PATTON REPORT NO.

55

WE ARE ALL FIRE VICTIMS

An average man who runs a small business, a housewife, and those who died in the
Beverly Hills Supper Club in Southgate, Kentucky all have something in common -
they've all been victims of our national fire regulations.

Two charts included illustrate dramatically the degree to which arbitrary regu-
lations, set by a powerful nongovernmental agency, affect fire safety costs
throughout the U. S. One chart shows that the regulations set the amount of water
needed to install a fire sprinkler system at approximately 6 to 10 times that prov-
en to be needed - in fact the water requirements are so high that sometimes less
than 10% of the water can actually be passed thru the system to fall on the fire.
Such regulations, which force the use of 4 inch, 6 inch and 8 inch supply mains,
add $5,000 to $20,000 to the sprinkler system costs even before the supply line
reaches the building. Typical water supply costs are shown for a typical U. S.
city. Backflow prevention devices, when required, also "explode upward in cost"
with large mains.

These regulations that greatly increase the "bottom line" cost of a fire sprinkler
system have the result that virtually all small properties in the U. S. are not
fire sprinklered.

Large factories, warehouses, and high valued commercial properties generally can
justify the huge costs, are sprinklered, have a very low burn rate, and enjoy
the lowest fire insurance rates. Small properties, including virtually all "human
type" properties are not sprinklered. Thus, high value property is protected -
but human life is not. Excluding residences, it is estimated that 90% of the
"human type" occupancies (hotels, motels, institutions, hospitals, restaurants,
dormitories, schools, apartment buildings, etc) in the U. S. are not sprinklered.
Add dwellings, and 99% of these buildings where 99% of the loss of life from
building fires occurs, are not sprinklered. This single fact represents the heart
of the human fire problem in the U. S.

All of these buildings pay higher fire insurance rates than would normally apply
when protected.

PATTON, INC.
DESIGNERS, CONSD1 I N l'I RE PROTECTION ENGINEERS

P
. O. BOX 1350 / CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 95610 TEL. (916) 726•4071
These nonsprinklered buildings not only require higher insurance rates over the
life of the building, but, because these buildings are not sprinklered, alternate
protection methods became mandated by other fire codes. There are more than 200
"national" fire codes, many of which greatly increase construction costs. These
codes grew tremendously in volume and in cost during a time period when sprinklers
were considered not applicable to life safety, and were essentially ruled not
available to smaller properties.

So, we are all victims of the regulations which put the very best fire solution
out of the "small building" market. Not only did the fire burn rate go up, but
the cost of construction went up in a great many ways due to a vast proliferation
of other fire codes. The multitude of other codes eventually grew inch by inch,
to cost far more (but was much less effective) than sprinklers.

Now we are locked into a tremendous array of costly, but not particularly effective,
fire regulations. And, building owners, laboring under the costs of the less ef-
fective„but usually mandatory "other" regulations, often fight against sprinklers;
considering them one more cost in the already too costly construction field.

Basically, what happened of course, is that an army of organizations marketing

"other" fire protection equipment and services grew to have great influence on the
codes, sending a host of "free" code writers to the 200 odd committees, and thus
they built markets for their own products via the code regulations. That one de-
vice which could be fed by "free" water (available water) and which had a known
reliability of 99.9% of fire control, and which had the potential to dramatically
reduce fire loss - was artifically regulated to be too costly for small properties.

A PRACTICAL BEGINNING

It would be nice if we could now wave a magic wand and make most of the unnecessary
fire regulations disappear (saving huge sums of money) and then put the right kind
of sprinkler system in its rightful place as the only truety effective fire control
system. If we could do this, fire loss and fire deaths would drop to near zero,
construction cost would go dewn, and building managers would be less harassed by
inspectors armed with hundreds of thousands of "other" regulations.

But, every existing regulation has its supporters, because every requirement is
a market place for fire safety products, 4riting regulations is easier than re-
moving them.

So, unfortunately we must start, not with a magic wand, but with a plan that will
gradually move the sprinkler system into its rightful position as the most cost
effective fire control system yet devised by man, and begin the process of bring-
ing economic sanity to the "other" fire regulations.

Now, when we impose the sprinkler system on top of the excessive but often in-
effective codes that exist today, we must not impose an excessive sprinkler system.
Lets get practical sprinkler systems installed - and then begin a rational program
of reducing superfluous regulations, even negotiating some cost reductions imme-
diately when the sprinkler goes in.
THE BOCA-100 CODE

During the early 1970's I pioneered the Life Safety Sprinkler System which finally
became the BOCA-100 Code. The BOCA-100 Code is now a national sprinkler system
design code of a performance nature, intended to be used by a licenced professional
Fire Protection Engineer.

At the time the BOCA-100 code was drafted, we knew that NFPA-13 design standard
resulted in a minimum design base for light hazard properties which often did not
meet .06 gpm over 800 square feet (sometimes much less as shown by the table) and
we also knew that foreign codes were keyed to a .05-,06 density over about 900
square feet (50-60 gpm). We wanted to make BOCA-100 stronger than these codes,
so we set 0.1 over 800 square feet as the design base. This is a stron9 base -
stronger than any other code minimum for light hazard. But 100% of the mandated
water is used by the system, and even with the stronger density base costs could
still be cut by more than 50%.

However, to counter the new BOCA code, the NFPA-13 sprinkler committee revised
their standard to call for 0.1 density over 1500 square feet (far in excess of
what had been prescribed previously). But the water supply volume was reduced
from 500 gpm to 250 gpm (it never could be pushed thru the pipe to begin with
and still can't be). This manoeuvre, of an apparent arbitrary reduction in
supply (but jump in minimum density) plus much mumbo jumbo, convinced most code
authorities that the "new" NFPA-13 was a panacea, and that BOCA-100 was not es-
sential. But, in many ways (we can't go into them all here) the new "liberalized"
NFPA-13 code became even more of a barrier to low cost fire protection for very
small buildings than ever before.

As can be seen, when "delivery water", not "out in the yard water", is measured,
the BOCA-100 code is far superior to the true NFPA-13 minimums.

THE DWELLING SYSTEM DELAY

As we were gaining acceptances for the Life Safety System and as the BOCA-100 code
was being drafted, we proposed an economical sprinkler system for the home. The
density was to be equivalent to the extra light hazard class (Hotel, Hospital,
High Rise) of the foreign codes - but we would require a supply adequate at most
for only two sprinklers and usually only one (if only one sprinkler was in a room).
This would allow a system to be installed in a dwelling using available water (thru
the normal 3/4 inch line and 5/8 inch meter).

But, once we got this going, NFPA came out with their 13-D standard calling for
about twice the water that is available in the home. That killed the project for
the time. An "official minimum code" demanding twice the water that is available
in the home was an arrow thru the systems heart.

Now, our original plan (defined in Patton Reports 41 and 50 and nationally published
articles dating back to The Building Official, January 1970) has been tested by
Battelle Columbus Laboratories (Columbus, Ohio) and Factory Mutual Laboratories
under research grants from the National Science Foundation and National Fire Pre-
vention and Control Administration.

- 3
Both of these research projects have confirmed the validity of the original Patton
plan for sprinklering homes. After much unwarranted delay, this most essential
project is finally getting back on stream.

The Factory Mutual Research also confirmed other key fundamentals in the Patton
fire safety plan. These are:

1. The smldering (nonflaming) fire produces toxic gases at an extremely

slow rate and is not the primary fire death problem.

2. That toxic gases from the big flaming fire are produced at a rate that
may be thousands of times that of the smoldering fire - and it is the
tremendous toxicity, smoke, and heat from the bi_g_ fire that represents
real fire death problem.

I have long estimated that 98 of the fire deaths occur after the fire grows to a
flaming fire, and probably 90% of these deaths occur even after the fire has reached
FLASHOVER (or an equivalent BIG AND NASTY fire stage). It is the big fire that
kills - but sprinklers intercept the incipient fire while still relatively small.

It is the big fire that produces combustion gases so rapidly that the oxygen supply
becomes deficient and therefore CO and unburned combustible gases are produced
prolifically.

IT'S TIME TO MOVE OUT AGAIN

For those fire chiefs who will no longer tolerate improper codes that condemn our
citizens to live and work in unsafe buildings there are solutions that are available.
We can design practical and cost effective systems for all building types using
BOCA-100 and we can design excellent protection systems for apartments and dwellings
using a modified BOCA-100 system. It is now time to begin to protect human life at
l east to the same degree that we protect our industrial properties.

PATTON, INC. MARCH 1978

P. O. Box 1350
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
(916/726-4071)
 2 3 4 5 6
1
TABLE OF PERFORMANCE MINIMUM d DENSITY MIN. ARE EFFECTIVE CODE SYSTEM
WATER REQUIRED EFFECTIVE FAILURE
SYSTEM GPM/SQFT SQ. FT. GPM (c) WATER GPM WATER (e) RATE
4 fd)
3.8
NFPA-13 (Pipe Schedule) 0.1 200 . 20 500 4%
(a) (b) (f)

AUSTRALIAN CODE 0.05 900 45 50 .90% 0.24(g)

r-
BOCA-100 0.1 800 80 80 100% Not
ilab
Not
NFPA(Hydraulic Design) 0.1 11500 150 250 60% vailable

EXPLANATION OF DATA

(a)
NFPA hydraulic design base is applied to pipe schedule design.
With 15 psi at top of riser, pipe schedule system density may drop below 0.1
(b)
with one open sprinkler covering 200 sq. ft.
(c) Amount flowing when density drops below code criteria,(Col. 1 ).
(d) Water supply required by the code.
(e) Col. 3 divided by Col. 4.
(f) From NFPA Handbook of Fire Protection -14th. Edition.
(g) See "Automatic Sprinkler Experience", H. W. Marryatt.
Note, Hydraulic calculations of NEPA pipe schedule system available from Patton

Dtc176
WATER SERVICE CHARGES
TAP CHARGES METER . CHARGES SYSTEM CAPACITY . CHARGES FRONTAGE
CHARGE
INSIDE OUTSIDE INST. INSIDE CONTRACT NON-CONTI
SIZE SIZE TYPE CHARGE BY
*AREA AREA- (CO)' ARLINGTON CITY
CITY CITY COUNTY
CITY
$
5/8" DISC. 45. CITY .
' $
$ 300
$
3/4" $ 330 3/4" DISC. 60. CITY $
135. $176. $203. $148.50 7.00 $7.70
I" $ 350 $ 385 I" DISC. 8
85. CITY $
270. $ / 405. $297. .1 II
351.
$
11/2" $ 400 $ 440 I I/2" DISC. 125. CITY $
40 . 527.
$
608. $445.50 " II

2" I
$
600 $660 2" CT. 4
428.95 AR
S
810. $1053. $1215. $
891.
II II

3" COST+ 25 % COST+ 371% 3" CT $ 649.75 " $1890. $ 2457. .

8
2835. S2079. II II

4" FircCT 11V85, $ 3240. 44212. $ 4860. $3564.

11 $ II 11
4" it

6" II 6" FM-CT $ 2,938.25 1' $6750. $ 8775 $10,125. .

" $7425.
II

DC $
• 819,95
6"
II
8. FM-CT 4,232.00 n 1 3,500,
/
1'7,550. $ 20;25C1 $14,850.
II II
DC 1, 255.80
$

10
" II II Id. FM-CT $6,645.85 " $ 18,900. $ 24;570.
S
28,550. S20,790. II

DC 2.45755
le " ex ifm-CT 4 7,276.05 . $21,600. $ 28,080: $ 32,400. $ 23,760.
II

II $ t $
27,00la 4o,50a 29,7oo. "
II
16'
11
• woa

* CONTRACT AREAS MASTER-METERED

. Brice Minerva Park Bexley
NOTE ' The FM-CT Meter will normally be used when fire protection is Dublin New Albany Franklin S.D. No.4
combined with commercial use. The Detector Check (DC) will Grandview Whitehall Gohanna
be used on sprinkler systems only. Grove City Worthington Reynolds burg
When a top is used for fire protection only, the system capacity Groveport Urboncrest
shim be 50% of the above rate. Marble Cliff Hilliard