# Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



## FyrBldgGuy (Feb 23, 2010)

This story is strange and potentially significant due to the conclusions of a consultant investigator.  However, the facts seem to be mixed up.

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20100222/NEWS/100229982/-1/RSS

Lets Discuss and see what comes of this!


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

FyrBldgGuy,

Thanks for posting this link.  Hopefully, we can find a solution to such problems.

Important Note:  This is not a post against fire prevention or suppression systems!!!!

Let's see:

We have a kitchen where grease fires are likely;

We install a system that mixes water and a flammable or explosive substance, in the immediate vicinity of a potential grease fire;

We make sure that the system will activate in case of a grease fire;

And, we are surprised at the result.

Good Morning America!

This is only the tip of the iceberg for catastrophes; where chemicals and other hazardous substances are introduced into piping that is connected to our water supply systems.

As a Plumber and having been trained in cross connection and backflow prevention, and backflow protection devises; it scares the hell out me to think of what is being introduced into piping that is connected to our water supply systems.  Especially in homes where products that require (backflow protection devises) inspections and maintenance in order to function with minimal failures; and, they are not and will not be required to be inspected and serviced.

The absence of public reports is not an indicator of public safety!

Uncle Bob


----------



## cda (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

wait a minute

fire happens

sprinkler head activates ( how far away form the stove???)

so we know the sprinkler head activated, before the anti freeze came out!!!,

so we had a fire hot enough/ big enough to reach the sprinler head and sustain enough heat around the head to activate it.

Then the anti freeze came out.  So what per centage of the solution in the pipe was anti freeze????

And when they say explosion are you serious???  maybe large fire??? or larger fire???

need an msds for it but :::: LEL: 2.4 UEL: 17.4.

http://www.lyncar.com/images/download/g ... ifreez.pdf


----------



## conarb (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Why are the FPEs designing systems and fire marshals approving systems with water sprinklers over cooking facilities?  Every school kid is taught not to put water on a grease fire, every building I've ever built with sprinklers routs the system around cooking facilities so there is no chance of a sprinkler going off over a grease fire.


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



> apparently started a fire in a frying pan while cooking onions and tried to extinguish the flames when the fire sprinkler directly above activated, “discharging a solution of glycerine-based antifreeze which was ignited by the flames coming from the burning onions in the frying pan and resulting in the explosion of the glycerine solution.”


* This fire authority would have questioned the solution of choice.*

Typically a glycerin based anti-freeze solution for fire sprinkler systems is not considered a flammable and typically has a flash point of @350 to 400 F and may flash if water is evaporated rapidly upon the introduction of the solution.

This could be a situation where the solution was not appropriate for the piping or the concentration was too rich and not confirmed or verified prior to final installation or replacement (if applicable in maintenance scenario).

The consultant’s report indicates the system piping was CPVC and a solution of propylene-glycol is not permitted for CPVC piping where lower discharge rates are expected.  A subrogation win-fall here, atomized PG v. Fire = Low Order Explosive Environment. Allegedly another example of improper design/installation.  :cry:

I would like to see the actual installation documents to verify the make of the solution; measure the system volume and verify the listed concentration levels.


----------



## Builder Bob (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

I would suspect that the sprinkler head activation had enough pressure to displace the grease in the frying pan, thus increasing the surface area of the flammable liquid, which then ignited. See the following PSA for grease fire......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Vj1IOmljE

I am willing to bet that the sprinkler system wasn't intended for a type I grease hood and was a general purpose residential sprinkler head.

Added: I wonder what would have happened without a sprinkler head to the property and other lives at stake. This is a senario that will never be known.


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

In addition to my previous response...... from what I gathered, the male occupant moved the flaming pot in 180 degrees to the sink and the pendant head was above the sink.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

I believe the investigation report is in error.

First, no mention should have been made to anything other than Glycerin based antifreeze.

Second, the gas company found no evidence of a gas leak.  Ok so the flex pipe to the stove did not leak.  The stove was on as evidenced by the cooking onions.  A flash fire occured when the occupant placed water into the burning oil.  The impact of the flash fire and intial water spray may have extinguished the gas flame on the stove.  There might not have been a leak but there might have been gas coming from the stove.

Third, explosion investigation evidence involves looking at the type of explosion (deflagration or detonation) and the impact of the yield.  The evidence suggested in the report indicates glass blown out, and an adjacent bathroom door that may have been pushed in or out.  Also the surface burning of adjacent cabinets etc is minimal.  A flammable liquid vapor explosion will have an impact on the surface burning and more indepth buring of the adjacent materials.  A natural gas explosion would leave little residue.  If glycerin was the culprit where is the evidence?

Fourth, to get glycerin to burn in this type of an atmosphere the material has to be atomized.  Vehicle fires have been reported and investigations verified where propolene-glycol and other glycols have been atomized and sprayed on the hot parts of vehicle engines.  A residential sprinkler is not a good atomizer.  It is designed for droplet sizes to penetrate a typical residential fire.  This theory would invalidate droplet size information and testing.


----------



## cda (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

once again there has to be enough heat for the sprinkler head to activate in the first place

was this from the original fire or from the guy moving the pan of grease to the sink and turning on the water

water can extinguish grease fires.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

If all that was in the report is true, there seems to be an inherent problem with the antifreeze systems using the more dense liquid materials.  Over a period of time the stratification of the two liquids will result in the lower portion being filled with a higher concentration of antifreeze compared to water.  Unless the system is "stirred" that concentration could easily reach the threshold where even droplets with limited atomization create an dangerous atmosphere.  Don't forget, the fire will evaporate some of the droplets in transit, increasing the amount of vapor in the air.  Without careful control on the mixture, I can see a dangerous situation in a LOT of facilities in the future  (can anyone say Omega Ring?).   :cry:


----------



## cda (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

but anti freeze systems have been around for a long time, so why has this not come to light before???


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

This is a very interesting question because water has been sucessfully used over commercial cooking for a long time and antifreeze is also not new, although I am not sure how many antifreeze systems have actually activated over a fire.  Stay tuned


----------



## code2driver (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Interesting case.  A few thoughts, for what they are worth:

The report states that the stove was electric, so presumably there was gas for hot water and/or heat.  IMHO, trusting the gas company to tell you whether their pipe and equipment did not fail is naive in the extreme.  Maybe the investigator followed up, maybe not.  My opinion is based on personal experience: gas from a cracked pipe in the street difused into a building and exploded when a service person lit a pilot light, and the gas company denied it all the way through court, even though the pipe was eventually produced in court and shown to be damaged.  BTW, the explosion blew glass windows a similar distance to what the investigator reports, which no conclusions should be drawn from, I'm just saying.  Several other natural gas explosions in houses that I have seen show a similar type of force (I don't know that there was natural gas service there or not).

Glycerine and propylene glycol are both Class IIIB combustible liquids with very low vapor pressures.  There is no report in any literature (other than the two fire investigations) that I could locate that indicates that either liquid in any form is liable to detonate.  A volume of very finely aerosolized glycogen introduced under pressure (pre-heated, that is) to a very hot atmosphere might do the trick, I suppose, but I will have to see it to believe it.

Like I said, interesting case.  I intend to keep looking for data on the anti-freeze.  Stay tuned (or not).


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

This overwhelming expansion of pseudoscience that is being backed by the government to produce materials and methods that are harmful to the safety, health and welfare of citizens and threaten the structural integrity of dwellings and their inhabitants ; and selling them for profit and forcing by law, an innocent, trusting society to accept it; is absolutely frightning.

You cannot argue with government controlled pseudoscience.  I know that we may think we are being educated; but, we are being indoctrinated; and those who fight against it will be eliminated from the process.

The only thing a Building Official, Fire Marshal, Plan Reviewer, and/or Inspector can do is; attempt to assure compliance with applicable codes requirements; without being removed from their job.

Which brings me back to "The less you know; the easier your job is."

 :cry:

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Flash point of Ethylene Glycol:  232 degrees F, Flammable Limit 3.2%, Auto Ignition 400 degrees F.

Hard to achieve in a kitchen?


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

That is not the type of antifreeze allowed in a sprinkler system


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 23, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



> Third, explosion investigation evidence involves looking at the type of explosion (deflagration or detonation) and the impact of the yield. The evidence suggested in the report indicates glass blown out, and an adjacent bathroom door that may have been pushed in or out. Also the surface burning of adjacent cabinets etc is minimal. A flammable liquid vapor explosion will have an impact on the surface burning and more indepth buring of the adjacent materials. A natural gas explosion would leave little residue. If glycerin was the culprit where is the evidence?Fourth, to get glycerin to burn in this type of an atmosphere the material has to be atomized. Vehicle fires have been reported and investigations verified where propolene-glycol and other glycols have been atomized and sprayed on the hot parts of vehicle engines. A residential sprinkler is not a good atomizer. It is designed for droplet sizes to penetrate a typical residential fire.


The information contained in the “consultant’s” report indicates the potential low-order explosion.  With all explosions there is a positive and negative blast front and in some cases the evidence of the negative front is not always present/observed. The blast front is affected by barriers to the pressure waves within the vessel/apartment.  It is very possible for cabinets to exhibit light surface burning. Excessive concentration of propylene glycol could become flammable and the potential ignition and subsequent pressure can atomize a flammable liquid. [Reference NFPA 921]

If I’m not mistaken via the quick read of the consultant’s report, the report suspects propylene glycol and hence my desire to see what was actually in the CPVC piping, concentration levels and the statement of a potential subrogation win-fall.

BTW.........in any investigation I conduct I have to eliminate all other potential/suspected causes including always requesting and witnessing all gas line air-testing in the area of origin or areas contributing to the area of origin. Also, looks like the men/women in ties stepped in since the article in the OP has been removed from their site.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> That is not the type of antifreeze allowed in a sprinkler system


Propylene Glycol is worse:

Flashpoint:  210F

Flammable Limit:  2.6%

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Propyle ... ol-9927239

*I believe that the article originally said "ethylene glycol" because I am pretty certain that I did a copy and paste to search for the MSDS.

BTW, the article has moved off the RSS page and now can be found here:

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/201002 ... ofile=1051


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

My mistake in regards to the stove question.  But again gas was present in the building.

The blast wave could not have been a detonation, it could have been a high speed deflagration.

Decomposing the glycerin could have resulted in Acrolein, which has the properties necessary for a high speed deflagration.  However, the amount of glycerin needed to decompose to produce the blast would be hard to imagine.

What other materials were present in the kitchen?  Any aersols?  How about some spray coating for cooking, or how about some W#40?  Was there a jug of cooking oil next to the stove?

The report read like an theory waiting for a case.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

FYI:  I have submitted this issue to the UL Fire Council as an agenda item.  It will be interesting to see what UL staff research determines.  I'll report back what is discussed after the Council meets in the beginning of May.


----------



## cda (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

It would have been nice if the guy included a floor plan showing relation of sink to stove to sprinkler head.

still go back to what first set off the sprinkler head.

and then from there you have what ever solution coming out of the piping, and if you have been in a room with a head going off, you do get wet!!

so to go from from solution coming out of pipe to big boom ??????


----------



## brudgers (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Bob in 2002:

Gee, it says put in _x_ units of this stuff.

I don't want frozen pipes so I'll just double it.

Bob in 2003:

Gee, it says put in _x_ units of this stuff.

I don't want frozen pipes so I'll just double it.

In case I forgot to last year.

Jake in 2004:

Gee, it says put in _x_ units of this stuff.

I don't want frozen pipes so I'll just triple it.

In case that idiot Bob didn't take care of it last year.

2005-2010:  etc.

I once had a car with a broken gas gauge.  Every day at the start of my commute I would put in the amount I thought it would use.  After a few weeks, gas was spilling out of the filler when I tried to put more in.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



			
				cda said:
			
		

> It would have been nice if the guy included a floor plan showing relation of sink to stove to sprinkler head.still go back to what first set off the sprinkler head.
> 
> and then from there you have what ever solution coming out of the piping, and if you have been in a room with a head going off, you do get wet!!
> 
> so to go from from solution coming out of pipe to big boom ??????


If the anti-freeze flashed first, adding water would be bad.


----------



## conarb (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for DeathWhat I don't understand is that all 13D layouts I see put sprinkler heads right over the stove, see below.  When this subject came up before here some posted information on water atomizing sprinkler heads designed to provide a fine mist, why wasn't that requirement put into the 13D requirements?sprinkler layout.jpg[/attachment:20iyhv47]

View attachment 81


View attachment 81


/monthly_2010_06/572953b58125b_sprinklerlayout.jpg.666fb72970f8eac8fb6cd61d0d4345ce.jpg


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

ConArb,

I would not and have not approved a head placement in the vicinity of the stove top since there are other means in which the room can be covered.  Now in the event a water mist application was proposed for the stove top area, I would consider it after further analysis of the design.

Gene,

Excellent endevior that will hopefully produce some excellent insight.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

There is nothing wrong with protecting cooking surfaces with automatic sprinklers.  It has been in NFPA 13 for a long time.


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

I would agree with that and with regards to my last post....... I don't like seeing them directly over a stove top when an alternative location meeting the coverage of room exists.


----------



## cda (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

we need to remeber what a 13D is designed for

getting the people out of the building, and heads are not required in every room, yes they are required in the kitchen.

I would rather have the head closer to the stove, because that is where most apartments/house fires start!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Water is the preferred agent in 13R and 13D situations, even in kitchens.  This investigation report has a greater impact on the use of anti-freeze systems.  If glycerin and glycol based anti-freeze systems are a problem (only two reported incidents) what should be done?

Going back in history during the period when High Temperature Accelerant Arsons were occuring the temps of the fires were so high that water cracked and became a fuel.

Should anti-freeze systems only be used in areas where the fire temp will not combust the extinguishing agent?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



			
				cda said:
			
		

> we need to remeber what a 13D is designed forgetting the people out of the building, and heads are not required in every room, yes they are required in the kitchen.
> 
> I would rather have the head closer to the stove, because that is where most apartments/house fires start!!!!!!!!!!


The incident report indicates that it was a full 13 system.

http://www.sierrasun.com/assets/pdf/SS61631222.PDF


----------



## conarb (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

How come everyone is told to never put water on a grease fire?


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Sprinklers put water on the fire as small droplets that will quickly cool the grease to below the flash point of the oil.  Sprinklers directly over commercial deep fat fryers are a special head that produces a very fine mist.  The conditon in the video is boil over where the water is heavier than the oil and sinks to the bottom.  It then boils and causes the oil above to violently react.  There is a video of a huge boil over in a million gallon oil tank in South America.





Some of the fire service folks on this site can shed more light as to how they approach pool fires of combustible liquids.  Especially if foam is not available.

The same principle from your chemistry class.  You always add acid to water, not water to acid.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080202072039AAX8jwb


----------



## cda (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

""""How come everyone is told to never put water on a grease fire?""""

Because you  do not have the correct volume to extinguish the fire with.

""Some of the fire service folks on this site can shed more light as to how they approach pool fires of combustible liquids. Especially if foam is not available."""

go in with a fog pattern , and hopefuly you have two lines to help watch each other, and do not let the  fire wrap around behind you. It is fun!!!!!!!

Or do it the John Wayne way and use Dynamite and blow it out.

Or just use a little more pressure:::

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/01/0 ... ank-w.html


----------



## cda (Feb 25, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

One person's thoughts::::

"""""""""""In order to duplicate or test this hypothesis in an appropriate and valid manner, one needs to understand the hypothesis from a more fundamental level.

In order to cause a deflagration or explosion, there needs to be a fuel in the vapor phase that can mix with air to form a vapor mixture within its flammable limits. For this hypothesis, the fuel is identified as glycerin.

The glycerin in this case is initially in the liquid phase, thus, it must change from the liquid phase to the vapor phase.

Atomization can be employed to allow phase change from a liquid to individual droplets that, if small enough can behave as a vapor with respect to combustion of the droplets. Droplet sizes of less than 10 microns tend to behave as a vapor while droplet sizes of greater than 40 microns tend to behave like a spray where a flame surrounds each individual droplet. Droplet sizes associated with fire sprinklers tend to produce droplet distributions greater than 100 microns, so atomization alone of the glycerine may not be responsible for producing a phase change in the glycerine.

Another mechanism for a phase change from liquid to vapor is evaporation associated with the addition of heat. Vaporization of liquid fuels can involve both atomization and heating to produce a phase change from liquid to vapor. In this case, the introduction of the glycerine through a fire sprinkler and the transport of the droplets through a hot upper layer, ceiling jet, or thermal plume may induce a change in phase. This would then be a heat transfer and momentum problem to determine how much vapor could be produced. The amount of vapor produced would also be a function of the concentration and volume of mixture in the system.

In addition, the hypothesis seems to be that the glycerine is mixed with water, thus, it needs to be separated from the water to be an efficient fuel. Thus, the glycerine would need to be dehydrated to separate the liquid glycerine from the liquid water. This could potentially happen since the boiling point of water (100 degrees C) is lower than the boiling point of glycerine (290 degrees C). Again, the rate of heat transfer would determine the amount of vapor produced.

Once the liquid glycerine is separated from the liquid water, it must be further heated to change to the vapor phase. A competing factor to the boiling point is that the latent heat of evaporation is orders of magnitude higher for water than for glycerine. Thus, the water can absorb more energy before converting all of the liquid to a vapor. That is one of the most significant reasons why water is a good fire suppression agent.

The question to be asked is: what is the heat source that could produce such a phase change and is it sufficient to produce vapors of sufficient concentration to cause the damage that was experienced in this explosion/fire.

As the concentration of glycerine increases in the water, the conditions can become more favorable, but still may not be sufficient to case the explosion. A concentration of 100% glycerine might be the most advantageous condition, but most anti-freeze solutions for fire sprinkler systems are purchased in a pre-mixed formulation and pure glycerine has a much higher viscosity when compared to water, thus, it does not flow well as a liquid. Therefore, it unlikely that a 100% concentration of glycerine was added to the sprinkler system.

My initial "engineering intuition" does not provide me with a "warm and fuzzy" that this can happen especially since it does not seem to be a common occurrence. The argument could be that it takes a special set of currumstances to occur that infrequently occur. That is why the right hypothesis testing becomes very important.

While I believe I could construct sufficient conditions to produce such a vapor concentration, I am not sure I could produce it if constrained by the conditions at the time of this specific incident. This is why it is important to test this hypothesis with regard for the facts of the case as best that can be determined. Otherwise, one runs the risk of producing unreliable determinations.

At any rate, this is an interesting discussion and I appreciate the opportunity to try and contribute to the discussion.

Sincerely,

Doug Carpenter

Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE

Vice President & Principal Engineer

Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.

8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L

Columbia, MD 21045

(410) 884-3266

(410) 884-3267 (fax)

www.csefire.com """"""""""""""


----------



## Builder Bob (Feb 25, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

I wonder how many people actually understand the spray pattern represented by a typical residential sprinkler head vs a general purpose sprinkler.


----------



## Frank (Feb 25, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Per the report other buildings in the complex all had over 60% Glycerine present.

The flaming pan had been taken off the stove and moved towards the sink where it endedup.

The sprinkler was over the sink not the stove.

The description of the incident sounds more like a flash fire resulting low overpressures with subequent extinguishment by the sprinkler system once the all water arrived.  Based on broken windows but intact walls.

I wonder what the static water pressure was, because higher pressures would result in finer droplets.

FM Global in their new sprinkler standard is limiting to 30% glycerine unless further testing is done and is removing the volume limit.

Dropping the pan of flaming grease or sloshing it out of the pan could also have resulted in a fireball and flash fire.  I have seen severe burn injuries and broken out window from that sequence of events in unsprinklered kitchen fires although there was also extensive fire damage as well.  Putting a solid stream of cold water from the tap into deep grease could also cause a flash fire by boilover/frothover.  Report did not clarify if he had put water in the pan before sprinkler went off just that he intended to.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Feb 25, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death

Onions contain sulfur compounds when cut the suflur is attracked to water thereby making sulfuric acid.  Sulfuric acid and glycerin is explosive.  It was the onions.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-be ... icago.html


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 26, 2010)

Re: Sprinkler System Blamed for Death



			
				FyrBldgGuy said:
			
		

> Onions contain sulfur compounds when cut the suflur is attracked to water thereby making sulfuric acid.  Sulfuric acid and glycerin is explosive.  It was the onions.


What did they eat for lunch?  Maybe it was methane.


----------

