Is water-mist fire suppression the successor to traditional sprinklers?
Dmitrijs Gavrilovs-Stepanovs | May 13, 2020Traditional automatic sprinkler system has been around for almost a century and can be found in all types of buildings. This system is required by fire codes across the globe, but, surprisingly, there have been very little improvement since its beginnings. A new fire protection method has emerged relatively recently, which uses water mist to suppress fires. The manufacturers claim to outperform the traditional system in each and every aspect, but are they able to transform the industry?
A brief history
The idea of using high pressure water mist for fire suppression is not new. It was invented over 130 years ago, in the form of a backpack with a lance that produced water droplets, to fight small forest fires. The development of this system continued throughout the last century, but the technology was not commercially viable as it did not meet the requirements for fixed installations at the time. It was not until 1990s when the technology really took off due to two main events. First, Montreal Protocol initiated the phasing out of Halon which was widely used in marine and aviation markets. Second, a fire incident occurred on the passenger ferry ship in Sweden in 1990, killing 158 people. This forced the industry to look for alternatives, and the water mist system was one of the best candidates.
The system quickly gained popularity, and a new standard was necessary to make it suitable for fixed installations. With an active involvement of the pioneering manufacturers, NFPA 750 standard was established, which covered testing, design, components and categories of water mist systems.
Working principle
Water mist fire protection system works in a similar fashion to traditional sprinkler system. The main difference is that it discharges water at a much higher pressure through special nozzles, which creates extremely fine mist of micro-droplets. These tiny droplets efficiently penetrate the flame, cool the surrounding air and block radiant heat, in this way containing and extinguishing the fire.
A typical water mist system consists of the following:
· High-pressure pump unit
· Small water supply tank
· Section valves
· Small-diameter stainless steel tubing
· Sprinkler or spray heads
As defined in NFPA 750, system pressures range from low (below 12.1 bar) to high (above 34.5 bar). There are installed systems that were designed to pressures as high as 158 bar, which require specialized piping. High pressures are generated by the pump units, which may be electric, diesel or compressed gas driven. The latter uses pressurized air or nitrogen stored in the cylinders mounted on the same skid as the pump.
Section valves in water mist systems are used in the same way as zone control valves in traditional systems. Their function is to isolate sections for maintenance purposes, monitor the flow and indicate to the system that a sprinkler head has been activated.
Sprinkler heads operate in a similar way to traditional system as well. They are fitted with a heat-sensitive glass bulb, which releases the spool valve allowing high-pressure water to flow through micro-nozzles. Spray heads are also available which are activated directly through an independent fire detection system.
Comparison to a traditional sprinkler system
Although there are many similarities in the components of the two systems, there are big differences in the value that each system brings to building owners. The main differences are listed below:
1. The water consumption in the mist system is typically only a tenth of an equivalent traditional sprinkler system. This is a significant saving in terms of water usage, which also mans a much smaller storage tank.
2. The distribution pipework in the mist system has much smaller diameters than in the traditional system, because of much lower flow rates. In a typical project, around 75% of pipework will have a diameter of only 12 mm. In contrast, traditional system has a minimum pipe diameter of 25 mm connecting two sprinklers, and pipe diameters of up to 200 mm for the main pipe runs.
3. Mist system produces much less damage to a property than a traditional one and requires less clean-up, as very little water is discharged into space. This aspect is important to building owners as the disruption caused by the fire is minimal.
4. Mist system is designed to both control and extinguish fires, unlike traditional system which is designed to simply prevent the spread of fire until the fire brigade arrives. This puts water mist system under the class of special hazard fire suppression systems along with clean agents, inert gases and CO2. This means that it can be used for the fire protection of data centers and similar environments. When compared to gas suppression system, mist system does not require an air-tight room which involves expensive sealing and testing. In addition, it does not require additional space to store gas cylinders and avoids installation of gas purge systems.
5. Mist system is more expensive to design and install than a traditional one, since high-pressure systems require more sophisticated components and materials of higher quality. Manufacturers of such systems typically provide a turnkey solution (i.e. design, installation, supply of equipment and maintenance) as specialist input is required throughout the whole life cycle of the system.
Project costs
It is true that cost is the main factor that influences the choice of different systems. Water mist system clearly brings more value to building owners in terms of operation and maintenance, but the initial expenditure is higher.
However, it would not be correct to compare the two systems in terms of just capital cost. The benefits that the mist system brings should be quantified in the context of the whole project savings.
For instance, in buildings with sufficient number of rooms that require gas fire protection (i.e. data centers and rooms with high value assets), the mist system becomes competitive if looking at the total project cost. Large amount of savings will come from avoiding installation of gas suppression and gas purging systems as well as sealing each room. It is also much cheaper to operate and maintain one single system for the whole building rather than multiple systems. Additional space created by omitting gas cylinders can also be used to increase net available areas in commercial buildings.
Installation of mist systems might sometimes be the only acceptable solution for fire protection where space is limited. Due to small pipes, the system can fit in shallow ceiling voids and avoid clashes with other building services. Suitable applications are hospitals where ceiling voids are typically very congested, or retrofit projects where it is essential to not disturb existing installations.
Summary
When it comes to fire protection, a traditional sprinkler system has long been the only option for building owners. Its recent successor - the water mist system - has been gaining popularity in the last three decades because of its effectiveness and flexibility. The main obstacle for this system to become the first choice in most projects is its capital cost. However, the indirect savings and benefits that this system brings to building owners may prove the higher cost feasible.
Traditional water sprinkler and using water hoses with a massive amount of water has caused more water damage, and most of the time destroys building and machinery. This has been the sacred cow that needed slaying back in the 70s.
There are many good engineered solution for efficient fire fighting with minimal impact on the structure and the operation.New system threatens the existing business which is a huge market, rooted with money spent on lobbying.
The motivator for such engineering change in the USA has always been the insurance companies when they see the payment for damages is rising above the insurance fees. I am not being cynical, just realistic with over 30 years in the field.
I have 3 wonderments:
--Will the mist system be able to apply enough water volume for cooling and thus extinguishment? There would have to be some sort of balance between water damage and damage from a fire that was not extinguished.
--A sprinkler system of either type may have to wait years before being called to work. When this happens, is there much possibility of plugging of the mist nozzles from sediment or rust if iron pipe is used in any part of the system. Over those years, is the mist system kept at those high pressures for all that time?
--Would this be a dry pipe or a wet pipe type of installation?
In reply to #2
Hello Lehman
1- A proper misting system design is required just as you would do in a sprinkler system. Calculation & Sizing of the system is needed. It requires smaller piping, higher pressure and will eliminate the eliminate an essential component for a fire faster (air) while the sprinkler system first attacks the base of the fire and floods the flammable material.
2- Any system requires (by Law) regular maintenance and flushing, thus eliminating sediment build up - Sadly the practice to flush the systems regular is not always in place. Proper selected nozzles will not have plugging issue, many designs exists. Misting system will operate at a higher pressure.
3- Based on the applications, you can have either.
In reply to #2
We are a resident association who advocate a misting system call https://plumis.co.uk / (it's available in the states). It not only uses dry pipes, i.e doesn't rust. It also has end to end testing, meaning you can connect a hose to a misting head and activate the complete system to prove it working. (unlike a traditional water sprinkler that can only be activated once) we have a comparison chart here - https://sprinkler-co mparison.netlify.app /
In reply to #5
Why can't traditional sprinkler systems be activated more than once? Replace or plug the activated head(s), and it should be ready to go again.
How is the mist system activated? A fusible link, a separate sensor, or something else?
In reply to #8
yes, you can obv course replace the fusible link, but as that's one of the components to test, it defeats the object of testing it if needs replacing. (I'd also not recommend doing this in a residential setting as if you don't want to get wet, or again it won't be a complete test. It's important to run the water through the head rather than just plug it as heads can be damaged/blocked themselves). Plumis system uses separate sensors. tests show it can activate up to 2 minutes quicker than a traditional water sprinkler, making survival conditions last longer and preventing exposure to toxic smoke build up ( a topic often over looked on this subject). There's CPDs on the system you can watch if interested - we think it's a phenomenal piece of engineering and AFSS https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=GEwcUEMx CNA - http://www.twitter.c om/PlumisAutomist
In reply to #11
You misinterpreted my statement. After the system has operated by fusing the link on one sprinkler head (and the water is turned off!), that sprinkler head, which includes a new fusible link, can be replaced and the system will be operational. Instead of replacing that one (or many) head, the hole could be plugged and the system would be operational. Quickness of action will depend on the thermal inertia of the sensing element. Separate sensors imply one, plus the aiming device, for each head.
I'm still concerned that the mist system can put out enough water to extinguish the fire.
In reply to #25
I see, I'm only talking in relation to a complete systems test. Yes if a water sprinkler head is activated due to a fire, the fuse link should be replaceable. But as far as I know a water sprinkler can't have a complete system test in the same way this misting system can. (which involves screwing a hose fitting to the head and then activating the system, with water, into a bucket, checking flow rate extra, no component needs removing or replacing). The problem we'd have in a highrise with traditional sprinklers is the size of tank needed for more than a few heads to activate before water pressure dropped too low. Its' one of the great things about this system needing less water, more heads could activate if there was compartmentation breach. The physics of the water droplets also pulls the water into the fire actively cooling it and putting it out. It works well with concealed fires that a water sprinkler might struggle with if it doesn't have direct line of sight. It works with chip pan and oil fires in the kitchen without the risk of serious oil burns you may get from a water sprinkler. We also don't want to flood our neighbours below and or be liable for damage! Lastly now need for serious pipe work, including externally, that if wet could freeze and burst, or the internal pipe work requiring significant redesign of the flat, (this one has thiner, flexible hose that will be more accommodating to custom flat layouts. Like I said, I'm a massive fan and we've polled other residents too, the ones that wanted an AFSS (admittedly few) all wanted a misting system. A building with mixed tenancy also means a "person-centered" approach can be taken so individual flats can have protection based on the needs/risk of the residents. https://www.buzzspro ut.com/1064890/43993 94 (sorry for monologue , just getting it all down before running out...)
Water fog as it is called by fire departments has been used for about
50 years. Most fire departments have fog nozzles. When you combine these with higher than normal pressures you get fog,also known as mists in this article.
Big difference is multi nozzles on a fire suppression system.It will require stronger tie
downs due to output pressure factor.
As chair of a Residents Association I've been researching AFSS for over 10 years after a serious fire in one of our high rise blocks. We can't help but agree that misting systems are a successor to traditional water sprinkler systems for residential use (as a default, unless there are specific reasons of building design as to why water may be better). We don't see them an marginally better, but in a different league of protection to fire. The one thing we would take to task with this article is the suggestion that misting systems are more expensive. We've found them to be of a comparable price (negating the fact, if they did activate, they would cause less damage). We are yet to find a system that has been more thoughtful designed and engineered than https://plumis.co.uk / Our comparison chart https://sprinkler-co mparison.netlify.app /. Alas we agree with some of the comments around institutional bias towards water sprinklers. We've had to take our local council in London to a housing Tribunal (and won) to prevent them forcing on us a system we don't want without even considering the misting system residents have proposed. We're currently in the process of taking them to our UK Housing Ombudsman for enforcing the same system on vulnerable residents in sheltered accommodation, without given them the choice either and making spurious assertions that insurance premiums would be reduced. We can't find any UK content insurer that offers discounts for having sprinklers installed, Not least due to the cost of water damage. A misting system has a lot lower risk of water egress and is far more likely to reduce insurance premiums in the future. As residents we are shocked that there's no official body in the UK that will discuss the technical merits of AFSS systems. Our council say they rely on private advice from London Fire Bridge and LFB tell us to talk to the council. We know these misting systems are the future but lobbying, politics and culture is getting in the way of reaching this insight amicably. We're having to fight to have our voice heard and few in positions of power are listening (There's millions of pounds at stake and we can't help thinking that's skewing policy here). There's definitely no forum to talk technically and do side by side comparisons over a matrix of issues so why else would people avoid discussing the patently obvious - rant over
In reply to #6
Let's see if we can come back to this in 10 or 20 years and see what has happened (I won't be here.) Many years ago many fire departments were using high-pressure fog (circa 800 psi) as compared to straight stream nozzles. That system has fallen out of favor, although they still do use fog nozzles (standard pressure) which produce water droplets instead of a mist.
In reply to #7
Fire departments still use fog nozzles.But I have never met anyone that could hold 800 lbs of pressure nor any pump on a fire engine that could supply that much.. You probably meant 300 lbs in a booster line and 110 in an 1/1/2 in the old 2/1/2 now 3 inch,anything to be effective took 2 men,Or 2 men and a woman at this date in time generally 50 to 60 lbs with a goose neck in the hose.. The heavy appliances attached mechanically on a ladder pipe or deck gun normally used up to 100-or so through a fog or straight stream nozzle..The engine could not supply much more than that on the big line and also supply the inside firemen with their smaller lines..I am sure that the fog or spritz sprinklers are fine for small fires. If you get one that has smoldered and superheated inside a confined space,floor ceiling etc. When it flashes over and or backdrafts you might as well not have anything as the fog sprinkler will not touch it.
In reply to #9
Nope, I did mean 800 PSI. It was on booster-size hose thru a pistol-type nozzle. They had a small piston pump to generate those pressures. Not very many gpm. The back pressure is more related to the water flow (gpm) instead of the gross pressure. That is, the very high pressure and small gpm is still a hand-line.
In reply to #10
I am unfamiliar with a pistol type nozzle. I am familiar and design nozzles. You seem to be talking about a pressure washer. Before you put a nozzle restriction on the end of the wand,water coming out of an 800 lb. pressure washer is no more than a trickle. Now if you enlarge the hose to booster line size wich is 3/4 to 1 inch it would be even less. I agree it would be easy to handle. I would appreciate any examples where this type rig has been used.I would like to know,how 800 lbs of pressure through a 3/4 inch hose and little water would equal a firefighting application.
In reply to #12
mk ade: You asked for examples of fire apparatus using the high-pressure system. I was having a memory blank, and had to enlist the search engine DuckDuckGo!
The high-pressure fire apparatus was made by John Bean which was a division of FMC. The high-pressure concept pre-dates WW2 and was promoted from the 1940s to the 1960s.
In reply to #28
Al I want to know is how you can maintain 800 psi with a little water? The hose has to remain full or you have no pressure or you have high velocity air feeding and spreading the fire. I would love to see what hoses he used for this kind of pressure. High pressure plastic was not there and nylon covered hose would not ever take that kind of pressure nor would the old rubber hoses. You can see this for yourself as 800 psi reverse osmosis desalination systems require to this day steel lines. Not very maneuverable for fire hose use.
In reply to #29
Check it out; I probably will later out of curiosity. I don't know if today's "red line" will take that pressure, but it did look very similar. Was reinforced rubber with a fairly heavy wall as I remember. Remember that they did this for 20-some years. Many of the nozzles were made by Hardie if you want to look that up too. They had a tank to supply the water; by the WAG method maybe 100 gallons.
In reply to #7
One of the innovations with the new generation of misting systems is they can run off mains water with a pump housed in a shoe-sized box. The head can rotate and move to target the fire origin that is detected from the sensors. It can also be scheduled to run it's own dialogistic tests to make sure the nozzle can move impeded. Lastly, they can be hooked up the internet for remote management or to notify emergency services should they active (Other systems can do this to, but its not the majority)
In reply to #13
You mean a pump the size of a shoebox for each head? I would not think a pump that size with a piston that small would run more than 1.
In reply to #14
a pump can run up to 6 (might be 8 now?) heads. Easy to fit, this shows the control panel too.
In reply to #14
they can be parallelised if you need more than 6 head - https://plumis.co.uk /smartscan
In reply to #16
The pump which is a standard water pump appears to be seperate from the shoe box,
the shoebox being the computer that runs this pump.
In reply to #17
must have very small feet ;). Pump is slightly bigger than a shoe box - was just a rough example of size.
In reply to #18
No I meant the shoebox does not contain the pump. It is a pressure and or direction control not a pump
In reply to #19
Aha, I think you're looking at the water filter connected to the pipes? AFAIK the pump is in the black box, the white panel is the computer
In reply to #20
And the green pump with the 1 1/4 outlet is what?
In reply to #21
my understanding is that's a filter system too. I *think* the pump was designed to go in the box for security reasons to make it harder to vandalise (you'll note the metal tamper proof chain). (the black-box is often further sealed into a boxing).
In reply to #13
Other systems can do this to (sic), but its (sic) not the majority
I beg to differ. The fire sprinkler systems that I am aware of have some sort of water flow sensor connected to show the alarm at the alarm supervisor's place of business. I have out in my garage the alarm bell from a much older system (before supervisors), this bell was activated by a water motor which I do not have.
In this pre-engineered system, each spray head is supplied by an independent positive displacement constant flow pump so system does not need to be flow designed. This is one pump per head?
In reply to #23
Good spot, my bad, I think there are actually up to 6 independent pumps in the box. It's one black-box per 6 heads. I probably need to get one of the engineers for Plumis on the case to explain better. I know I'm planning on having one installed with potentially 4 heads but only need the one box (and control panel and filter).