A review of sprinkler system effectiveness studies

Abstract

A lack of information on the effectiveness of fire safety systems, including sprinklers, has been noted as being a limiting factor in the development of performance-based fire safety design. Of the fire safety systems available, sprinkler operation has been studied most extensively. This paper reviews the information currently available on sprinkler effectiveness in fires. Two approaches are generally taken for estimating sprinkler effectiveness: component-based approaches using a fault tree or similar method and system-based approaches using fire incident data where sprinklers were present. In this paper, sprinkler system component data and effectiveness estimates from system-based studies have been compiled and tabulated, with a comparison of the merits of the two approaches. Recommendations for using the data for design purposes are made, including considerations for uncertainty and using a hybrid system/component approach for specific sprinkler system comparisons. These recommendations provide input on the reliability of systems in the development of performance-based fire safety design methods.

Quantitative assessment of safety barrier performance in the prevention of domino scenarios triggered by fire

“…For sprinkler systems, a conservative value of effectiveness was derived following the approach suggested in [69] and gathering specific literature data, in particular focusing on sprinkler systems performance and statistics, such as the ones compiled by the US National Fire Protection Association, the Australian Fire Protection Agency, the UK Fire Offices' Committee and other national authorities or reported on available documents [69][70][71]. Sprinkler systems effectiveness parameter (namely, η) was defined as the probability of success in controlling the primary fire, i.e., the fraction of case histories in which correct activation of the system resulted in effective action in controlling the fire.…”

Which Fire to Extinguish First? A Risk‐Informed Approach to Emergency Response in Oil Terminals

“…Assuming that the sprinkler system would not fail while in standby state, λ S = 0.0 (year −1 ), a constant operational failure rate λ O = 2.0 × 10 −2 (year −1 ) can be considered . That is, even if the sprinkler is activated successfully (with a probability of 1‐ PFD), there is a chance of failure F ( t ) = 1 – exp(−0.02 t ) as operational time t passes.…”

“…Assuming that the sprinkler system would not fail while in standby state, λ S = 0.0 (year −1 ), a constant operational failure rate λ O = 2.0 × 10 −2 (year −1 ) can be considered. (16,32) That is, even if the sprinkler is activated successfully (with a probability of 1-PFD), there is a chance of failure F(t) = 1exp(−0.02t) as operational time t passes. Using the relationship given by Lees (31) and considering a oneyear (8,760 hour) test interval for industrial facilities, a PFD of 0.01 would be estimated.…”

Sprinklerilaitteiston luotettavuuden vaikutus teräsrakenteiden palomitoitukseen

“…Sprinklerilaitteistojen ja -järjestelmien luotettavuutta voidaan arvioida myös komponenttipohjaisella menetelmällä käyttäen vikapuita, joissa yksilöidään kohdekohtaisen laitteiston keskeiset komponentit, arvioidaan niiden vikaantumistodennäköisyydet sekä kytketään ne järjestelmän toiminnan mukaiseksi puurakenteeksi [5,6]. Vikapuuhun sisällytettäviä komponentteja voivat olla esimerkiksi vesilähteet, sprinklerit, putkistot ja venttiilit.…”

“…Vikapuuhun sisällytettäviä komponentteja voivat olla esimerkiksi vesilähteet, sprinklerit, putkistot ja venttiilit. Esimerkkejä komponenttimenetelmän soveltamisesta on esitetty useissa lähteissä [6,8].…”