# West Dundee, IL sprinklered house fire



## TJacobs (Oct 30, 2012)

http://www.il-afaa.org/Portals/il-afaa/IL-AFAA/pdf_files/PR-Dartmouth-10-22-2012.pdf


----------



## jar546 (Oct 30, 2012)

opcorn

A good story with a happy ending.  Now it is time to sit back and see how this story gets picked apart and how we resurrect the sprinkler debate.  I have my popcorn.


----------



## mjesse (Oct 30, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> opcornA good story with a happy ending.  Now it is time to sit back and see how this story gets picked apart and how we resurrect the sprinkler debate.  I have my popcorn.


I'll take the bait.:devil

Smoke detectors alerted the occupants and they exited the building safely....garage, cars, attic destroyed, smoke and water damage throughout. House not habitable.

How does this serve as lesson to the non-sprinkler group?

What might have been the outcome if it was non-sprinkled?

What part of this story would make average Joe say "I NEED sprinklers in my house?

Do you think the owners are satisfied that they were required by law to install sprinklers?

...discuss


----------



## fatboy (Oct 30, 2012)

I'll jump....as mjesse said, the SD's did their job, alerting occupants and getting them out early. Reading the release, it makes it sound like the sprinkler system was deployed to some extent, but was the attic sprinklered? PR says the fire did not breach the house, so I can't see how a P2904 system would have helped in this case. But, until we have more info, it will be a guessing game. JMHO


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 30, 2012)

It is a prime example for the Fire service industry to submit a code change to require sprinklers in residential garages and attics because it would have held the fire at bay in the garage

Thankfully it was at around 7:00 pm when the occupants where presumably awake and not 3:00 am and therefore the sprinklers did nothing in aiding the occupants escape which is their sole purpose and reason behind their adoption

I would be interested in how many sprinkler heads actually discharged and aided in holding the fire at bay or if the required separation between a garage and house actually lasted the required 30 minutes


----------



## AegisFPE (Oct 30, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> aiding the occupants escape which is (the sprinklers') sole purpose and reason behind their adoption


If this is their sole purpose, then why do some jurisdictions use them as an offset for dimensional lumber versus light-weight construction? Following the slippery slope of perfecting protection, I wouldn't be surprised if jurisdictions find reasons to impose garage and concealed area protection (I am sure some already do, such as perhaps for FD access that does not get within 150 feet of all portions of the structure).

The results of the story are apparently consistent with the 2008 NFPA Report that cites a 99.45% chance of surviving a home fire when working smoke alarms are present. In the 2011 NFPA Report that survival rate is up to 99.59% for hardwired smoke alarms. Admittedly there is a bump of 0.4% when wet pipe sprinkler protection is added).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 30, 2012)

> If this is their sole purpose, then why do some jurisdictions use them as an offset for dimensional lumber versus light-weight construction?


Does not mean they are correct in permitting the trade off.

NFPA  2007 1.2 Purpose

......A sprinkler system designed and installed in accordance with this standard shall be expected to prevent flashover (total involvement) in the room of fire origin, where sprinklered and to improve the chance for occupants to escape or be evacuated......

"Sole purpose" was probably a poor choice of words.

 aiding the occupants escape which is (the sprinklers') Primary Goal and reason behind their adoption is probably more accurate.

My understanding is NFPA 13D is not written to protect property, it may aid in property protection, but to always claim property protect as a benifit is IMHO misleading.


----------



## codeworks (Oct 30, 2012)

sprinklers will provide a few extra minutes for oocupants to get out of the house. they do not "save structures" . yes, they help "contain" the fire to a certain extent, maybe a certain area with a quick response time. residential systems are not a 2 -1/2 inch hose either. low pressure, small coverage areas, etc. they are a good idea, not an "end all, save all". sprinkler heads at 135 f are pretty darn hot when they let go. hotter than i want to be near. i work in an area where electricians commonly put the smoke detetctors on a dedicated circuit, which is, in my opinion a mistake. all one needs to do is flip a switch an they no longer work. in all my years as a working electrician, i always ( and still do) pull a feed for the smokes from a local lighting circuit. everyone wants lights, they wont shut off the lighting breaker. theres a good code change proposal. something like "power for the required interconnected hardwired smoke detetctors shall be taken from a local lighting circuit". at what point did civilization become one of "no responsibility for our own actions" and have we crossed the line to the point that we need to be legislated to death, and out of the housing market by rules and laws that make it impossible for some to buy and or build a house? when did our society become one that neede protection from cradle to grave. i don't think we are there yet.


----------



## Msradell (Oct 30, 2012)

Another argument made for having residential sprinkler systems is because they will require a smaller response from the FD.  Something it certainly didn't happen in this case and it seems like everything that was dispatched was needed.


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 5, 2012)

> My understanding is NFPA 13D is not written to protect property, it may aid in property protection, but to always claim property protect as a benifit is IMHO misleading.


And you are correct ;-)


----------

