifice pressure and
orifice size. The orifice pressure in turn is determined by
the pressure of the water supply system, the piping con-
figuration, and sizing. But, NFPA-13 does not require
hydraulic calculations for the piping system and usually
all pipe is dead-ended. Also, NFPA-13 permits an abys-
mally low pressure at the top of the riser (15psi) and
does not give credit for higher pressure.
All of this means that the density produced by an extra
hazard sprinkler system may fall below 0.2 GPM/sq ft in
some instances and be well in excess of 0.6 GPM/sq ft in
other instances. Similarily, the density produced by an
ordinary hazard system will vary all over the lot.
But this is only the beginning of the inconsistencies.
What is really meant by an "ordinary hazard" occupancy
or an "extra hazard" occupancy; The NFPA rule book
tells us than an automobile garage (fire loading less than
2 pounds per sq ft) is equal to a library; that an electrical
generating station (which usually is almost devoid of
combustibles) is equal to a pier or wharf; that a restaurant
is equal to a printing plant; that a tire manufacturing
plant or a warehouse is equivalent to a watch or jewelry
manufacturing operation; that a water works facility is
equal to a paper mill. Quite obviously, the hazard classifi-
cations which determine the head spacing, which in turn
presumably determines density, are meaningless in terms
of needed fire control capability.
So, NFPA measures an unknown (sprinkler performance)
against an unknown (hazard degree). This perchant for
designing to nonmeasurable parameters opens the door
to a level of non-engineering sprinkler "expertise" that
is so asinine at times that a true engineer could literally
roll on the floor, laughing his lungs out, at the immense
stupidity of it all.
Make no mistake about it. Sprinkler system design as it
is practiced today is little more than a shell game. Have
you seen the carnival con man who has a pea and three
walnut shells — who places the pea under one of the
shells — but no matter which shell you pick the pea
isn't there?
That's the way it is with sprinkler design. When you try
to find any measurable level of performance, you can't.
There is a vast and complex system of rules design, which
is held up to be almost a sacred document, but which
when distilled to its basic ingredients is found to be
nothing more tangible than the whistling of the wind.
—3—
Why is this so? Why are there no valid design parameters?
Why are there no meaningful bench marks? The answers
to these questions are easy. When valid bench marks are
established, when proper design criteria is defined, then
it will be a simple matter to evaluate performance, im-
prove equipment, and perfect the sprinkler system.
When the fire sprinkler system is turned over to bonefide
design and research engineers the remaining days of
phony fire safety will be few. This is why the LSS Stand-
ard is met with so much organized and horrified resis-
tance. The LSS Standard defines sprinkler performance
in readily comprehended engineering terms. If it remains
in existence, the phony sprinkler system design criteria
of NFPA will soon be voided. When this happens it will
no longer be possible to juggle the rules to fit the needs
of those who profit from fire, plugging sprinklers in
where sprinklers are desirable, and arbitrarily making
sprinklers impractical where financial interests so dictate.
TRUE ENGINEERING UNDER
NFPA-13 IS MINISCULE
Those who support NFPA-13 will argue that NFPA-13
permits the same level of engineering as can be accom-
plished by the LSS code. This simply isn't true. There are
very severe restrictions on the degree of engineering that
can be incorporated into sprinkler design when working
within the parameters of NFPA-13, the Insurance Services
Offices, and the Underwriters, and Factory Mutual
Laboratories. The built-in restrictions to engineering
include:
1. Restrictions within the NFPA-13.
2. Policies of the Insurance Service Organizations.
3. Test procedures and attitudes of the insurance
testing laboratories.
4. Resistance within the sprinkler installing industry
to change.
In combination various regulations and organizations
have effectively prevented the modernization of the
sprinkler system and the application of practical fire
safety to all properties where it is needed.
The restrictions on engineering design that still exist with-
in NF PA are far more severe than most people realize.
Chapter 7 of NFPA-13 is entitled "Hydraulically Design-
ed Sprinkler Systems". Most people believe this chapter
defines an "engineered" sprinkler system. But this is not
the case. Section 7-1.1.2 of the "new" NFPA-13 states
that "the design basis for such a system (hydraulically
designed system) supersedes the rules in the sprinkler
standard governing pipe schedules .............. However,
sprinkler spacing and other rules covered in this and
other applicable standards shall be observed". (Under-
li ning is mine).
The truth is that the "engineering" section of NFPA-13
(Chapter 7) permits nothing more than a sizing of the
pipe on a hydraulic basis. This is only one small piece of
our total capability to engineer a sprinkler system.
Further, by practice the ability even to size the piping
hydraulically has traditionally been applied only to "high
hazard risks" such as warehouses. In practice, hydraulic
design has rarely been applied for the purpose of pro-
tecting human life.
Despite some window dressing which would make it
 appear that the concepts of the LSS have been incor-
porated in NFPA-13, in reality, if the fire protection
establishment is able to kill the LSS the establishment
will retain an almost absolute ability to prevent further
advancements, and restrict the use of those innovations
already proven out.
The New Life Safety System, in the long run, can bring
to an end the capricious and arbitrary controls that are
presently placed on sprinkler design.
The LSS is not simply another sprinkler standard. It
represents an avenue around the existing fire protection
establishment that has had an ability to control fire
technology for business gain.
There should be no mistake about the fact that practical
lire safety for dwellings, mobile homes, and other
si milar properties is at issue.
If NFPA is able to obstruct and delay the national.recog-
nition of the Life Safety System this will result in a
further additional horrible cost in human life.
In the final analysis, of course, NFPA can only delay the
inevitable. The better way to protect human life from
fire has been invented. It exists! NFPA cannot "UN-
INVENT" it. The Admirals could not bomb the airplane
out of the sky, the horse cavalry could not defeat the
tank, Hitler was not able to destroy literature by burning
books, and the howling of wolves has never halted the
flight of the moon.

SUBSCRIPTION F • M

Name

Title

Company

PATTON FIRE PROTECTION AND RESEARCH, INC.

ALAMEDA PLAZA
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701
(602) 622-7423