# Antifreeze Solutions Within Residential Fire Sprinkler



## mark handler (Oct 29, 2010)

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/inform...nklers10-26-2010.pdf

Antifreeze Solutions Within Residential Fire Sprinkler Applications Modifications to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, 2.5, and 9 for the use of Antifreeze within residential fire sprinkler systems The purpose of this information bulletin is to advise local code enforcement agencies and interested parties of a code adoption change to be effective January 1, 2011. On October 19, 2010, the California Building Standards Commission approved the Office of the State Fire Marshal emergency regulations amending sections of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, 2.5, and 9 (California Building Code, California Residential Building Code, and California Fire Code).

Summary of Effect:

The approved emergency regulations would require that only pre-mixed antifreeze solutions in concentrations not to exceed 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies and other dwelling units be permitted for the protection of sprinkler pipe in freezing conditions. The use of antifreeze shall only be used as a last method for protection, with consideration given to recorded prolonged freezing temperatures, and approved by the authority having jurisdiction. This modification is effective on January 1, 2011.

The objectives of the emergency regulations are to continue to ensure the regulations of the California Building Standards Code, establish and/or maintain minimum requirements for the prevention of fire and for the protection of life and property against fire and panic in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13100.1 that foster, promote, and develop ways and means of protecting life and property against fire and panic. It also serves to emphasize the importance of residential fire sprinklers in the efforts to reduce fire fatalities in homes and apartments in California. Fire sprinklers in apartments have been required by the California Building Code over the past twenty years; it is suggested those existing structures that have antifreeze as part of their design to protect pipe from freezing should contact a licensed fire sprinkler contractor to verify if appropriate action is needed.

The complete emergency regulation package and more information regarding this Information Bulletin may be obtained by visiting the website for the Office of the State Fire Marshal at http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 29, 2010)

By all means; YES, expose the public's potable water suppy system to poison; to protect life.

Insanity prevails,

Uncle Bob


----------



## DRP (Oct 29, 2010)

Ethylene glycol is the poison one, this is RV antifreeze. Go get a can of Dr Pepper or if you've ever had GI work done, PEG polyethylene glycol is another cousin

"for many heat-transfer applications it is necessary to use a heat-transfer fluid with lower freezing point than water. The most common antifreeze fluid - ethylene glycol - must not be used where there is the slightest chance of leakage to potable water or food processing systems. in food processing systems the common heat-transfer fluid is based on propylene glycol"

MSDS;

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/p6928.htm


----------



## mark handler (Oct 29, 2010)

Thanks DRP

Any excuse for some to hate Residential Fire Sprinklers

Their fears are just that, Fears.....


----------



## conarb (Oct 29, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> Any excuse for some to hate Residential Fire Sprinklers.


Some of hate residential sprinklers because of all the fraud, misinformation, and bribery of the corrupt fire sprinkler industry, to say nothing of the huge kickbacks to the firefighters' unions resulting in the enormous salaries and other benefits of firefighters .



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Kozlowski became notorious for his extravagant lifestyle supported by the booming stock market of the late 1990s and early 2000s; allegedly, he had Tyco pay for his $30 million New York City apartment which included $6,000 shower curtains and $15,000 "dog umbrella stands".
> 
> According to _Forbes_, Kozlowski also purchased several acres in the private gated community, "The Sanctuary", in Boca Raton, Florida, while he was CEO at Tyco International.
> 
> ...


Fortunately Mr. Kozlowski is still in prison, too bad more of his ilk in this corrupt industry wasn't in prison.  The "Tyco core competency - the ability to  party hard" as many of us saw in the Minneapolis code hearings.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski


----------



## mark handler (Oct 29, 2010)

Dick

You keep beliving that, if it works for you....

Once you replace negative thoughts with positive ones, you'll start having positive results.

–Willie Nelson


----------



## conarb (Oct 29, 2010)

Mark:

The late 90s Canadian Government study showing that residential fire sprinklers are a waste of resources has never been refuted.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 30, 2010)

Fires in homes account for the majority of fire fatalities in Canada, 80% of all fire deaths occur in residential properties. The City of Vancouver has proven through their fire sprinkler bylaw that residences with a fire sprinkler system and smoke detectors increase occupant survivability by 88%.  In Vancouver, no fatalities have occurred in a residential property equipped with a fire sprinkler system installed to N.F.P.A. 13D since the implementation of their bylaw.

Hows that negativity working out for you....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2010)

Won't work in my area at 40%

That equates to a -5 degrees F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

So what Freezing Point do you need in "Big Sky Country"?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Fires in homes account for the majority of fire fatalities in Canada, 80% of all fire deaths occur in residential properties. The City of Vancouver has proven through their fire sprinkler bylaw that residences with a fire sprinkler system and smoke detectors increase occupant survivability by 88%.  In Vancouver, no fatalities have occurred in a residential property equipped with a fire sprinkler system installed to N.F.P.A. 13D since the implementation of their bylaw.Hows that negativity working out for you....


As you noted houses with 13D systems *have smoke detectors* and presumably meet other recent code requirements, contain newer appliances, are located in neighborhoods zoned for current fire access, and have experienced less deferred maintainence and non-code compliant renovation.

Correlation is not causation.

A source for your claim would also be appropriate.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2010)

In my jurisdiction -20 would cover the rare times it gets that cold. The average warmest month is August.


The highest recorded temperature was 105°F in 1961.


On average, the coolest month is January.


The lowest recorded temperature was -38°F in 1950.


The maximum average precipitation occurs in June.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 1, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Fires in homes account for the majority of fire fatalities in Canada, 80% of all fire deaths occur in residential properties. The City of Vancouver has proven through their fire sprinkler bylaw that residences with a fire sprinkler system and smoke detectors increase occupant survivability by 88%....


This statement contributes nothing to the argument of cost of sprinklers verses benefit. The percentage of lives saved must be calculated for smoke alarms, then, recalculated for smoke alarms including sprinklers.

On the link posted by conarb, the chart on page 14, Mandatory Regulations, Cost Per Life Saved, would make an effective visual aid for any organization against mandatory sprinklers. It, in itself, makes an effective argument, and would look good on a tee shirt.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

What is a life worth.

You child, your spouse, your mother? Cheap insurance. If you can save their life for 3k to 6k spread over 15 years?

People spend more on kitchen upgrades

brudgers

 It was found with a google search, type in "Canada, fire deaths"


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 1, 2010)

Tried to stay out of it......regardless of what side one is on the real issue is to work on the Insurance Industry to reduce the pay back to 5 years like we are trying to do in D.C. with the Sprinkler Incentive Act to include "residential" as (an ALL).


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

you can also get some of the info from Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs Position Paper on Residential Fire Sprinklers

http://www.oafc.on.ca/lib/db2file.asp?fileid=1307


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2010)

What is a life worth. That is a question that generates an emotional response. You cannot save everyone from all house fires. The real question is what are the acceptable losses. 

 Cheap insurance. Insurance is based on acceptable losses and the chances a claim will never be filed. Some are willing to go with the odds a fire will never happen in their home. A fire sprinkler system is no guarantee against all deaths in a home due to a fire

People spend more on kitchen upgrades. That is their choice. I choose to spend my money driving large older gas guzzling 3/4 ton vehicles because statiscally I or my wife will have less injuries or chance of death in an accident with a civic, prius, porche, vw or any other smaller vehicle.

Do you know the statistical chance of an individual dying in a fire? National average 13.2 per million, My state is 9.4 per million and we do not have a million people in this state yet the state fire marshals office acceptable losses would be zero loss of life in a fire. 

http://www.montanafirechiefs.com/default.asp?deptid=1&com=announcements&pressID=1128

That is unrealistic. I think they all have marajuana cards and they are not living in the real world.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

Similar claims made for seat belts and helmets

Acceptable losses, personal choice

unrealistic


----------



## conarb (Nov 1, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> If you can save their life for 3k to 6k spread over 15 years?People spend more on kitchen upgrades


Therein lies one of the biggest lies, on the home I'm working on now if I do have to install sprinklers it will cost over $200,000, tanks and all.  Those here point pout that Santa Clara County is over the top with their requirements, yet we have to deal with the jurisdictions that we are located within.  In our county the water meter charge is over $135,000.View attachment 546

​






View attachment 240


View attachment 240


/monthly_2010_05/ebmud2.jpg.16f54cbc737cf968a186768e98044f33.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

It's all a matter of choice, you choose to build that house in an inaccessible location

Location is a matter of choice


----------



## conarb (Nov 1, 2010)

Fire deaths have little to do with the existence of sprinklers, but everything to do with income, education, and culture. Mississippi's deaths are almost 20 times as high as Hawaii's. 

We'd be a lot better off banning frying foods, smoking, and plastic wiring. While we are at it ban lightweight framing, lightweight roof trusses and I Joists.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> brudgers  It was found with a google search, type in "Canada, fire deaths"


"I read it on the internet" is good enough for me.

Dear esquire Mark. Handler,

I hope this message finds you well. My late uncle, the honorable and respected Ambassador to Guatemala Herman T. Jackson IV left me a considerable sum of $20,000,000 in gold franc bearer bonds redemption cupons. Unfortunately due to currency restrictions, and the removal of my visa by the TSA I am unable to access those sums from my current location in Nigeria. However, if you send me $100 via paypal and your checking account number, I will deposit all sums to your account pending transfer to my accounts in Bermuda less a handling fee of 15%, of course. I eagerly await your answer.

Tvami Moreeshuu


----------



## Alias (Nov 1, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Won't work in my area at 40%That equates to a -5 degrees F
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol


Mine either. We can get down to -20 at least a couple times a year, sometimes lower and longer.

Sue, in the high desert of CA


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2010)

> Any excuse for some to hate Residential Fire SprinklersTheir fears are just that, Fears.....


I don't hate them nor do I fear them and I agree they can be extremely benificial and effective but I do believe as evidenced by the statements below by a Fire Chiefs Association those advocating RSFS as the sytem that will save every mother, child and baby from dying in a house fire are no different then those who used to sell snake oil for a living.

*The Montana Career Fire Chiefs Association (MCFCA)*_supports adoption, in the State of Montana, of the residential sprinkler requirements, as set forth in the 2009 IRC, and_

*1. In order to reduce deaths from structure fires to zero and limit property damage from structure fires to the area of origin, the MCFCA*

· _Advocates for complete automatic fire sprinkler protection of all new occupied construction, including one-and two-family dwellings; _

· _Supports efforts to educate the public on the benefits of fire sprinkler protection; _

· _Supports efforts to educate Code Officials on the benefits of fire sprinkler protection;_

· _Advocates for the elimination of codes, laws or policies that discourage the cost effective installation of fire sprinkler systems__; _

*2. In order to reduce firefighter fire ground deaths to zero, the MCFCA*

_Mark I think you would even agree the number will never stay at zero._


----------



## incognito (Nov 1, 2010)

If the fire sprinkler advocates were truly trying to save lives they would be attempting to reduce all speed limits by 50%. The 30,000 to 40,000 lives lost every year on our roads would drop very dramatically and the results would be immediate. Even if every new home built from today forward had fire sprinklers, we would have to wait decades to see even a 1% drop in fire related deaths. The "facts" and "statistics" supporting residential fire sprinklers are the biggest lie ever told. This is all about the money that NFPA and NFSA will steal from the consumer and nothing more.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

What price do you place on your kids/grandkids?

*Once again the anti-sprinkler group has hijacked a thread*

*This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler*

*Same old Rhetoric*


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2010)

> *Once again the anti-sprinkler group has hijacked a thread*


Hijack what? All you did was post an old NFPA announcement trailered to California about not exceeding 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies. If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

If you read the Original Thread, you would know that it is *new information* from  the California state fire marshal, in relation to the *new issue* of using antifreeze and the *new* California Code of Regulations changes.

*This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler*

I call that hijacking a thread with the Same old Rhetoric

Like CONARB's chart that he has posted several times on this board. Same old Rhetoric


----------



## TimNY (Nov 1, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Hijack what? All you did was post an old NFPA announcement trailered to California about not exceeding 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies. If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?


I am seeing them installed completely within the thermal envelope now. Risers inside the interior walls and then the rafters spray-foamed to bring the piping into the conditioned space.

Some say "wow, spray foam is expensive", typ residential sprinkler is 15-20k for 2-3k sq.ft. so I guess if they can afford one, the other isn't a big deal.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?


In Reno, We put the Fire risers in conditioned spaces.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 1, 2010)

> Risers inside the interior walls and then the rafters spray-foamed to bring the piping into the conditioned space.


Is the spray foam listed as a compatible material to a CPVC system

*Polyurethane (Spray-On) Foams*


In understanding spray polyurethane foams there are two general areas of concern for CPVC pipe and fittings:  (1) chemical compatibility and (2) potential damage to pipes and fittings due to high exothermic temperatures during installation.  These spray polyurethane foams have different cell structures, different flame retardants, reach different curing temperatures and require different installation thicknesses to obtain the required r-value.  All of these factors must be considered when using spray foams.In 2009, Lubrizol assisted the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) to determine if chemical compatibility issues exist with FlowGuard Gold®, BlazeMaster® and Corzan® CPVC pipe and fittings.  SPFA findings, although not comprehensive, conclude that those spray polyurethane foams tested did not pose a chemical compatibility problem.  In addition, Lubrizol is unaware of a CPVC failure that was the result of chemical incompatibility with spray polyurethane foams.  For more information on the SPFA testing, please contact them at (800) 523-6154 or visit their web site at www.sprayfoam.org.  With respect to chemical compatibility, one must always check with the spray foam manufacturer to have them provide assurance that the formulation that they are manufacturing is not incompatible with CPVC.

In a separate, unrelated study also in 2009, Lubrizol conducted testing with a manufacturer of spray polyurethane foam to better understand the effects of high exothermic temperatures on FlowGuard Gold and BlazeMaster CPVC pipe and fittings.  These findings demonstrated that temperatures can exceed the softening point of dry CPVC pipe and fittings.

This study found that, for the products tested, the spray pass thickness of the manufacturer’s nominal two pound density spray polyurethane closed cell foam should not exceed a maximum of two inches per single pass.  Lubrizol also found in this study that repeated two inch passes (layers) separated by 10 minute intervals provided sufficient time for the spray polyurethane foam to cool.  For the manufacturer’s nominal half pound density spray polyurethane open cell foam, Lubrizol found that spray pass thickness should not exceed a maximum of six inches per single pass.

*Because polyurethane spray foams’ resulting exothermic temperatures and chemical compatibility characteristics can vary to some extent, Lubrizol recommends that you consult with the manufacturer of the polyurethane spray foam to be installed.*


----------



## TimNY (Nov 1, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Is the spray foam listed as a compatible material to a CPVC system


Good questions.  I know there has been a problem with heat from the reaction damaging wiring.

Where I have seen it, they foam the rafters up to the ridge.  The branches are installed on top of the ceiling joists.  The piping is not in contact with the foam.  If I saw piping buried in foam I would be concerned.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2010)

incognito said:
			
		

> If the fire sprinkler advocates were truly trying to save lives they would be attempting to reduce all speed limits by 50%. The 30,000 to 40,000 lives lost every year on our roads would drop very dramatically and the results would be immediate. Even if every new home built from today forward had fire sprinklers, we would have to wait decades to see even a 1% drop in fire related deaths. The "facts" and "statistics" supporting residential fire sprinklers are the biggest lie ever told. This is all about the money that NFPA and NFSA will steal from the consumer and nothing more.


A person is 13 times more likely to die by killing themselves with a handgun than they are in a dwelling fire.

The number one ignition source  (19%) for fatal dwelling fires is smoking...about 600 deaths per year.

What price do you put on your grand mother?


----------



## Rio (Nov 2, 2010)

From this month's JLC (Journal of Light Construction) To paraphrase, "Equipping a home with both a hard wired smoke alarm and a sprinkler system-rather than just a smoke alarm- increases the occupants chances of surviving a structure fire by 80%.  But we also used another NFPA figure that they tend not to mention, which is that you already have a a 99.45 % chance of surviving a structure fire with just a smoke alarm."  They go on to explain that this translates to increasing ones chances of surviving a hypothetical structural fire by .44% - from 99.45% with just smoke alarms to 99.89% with both smoke alarms and sprinklers.  All of this goes to the question of the ever increasing cost of building a structure and the need to trim the tree of bureaucracy.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 2, 2010)

This thread was about *anti freeze, not anti sprinkler*


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 2, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Fires in homes account for the majority of fire fatalities in Canada, 80% of all fire deaths occur in residential properties. The City of Vancouver has proven through their fire sprinkler bylaw that residences with a fire sprinkler system and smoke detectors increase occupant survivability by 88%.  In Vancouver, no fatalities have occurred in a residential property equipped with a fire sprinkler system installed to N.F.P.A. 13D since the implementation of their bylaw.Hows that negativity working out for you....


It depends on what portion of the thread you are reading.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 2, 2010)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> It depends on what portion of the thread you are reading.


No I went of topic also.

I corrected.

If we could delete posts, I would

The same people that sent this thread off topic, were the ones that accused me of going off topic in another thread.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 2, 2010)

Rio said:
			
		

> From this month's JLC (Journal of Light Construction) To paraphrase, "Equipping a home with both a hard wired smoke alarm and a sprinkler system-rather than just a smoke alarm- increases the occupants chances of surviving a structure fire by 80%.  But we also used another NFPA figure that they tend not to mention, which is that you already have a a 99.45 % chance of surviving a structure fire with just a smoke alarm."  They go on to explain that this translates to increasing ones chances of surviving a hypothetical structural fire by .44% - from 99.45% with just smoke alarms to 99.89% with both smoke alarms and sprinklers.  All of this goes to the question of the ever increasing cost of building a structure and the need to trim the tree of bureaucracy.


Mandatory sprinklers have even less overall effect.

The actual increase in life safety [based on your numbers] is:

Net life safety benefit = (fdf) * (1-.9945) + ((NDCwS) +(EDuS) - (DCwSER + DUwSER)) / (TD))

fdf =Frequency of dwelling fires

NDCwS = number of new dwellings constructed with sprinklers and fire alarms

EDuS = number of of existing dwellings upgraded to sprinklers

DCwSER = dwellings constructed with sprinklers per existing requirements

DUwSER = dwellings upgraded with sprinklers per existing requirements

TD = total number of dwellings.

Because fdf is very small and TD is very large, the net impact on life safety is very low.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 2, 2010)

> The number one ignition source (19%) for fatal dwelling fires is smoking...about 600 deaths per year.


I would add that of these smoking related deaths, the smoke is most likely the cause of death before the fire can actually activate a sprinkler system. So sprinklers may not have saved them.


----------



## conarb (Nov 2, 2010)

View attachment 242

​
I've always heard that the leading cause was cooking, sprinklers do nothing for cooking fires, every school child is taught not to put water on a grease fire, and that's exactly what 13D sprinklers do.  When this subject has come up before the fire people say to put "misting heads" over cooking facilities, yet that's not mandated by 13D and since they cost more nobody is going to install them. That does bring us back to the anti-freeze problem since those fires were cooking fires. Also note that "Electrical distribution" is more deadly than even smoking, banning plastic wiring and requiring all metal EMT would go a long way toward saving lives, much further than sprinklers, prevention rather than active suppression.​
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v1i13-508.pdf​View attachment 242

​/monthly_2010_11/residential-fires.jpg.7c9898528d2698835b7f6838831015e3.jpg


----------



## brudgers (Nov 2, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> View attachment 549
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The graph you provided is for all dwelling fires.

Fatal fires have a quite different distribution of ignition sources (very few in the kitchen since people are typically awake when they cook).


----------



## Alias (Nov 3, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Hijack what? All you did was post an old NFPA announcement trailered to California about not exceeding 40% propylene glycol and concentrations of glycerin not exceeding 50% in residential occupancies. If you want to take the thread back on track what do Sue and I and others in extremely cold climates use except a dry system? Any suggestions?


Thank You mtlogcabin.

If we can't have dry systems (according to my FM) and anti-freeze won't work, what are we supposed to use?  Folks, sprinklers are 'in' in the CA Codes this year and we have a potential temperature conflict where I am located.

Sue, on the frontier in CA


----------



## Alias (Nov 3, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If you read the Original Thread, you would know that it is *new information* from the California state fire marshal, in relation to the *new issue* of using antifreeze and the *new* California Code of Regulations changes.*This thread was about anti freeze, not anti sprinkler*
> 
> I call that hijacking a thread with the Same old Rhetoric
> 
> Like CONARB's chart that he has posted several times on this board. Same old Rhetoric


Agree with you Mark.  And thanks for posting the info.

Sue, on the frontier in CA


----------



## permitguy (Nov 3, 2010)

What, you guys still aren't holding hands around a campfire on this topic?  Shocking.  :-D

Tell designers to stop being lazy.  They can put a bathroom anywhere the buyer wants it.  How do the water pipes not freeze?  Amazing!

If there is a temperature conflict, then design around it.  Run the pipe in interior walls and use sidewall heads for the upper floor.  Build a fake beam to hide piping beneath a vaulted ceiling and use concealed heads.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 3, 2010)

permitguy said:
			
		

> What, you guys still aren't holding hands around a campfire on this topic?  Shocking.  :-DTell designers to stop being lazy.  They can put a bathroom anywhere the buyer wants it.  How do the water pipes not freeze?  Amazing!
> 
> If there is a temperature conflict, then design around it.  Run the pipe in interior walls and use sidewall heads for the upper floor.  Build a fake beam to hide piping beneath a vaulted ceiling and use concealed heads.


Kum bay ya....

Seriously though, it is possible.  Additional insulation.. false beams.. a little forethought by the designer..  It's just an added expense.  Sprinklers save lives, not money.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 3, 2010)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Tell designers to stop being lazy.


Ya right this tread is about the placement of the riser....And I thought is was about antifreeze....


----------



## DRP (Nov 3, 2010)

well, how about another antifreeze scenario. My client has been doing some research and is considering propylene glycol antifreeze in a closed loop in a Polaris water heater that does both domestic hot water and radiant heating, any problems?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 3, 2010)

Thread: Antifreeze Solutions Within Residential Fire Sprinkler

Is their heating system tied into the Residential Fire Sprinkler system?


----------



## DRP (Nov 3, 2010)

Both are antifreeze systems tied to potable water, another angle I was thinking from. But yes it could be.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 3, 2010)

DRP said:
			
		

> Both are antifreeze systems tied to potable water, another angle I was thinking from. But yes it could be.


Both oxygen and hydrogen sulfide are gas, another angle you were thinking from. but neither should be in a Thread entitled

*Antifreeze Solutions Within Residential Fire Sprinkler*


----------



## DRP (Nov 3, 2010)

Post #1 was about antifreeze solutions in fire sprinkler systems. There was nothing from the author of that copy and paste post to direct discussion. Rather than redirect you have chosen to either twist or lash out at just about every poster and have added pretty much nothing to the discussion. If you have something to say that is worthwhile, after 3 pages... I'm still waiting.

Meanwhile, we were considering a 50% solution in the radiant system. What is the reason for the 40% limit?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 4, 2010)

DRP said:
			
		

> .Meanwhile, we were considering a 50% solution in the radiant system. What is the reason for the 40% limit?


Combustible liquids in a spray or mist have been found to ignite at temperatures less than their flashpoint.

Your radiant system is irrelivant to the issue of using Combustible liquids, such as Antifreeze Within Residential Fire Sprinkler systems.

You are free to keep posting but you would be better off starting a new thread regarding how much Antifreeze should be used Within Residential floor heating systems.


----------



## DRP (Nov 4, 2010)

http://www.noblecompany.com/Portals/0/PRODUCT%20INFO/Product%20Descriptions/FireFighter%20PG%20PD%20lo%20res.pdf

This supplier runs up to 60% concentration for sprinkler use.

Are there any codes re: cross connection or backflow in either of these antifreeze systems?


----------



## conarb (Nov 4, 2010)

I thought, from what I've read here, that a 13D system had to be connected to the domestic water supply to "flush the system through" since there is no maintenance? There was even talk of having a toilet at the end of the line so the homeowner could flush the toilet and cycle the water through the sprinker lines.


----------



## TimNY (Nov 4, 2010)

Fire sprinklers are addressed under "Protection of Potable Water" in the IRC.  If there is an additive, it must be protected with a RPZ.  If no additive, double check is ok.

Don't know nothing about having to flush a system through.  There is maintenance involved, which is contained in 13D.

I don't think you are permitted to connect plumbing fixtures to the fire sprinkler piping.


----------

