RESEARCH TECHNICAL REPORT

Environmental Impact of
Automatic Fire Sprinklers
TECHNICAL REPORT
Environmental Impact of Automatic Fire Sprinklers
By:

Christopher J. Wieczorek
Benjamin Ditch
Robert G. Bill, Jr.

FM Global Research Division

March 2010
 Environmental Impact of Automatic Fire Sprinklers

by
Christopher J. Wieczorek, Benjamin Ditch, Robert G. Bill, Jr.

FM Global
Research Division
1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike
Norwood, MA 02062

© 2010 FM Global.
All rights reserved.
 DISCLAIMER

The research presented in this report, including any findings and conclusions, is for
informational purposes only. Any references to specific products, manufacturers or contractors
do not constitute a recommendation, evaluation or endorsement by Factory Mutual Insurance
Company (FM Global) of such products, manufacturers or contractors. FM Global makes no
warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to any product or process referenced in this report.
FM Global assumes no liability by or through the use of the information in this report.
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Currently, efforts to improve sustainability and reduce lifecycle carbon emissions are achieved
primarily by increasing the energy efficiency of an occupancy and reducing embodied carbon.
Recently, a methodology has been developed that expands the assessment of lifecycle carbon
emissions to incorporate risk factors such as fire. The methodology shows that in all
occupancies, from residential dwellings, to office buildings, to high hazard facilities, the lack of
proper risk management and effective fire protection, e.g., automatic fire sprinklers, statistically
increases carbon emissions over the lifecycle of the occupancy.

Furthermore, typical benefits gained from “green” construction and energy efficient appliances
and equipment can be negated by a single fire event. This is due to the subsequent carbon
dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, generated from burning combustible material, in addition to
the embodied carbon associated with disposal of damaged materials and reconstruction.

To further support the risk factor methodology, an experimental study was conducted to quantify
the environmental impact of automatic fire sprinklers. Large-scale fire tests were conducted
using identically constructed and furnished residential living rooms. In one test, fire
extinguishment was achieved solely by fire service intervention. In the other test, a single
residential fire sprinkler controlled the fire until final extinguishment was achieved by the fire
service.

Quantification of the environmental benefit of automatic fire sprinklers was based on

comparisons between the two tests, including total greenhouse gas production, quantity of water
required to extinguish the fire, quality of water runoff, potential impact of wastewater runoff on
groundwater and surface water, and mass of materials requiring disposal.

The use of automatic fire sprinklers reduced the peak heat release rate from 13,200 kW to
300 kW and reduced the total energy generated by a factor of 76. The fraction of combustible
material consumed in the fire was less than 3% in the sprinklered test and between 62% and 95%
in the non-sprinklered test.

i
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

The total air emissions generated from the sprinklered test were lower than those from the non-
sprinklered test. Of the 123 species analyzed in the air emissions, only 76 were detected in either
the sprinklered or non-sprinklered tests. Of the species detected, the ratio of non-sprinklered to
sprinklered levels for 24 of the species was in excess of 10:1. Eleven were detected at a ratio in
excess of 50:1, and of those, six were detected at a ratio in excess of 100:1. The remaining
species were detected at the same order of magnitude. The use of automatic fire sprinklers
reduced the greenhouse gas emissions, consisting of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide,
and reported as equivalent mass of carbon dioxide, by 97.8%.

Comparing the water usage between the two tests, it was found that in order to extinguish the
fire, the combination of sprinkler and hose stream discharge from the firefighters was 50% less
than the hose stream alone. Additional analysis indicates that the reduction in water use
achieved by using sprinklers could be as much as 91% if the results are extrapolated to a full-
sized home. Furthermore, fewer persistent pollutants, such as heavy metals, and fewer solids
were detected in the wastewater sample from the sprinklered test compared to that of the non-
sprinklered test. The pH value of the non-sprinklered test wastewater exceeded the allowable
discharge range of 5.5 to 9.0 required by most environmental agencies and was four orders of
magnitude higher in alkalinity than the wastewater from the sprinklered test. The non-
sprinklered test wastewater represents a serious environmental concern.

Analysis of the solid waste samples indicated that the ash/charred materials from neither the
sprinklered nor the non-sprinklered test would be considered “hazardous waste,” and that the
wastes are not anticipated to significantly leach once disposed of in landfills.

In the sprinklered room, flashover never occurred; however, in the non-sprinklered test,
flashover occurred at approximately five minutes after ignition. The occurrence of flashover
prior to fire service intervention is an indication that the fire would have propagated to adjacent
rooms, resulting in greater production of greenhouse gases, greater water demand to extinguish
the fire, and additional materials to be disposed of in landfills. However, in the sprinklered test

ii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

where the fire was confined to the area of origin, the damage, greenhouse gas production, and
water consumption represent maximum values independent of additional rooms.

The greater fire damage in the non-sprinklered test has a direct impact on the carbon emissions
of the building. This is due to the embodied carbon associated with the building materials
necessary for reconstruction and those associated with the manufacturing of furnishings and
contents.

It has been known for years that automatic fire sprinklers provide life safety and limit property
damage; the current study has shown quantitatively that automatic fire sprinklers are also a key
factor in achieving sustainability. Although the current study was conducted using a residential
setting, the environmental benefits of automatic fire sprinklers apply to other occupancies as
well.

iii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

iv
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

FOREWORD

Since 1996, the nonprofit Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition (HFSC) has been helping the public
understand the need for, and the unique value of, fire sprinkler systems in new houses. The
HFSC’s effort is necessary because thousands of lives are lost in house fires every year, yet only
a tiny fraction of new houses are built with sprinkler protection – a technology proven to save
lives if a fire starts.

For as long as data has been collected, the U.S. fire death problem has been a residential one.
The numbers have dropped over the past 30 years, but the rate has remained steady. More than
eight out of every 10 civilian structure fire deaths and most civilian fire injuries occur in homes.
On a percentage basis, these properties are also the most dangerous fireground scene for
firefighters. Obviously, these are the properties we must target if we are going to make inroads
to the overall fire problem.

Fire sprinklers could save lives if more systems were installed in homes. Increasing awareness
about sprinklers leads to more home installations and that protects public safety and improves
communities. But educating new homebuyers and others about fire sprinklers isn’t simple.
Surveys over the years have consistently shown that most people don’t believe a fire will happen
in their own home or understand that a house fire can grow to deadly flashover within a few
minutes.

There is also the challenge of education on fire sprinkler cost, activation and maintenance.
Recognizing these outreach challenges, HFSC works to find new partnerships and innovative
methods to help the public understand how dangerous house fires truly are, and how critical fire
sprinklers are to life safety.

The idea to explore the environmental impact of sprinklered and non-sprinklered house fires was
born a few years ago during an HFSC strategic planning session. We were confident that home
fire sprinklers are also indeed “green” and we wanted to tap into the nation’s heightened interest

v
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

in the environment as a means to draw attention to their overall benefit. But we wanted to make
a scientific case for it.

That led us to FM Global and to a lengthy joint effort that has made it possible to prove, without
doubt, that sprinklers not only save lives and protect property; they also protect our planet.

We are grateful to FM Global, one of the world’s largest business property insurers, for
partnering with HFSC in this residential safety effort. One of the reasons we turned to
FM Global is because of the leadership role they have taken in fire sprinkler research over the
past 50 years. And we knew the remarkable scientific testing facilities at FM Global’s Research
Campus would benefit our study and ensure its findings would be unimpeachable.

As you’ll see when you read this technical report, the fire safety community’s efforts to increase
awareness of all aspects of home fire sprinkler technology will benefit from this new
environmental data. Consumers, homebuilders, the fire service, and local officials now have a
new and important way to view home fire sprinkler protection.

This research would not have been possible were it not for the generosity of FM Global,
specifically the management leadership of Dr. Lou Gritzo and the personal commitment of
Dr. Christopher Wieczorek. Thanks to their vision, professionalism and dedication, HFSC now
has the data to prove that sprinklers are indeed “green” in addition to the benefit they offer to
protect lives and property.

Gary S. Keith
Chair, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition Board of Directors

vi
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

ABSTRACT

The present study examines the relationship of automatic fire sprinkler technology to
environmental sustainability. The work includes the evaluation of risk factors, such as fires, on
the total lifecycle carbon emissions of a typical single- or two-family home. Additionally, an
experimental quantification of the environmental benefits achieved by the use of automatic fire
sprinklers was conducted.

Large-scale fire tests were conducted using identically constructed and furnished residential
living rooms. In one test, fire extinguishment was achieved solely by fire service intervention,
and in the other, a single residential automatic fire sprinkler was used to control the fire until
final extinguishment was achieved by the fire service. Comparisons of the total greenhouse gas
production, quantity of water required to extinguish the fire, quality of water runoff, potential
impact of wastewater runoff on groundwater and surface water, and mass of materials requiring
disposal between the two tests were made.

The results show that in addition to providing life safety and limiting property damage, the use of
automatic fire sprinklers is a key factor in achieving sustainability.

vii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

viii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been successful without the efforts and contributions of numerous
individuals. The authors would like to thank Mr. Gary Keith, Ms. Peg Paul, and the entire board
of directors of the nonprofit Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition (HFSC) who worked in partnership
with FM Global to define the scope and objectives of this project. The input from the board
members in planning the testing was greatly appreciated.

The authors would like to especially thank Mr. Richard Chmura, Mr. Jeffery Chaffee,
Mr. Michael Skidmore, Mr. Robert Harriman, and the entire staff of the FM Global Research
Campus Large Burn Laboratory and the Calorimetry Laboratory. This project would not have
been possible without their efforts and technical abilities.

A special thanks to Mr. Wayne Milette, and all of the firefighters at the Research Campus, along
with Mr. Dana Haagensen of the Massachusetts State Fire Marshal’s Office, for their input and
consultation on appropriate firefighting techniques.

The contributions of Mr. Richard Osburn, Mr. Robert Migliaccio, Mrs. Denise Bernier, and
Mr. Joe Marte in documenting the project via photographs and videos beyond the standard
practice also are greatly appreciated. Furthermore, the extra efforts of Mr. Richard Osburn in
processing and editing the videos for various presentations deserves acknowledgement.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the services of Woodard and Curran, in particular
Mr. Zareh Maserejian, Ms. Lisa M. McIntosh, and Mr. Tom Ennis for their assistance in the
environmental analysis.

As always, the efforts of Mrs. Cheryl McGrath in processing this report are greatly appreciated.

ix
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

x
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

FOREWORD v

ABSTRACT vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS xi

LIST OF FIGURES xv

LIST OF TABLES xvii

NOMENCLATURE xix

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 1

1.2 BACKGROUND 1
1.2.1 Methodology for Estimating LCE Including Risk Factors 2
1.2.2 Effect of Automatic Sprinklers on LCE 5
1.2.3 Quantification of TCE in One- and Two-Family Dwellings 6
1.2.4 Effect of Fire on LCE in Homes 9
1.2.5 Improved Sustainability with Automatic Sprinklers 11

1.3 OBJECTIVES 12

2 FIRE TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES 13

2.1 FACILITY 13

2.2 TEST CONFIGURATION 15

2.2.1 Living Room Construction 15
2.2.2 Room Furnishings 18
2.2.2.1 Primary Fuel Items 20
2.2.2.2 Secondary Fuel Items 21
2.2.2.3 Decorative Items 23

xi
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

2.2.2.4 Ignition Package 24

2.3 FIREFIGHTING 24
2.3.1 Sprinkler Protection 24
2.3.2 Fire Service Response Tactics 25

2.4 INSTRUMENTATION 28
2.4.1 Gas Analysis Measurements within the Duct 29
2.4.1.1 FM Global Instrumentation 29
2.4.1.2 External Instrumentation 30
2.4.2 Gas Analysis Measurements within the Room 30
2.4.3 Ceiling and Room Thermocouples 31
2.4.4 Heat Flux Measurements 31
2.4.5 Smoke Detectors 33
2.4.6 Water Collection System 33
2.4.7 Water Quality Analysis 35
2.4.8 Solid Waste Analysis 36
2.4.9 Video and Photography Details 36

3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 38

3.1 FIRE TEST CHRONOLOGIES 38

3.2 SPECIES MEASUREMENTS WITHIN THE DUCT 39

3.3 HEAT RELEASE RATE AND TOTAL ENERGY 40

3.4 ROOM GAS MEASUREMENTS 42

3.5 CEILING TEMPERATURES 45

3.6 FLASHOVER 47

3.7 WATER USAGE 48

3.8 AIR EMISSION RESULTS 50

3.9 WATER QUALITY RESULTS 55

3.10 SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS 60

xii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

4 DISCUSSION 61

4.1 IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GASES 61

4.2 WATER USE EXTRAPOLATION 63

4.3 FIRE DAMAGE 63

4.5 LANDFILL IMPACTS 69

4.6 ROOM TENABILITY 71

5 CONCLUSIONS 76

6 REFERENCES 79

xiii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

xiv
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Figure 1: Contribution of risk factors to total lifecycle carbon emissions. 3
Figure 2: Illustrations of the large burn laboratory test sites. 13
Figure 3: Room position relative to 20-MW calorimeter. 14
Figure 4: Room exterior walls (south and east walls). 16
Figure 5: Location of room exterior door, archway, and windows. 16
Figure 6: Room frame construction. 17
Figure 7: Furnishing positions and locations within the enclosure. 20
Figure 8: Images of the “Big Easy” recliner and “Kick Back” sofa and loveseat combination
(from store website, not to scale). 21
Figure 9: Images of secondary fuel items: coffee, console, end tables, and bookcase (from store
website, not to scale). 22
Figure 10: Images of secondary fuel items: 37-inch LCD TV and TV stand (from store website,
not to scale). 23
Figure 11: Orientation of decorative items on console table, bookcases, and coffee table. 23
Figure 12: (a) Ignition source and (b) Magazine rack relative to loveseat and curtain. 24
Figure 13: Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products Residential Sprinkler (TY4234). 25
Figure 14: Timeline of fire development versus typical fire service response (taken from
http://www.illinoisfireinspectors.org/ifia.htm). 27
Figure 15: Instrumentation layout within the room. 29
Figure 16: Heat flux gage installation at the floor. 32
Figure 17: Smoke detector and ceiling heat flux gage locations. 33
Figure 18: Revised water collection pan setup for sprinklered test. 35
Figure 19: Baffled water collection pan setup for non-sprinklered test (b). 35
Figure 20: Video camera positions relative to the room. 37
Figure 21: Duct concentrations of CO2 and CO for the non-sprinklered test. 39
Figure 22: Duct concentrations of CO2 and CO for the sprinklered test. 40
Figure 23: Chemical heat release rate as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-
sprinklered tests. 41

xv
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Figure 24: Total chemical energy as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered
tests. 42
Figure 25: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbon concentrations as a
function of time within the room for the non-sprinklered test. 43
Figure 26: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbon concentrations as a
function of time within the room for the sprinklered test. 44
Figure 27: Oxygen concentrations as a function of time within the room for the sprinklered and
non-sprinklered tests. 45
Figure 28: Near-ceiling thermocouple measurements for the non-sprinklered test. 46
Figure 29: Near-ceiling thermocouple measurements for the sprinklered test. 47
Figure 30: Flashover analysis of non-sprinklered test. 48
Figure 31: Total volume of water used as a function of time. 49
Figure 32: Carbon monoxide concentrations and integrated values as a function of time for the
sprinklered test. 73
Figure 33: Carbon monoxide concentrations and integrated values as a function of time for the
non-sprinklered test. 74
Figure 34: Air temperature as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered test at
1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation within the center of the room. 75

xvi
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
Table 1: Selected values for variables in Equation 8 7
Table 2: Home and Fire Statistics from 1999 to 2008 8
Table 3: Manufacturer’s Carpet Specifications (J&J Industries’ website) 18
Table 4: Room Furnishings 19
Table 5: Primary Fuel Items 21
Table 6: Secondary Fuel Items 22
Table 7: Table 4.3.2 Staffing and Response Time taken from NFPA 1720 26
Table 8: FM Global Gas Analyzer Measurement Ranges (Duct) 30
Table 9: Gas Analyzer Measurement Ranges (Room) 31
Table 10: Heat Flux Gage Information 32
Table 11: Wastewater Analysis Taken from Reference 38 36
Table 12: Fire Test Chronologies 38
Table 13: Water Usage Results 50
Table 14: Controlled Burn Air Emissions (Table 3-1 extracted from Reference 38) 51
Table 15: Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Values for Measured Greenhouse Gases 62
Table 16: Water Usage Estimates 63
Table 17: Mass of Combustibles Consumed in Sprinklered Test 64
Table 18: Mass and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Damaged Materials in a Landfill 71
Table 19: Physiological Effects of Carbon Monoxide Exposure and the Times Critical Levels
Were Reached in the Sprinklered and Non-Sprinklered Tests 72

xvii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

xviii
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

NOMENCLATURE

Symbol Definition Units

A Average Area of a Residence m2

ACE embodied Annualized Embodied Carbon Emissions kg CO2 year

ACEoperation Annualized Carbon Emissions Associated with Normal Operations kg CO2 year
"
ACE operation Annualized Carbon Emissions Associated with Normal Operations kg CO2
per Unit Area (m 2
− year )
CE construction Carbon Emissions Associated with Construction Activities kgCO2

CE decommissioning Carbon Emissions Associated with Decommissioning Activities kgCO2

CE embodied Embodied Carbon Emissions kgCO2

"
CE embodied Embodied Carbon Emissions per Unit Area kg CO2 m 2

CE fire Carbon Emissions Associated with a Fire Event kgCO2

CE replacement Carbon Emissions Associated with Reconstruction kgCO2

CO2,equivalent Equivalent Mass of Carbon Dioxide for a Gas kgCO2

eCO2 Mass of CO2 generated per Unit Mass of Fuel Burned kg CO2 kg fuel

Fb Fraction Burned --

ff Frequency of Residential Fires Fires/year

Fr Fraction Replaced --

GWPgas Global Warming Potential of a Gas --

LCE Lifecycle Carbon Emissions kgCO2

LCE operation Lifecycle Carbon Emissions Associated with Normal Operations kgCO2

LCE risk Lifecycle Carbon Emissions Due to Fire Risk kgCO2

LT Lifetime of the Structure Years

m "f Fuel Load per Unit Area kg/m2

xix
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

m gas Mass of Greenhouse Gas kg

RF fire Fraction of Total Carbon Emissions due to Fire Risk %

RF fire , AS Fraction of Total Carbon Emissions due to Fire Risk with %

Automatic Sprinklers
TCE Total Lifecycle Carbon Emissions kgCO2

TCE construction Total Carbon Emissions Associated with Construction Activities kgCO2

xx
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Past research in residential automatic fire sprinkler technology has identified sprinkler
characteristics necessary to provide reliable life safety in residential occupancies [1,2,3]. This
research further resulted in a standardization of the requirements for reliably certifying and
installing residential hardware to meet desired performance requirements [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. The
present study treats a relatively new issue: the relationship of residential sprinkler technology to
environmental sustainability.

1.2 BACKGROUND
To date, the use of residential automatic fire sprinkler technology has been extremely limited
with less than 3% of one- and two-family dwellings taking advantage of its benefits [11]. The
2007 American Housing Survey reported sprinkler usage in 1.5% of single family detached
dwellings and 2.9% in buildings with two to four units [12]. Hall [13] reports that only 1.2% of
fires in the U.S. occurred in one- or two-family dwellings with automatic extinguishing systems
in 2006. The effectiveness of the residential sprinkler has, however, been increasingly
recognized by communities through regulations requiring installation in one- and two- family
dwellings. Of particular note are the long-term ordinances for Scottsdale, Arizona, and Prince
George’s County, Maryland. In both cases, experience with the resulting installations led to
clear documentation of the benefits to life safety and property protection (see, e.g., Reference 11
and 14). In 2006, the NFPA model codes, i.e., NFPA 1, Fire Code, NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,
and NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, adopted the requirement for residential
fire sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings [15,16,17]. The United States Fire
Administration (USFA) has supported the position that: “All homes should be equipped with
both smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers” [18]. Such support led to the approval of a
requirement in the International Code Council (ICC), International Residential Code, on
September 21, 2008, for residential sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and
townhouses [19]. However, only about 400 out of the thousands of jurisdictions in the U.S. were
mandating the installation of residential sprinklers in 2008 [18].

1
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

A new factor to be considered in the assessment of the value of residential sprinklers is the desire
to achieve sustainability through the potential positive impact of sprinklers on the lifecycle
carbon emissions of homes. As part of the sustainability assessment, carbon emissions from a
facility are estimated under normal operating conditions. Recently, Gritzo et al. [20] have
shown that, in industrial and commercial facilities (including light hazard, i.e., hotels and
condos), the impact of fire on lifecycle carbon emissions is significant and needs to be accounted
for due to the release of emissions during the fire and the carbon associated with rebuilding or
reconstruction. Thus, in addition to their life safety and property protection functions, sprinklers
promote sustainability.

1.2.1 Methodology for Estimating LCE Including Risk Factors

The construction, renovation, or improvement of facilities increasingly includes measures to
improve sustainability by reducing environmental impact over their operational lifecycle. Of
primary environmental concern is the emission of greenhouse gases associated with the
consumption of energy during normal operations, or required for the production and
transportation of materials, and construction. Emphasis to date has focused on reduction in
emissions related to energy consumption during normal operations, with a secondary emphasis
on reducing carbon emissions associated with the fabrication and transport of construction
materials, construction processes, and facilities decommissioning, i.e., the “embodied carbon
emissions.” Within the United States, the Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design
Organization (LEED) has established metrics and certification levels for construction and
renovation [21]. LEED certification checklists provide guidance for options and measures to
reduce the environmental impact of facility construction and operations on carbon emissions.
Gritzo et al. [20] supplemented the analysis of normal operations with an analysis taking into
account risk factors of such events as fire, wind, and flood as well as the use of mitigating
technologies such as sprinklers.

The impact of risk factors on lifecycle carbon emission, LCE, is illustrated in Figure 1. The plot
indicates the carbon emission for an occupancy as a function of time. Note that proportions are
not to scale, but are expanded for readability. The lower curve may be considered the carbon

2
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

emissions under normal conditions; the upper curve shows the deviation from that of normal
conditions due to a fire.

Carbon Emissions
Carbon Emissions
Increase due to Fire
Rebuild

Fire

Construction
Demolition
Operation

Time

Figure 1: Contribution of risk factors to total lifecycle carbon emissions.

The carbon emission cycle can be divided into three portions: 1) that due to construction,
CE construction (including that associated with manufacture of material, transportation, and

equipment usage), 2) that due to normal operation over the lifetime of the occupancy, LCE operation

(primarily power consumption, utilities, and maintenance if applicable), and 3) that due to
decommissioning, CE decommissioning (including that due to equipment usage for demolition, and

transportation for disposal).

Thus the total lifetime carbon emissions (TCE) are given as

TCE = CE construction + LCE operation + CE decommissioning (1)

The carbon emissions associated with normal operations are typically estimated on an annual
basis, ACE operation , in which case, LCE operation depends on the lifetime of the occupancy, LT:

3
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

LCE operation = LT ⋅ ACE operation (2)

The annual rate of emission for operation is typically referred to as the “carbon footprint.” Due
to the primary importance of energy consumption on emissions associated with normal
operations, annual rates of carbon emissions can readily be determined using standard
guidance [22].

The emissions due to construction and decommissioning are typically considered one time events
and referred to as embodied emissions, CE embodied , given their inclusion in the physical facility
rather than resulting from normal operations. Hence,

CE embodied = CE construction + CE decommissioning (3)

Note that the embodied emissions are estimated in the literature on a per unit area basis (see e.g.,
Reference 22) and can be annualized over the lifetime, LT, of a facility:

"
CE embodied ⋅A
ACE embodied = (4)
LT

The event of a fire requires taking into account additional considerations in the analysis, namely,
the carbon emissions associated with the fire, CE fire , and those associated with replacement of

the damage caused by the fire, CE replacement . These may be estimated as

CE fire = Fb ⋅ m "f ⋅ eCO2 ⋅ A (5)

and

CE replacement = Fr ⋅ CE embodied (6)

4
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

where Fb is the fraction of material burned; m "f is the total mass of combustible material per

unit area; eCO2 is the carbon dioxide released per mass of material burned; and Fr is the fraction

of material to be replaced during reconstruction.

Figure 1 reflects additional carbon emissions resulting from the fire, referred to as the lifecycle
carbon emissions due to fire risk, LCE risk . Evaluating the risk on a statistical basis over the

lifetime of the structure requires knowledge of the frequency of fires, f f . Thus,

LCE risk = f f ⋅ LT ⋅ (CE fire + CE replacement ) (7)

A risk factor, RF fire , indicating the relative importance of carbon emissions due to risk events

such as fire compared to normal operation over the lifetime can be defined as

LCE risk f f ⋅ LT ⋅ (CE fire + CE replacement )

RF fire = =
TCE TCE
. (8)
⎛ Fb ⋅ m "f ⋅ eCO2 ⋅ A Fr ⋅ CE embodied ⎞
= f f ⋅ LT ⋅ ⎜ + ⎟
⎜ TCE TCE ⎟
⎝ ⎠

The risk fraction, therefore, represents the increase that risk factors pose to the sustainability
posture of a home over its lifetime.

1.2.2 Effect of Automatic Sprinklers on LCE

A reduction in the risk fraction can be achieved through effective risk management strategies,
which can serve to reduce the fire frequency and/or serve to reduce the extent of damage
produced and reconstruction required. In the context of the home, such risk management
includes smoke detectors, fire retardant furnishings, and adoption of ignition source control. The
latter two factors can reduce the frequency of fires; however, they cannot in themselves suppress
a fire once it has occurred. Automatic fire sprinklers are the most common and cost effective

5
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

method to reduce both the frequency of large fires and the severity of damage (and hence the
fraction required for reconstruction). Fire frequency data implicitly include some minimum
threshold for fire size, since very small or incipient fires cause minimal damage and are
frequently extinguished without record. Furthermore, fire severity data are often expressed in
terms of loss values, which may or may not include full cost of replacement.

The effect of automatic sprinklers on the risk factor is expressed by reductions in the fraction
burned, Fb, and the replacement fraction, Fr, values used in Equation 8.

1.2.3 Quantification of TCE in One- and Two-Family Dwellings

Values used in the present study for the variables in Equation 8 are provided in Table 1. In the
following sections, justification for these values will be provided relative to typical one- and
two-family dwellings and the impact of sprinklers. Due to the uncertainty including variability
associated with a number of variables, a lower (Case 1) and upper (Case 2) bound is provided.

Evaluating the TCEs for a typical one- and two-family dwelling from its components as in
Equations 1 to 3 is quite complex given the diversity of construction and patterns of energy
consumption in the U.S. For example, in a report on per capita carbon footprints from residential
energy use of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, Brown et al. [23] indicate a factor of 5.6
between the metropolitan area with the lowest per capita emissions (0.350 metric tons carbon –
Bakersfield, CA) and the highest (1.958 metric tons carbon – Washington, DC). The average
per capita carbon emission from residential energy use was 0.925 metric tons. The objective of
the present study was not to evaluate the range of carbon emissions resulting from such diversity
in the housing population, but to provide a typical result indicative of the significance of the use
of automatic sprinklers to sustainability.

6
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 1: Selected values for variables in Equation 8

Symbol Parameter (units) Case 1 Case 2
ff Frequency of Residential Fires (fires/year) 0.0032 0.0032
LT Lifetime (yr) 50 50
2
mf Fuel Density (kg/m ) 13.2 21
eco2 Mass of CO2 Generated per Unit Mass of Fuel Burned (kg/kg) 3.0 3.0
TCE Total Lifecycle Carbon Emissions (kg CO2) 278,000 278,000
CEembodied Total Embodied Carbon Emissions (kg CO2) 60,680 60,680
Fb Fraction Burned, no AFS (-) 0.07 0.34
Fr Fraction Replaced, no AFS (-) 0.11 1.0
FAFS Reduction in Property Loss Achieved by AFS (%) 51 90
Fb,AS Fraction Burned, AFS (-) 0.03 0.034
Fr,AS Fraction Replaced, AFS (-) 0.05 0.051
Results
RFfire Fraction of Total Carbon Emissions due to Fire Risk, no active protection (%) 0.40 3.7
RFfire,AS Fraction of Total Carbon Emissions due to Fire Risk, with AS (%) 0.20 0.20

Estimates of annual greenhouse emissions characterized as ACEoperation and ACE embodied are

taken from Norman et al. [24] from a study published in 2006 comparing lifecycle energy use
and greenhouse emissions in high and low density residential dwellings. In this study, the low
density residential case study consisted of single detached dwellings located near the border of
the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. All houses consisted of wooden structure and primarily
brick façade. The housing is considered to be typical of current and upcoming residential
construction.

The major component of TCE is typically that associated with normal operation over the lifetime
of the building, LCE operation . Norman et al. [24] estimate the LCE operation based upon total

emission for the residential sector for 1997 obtained from the 2003 Office of Energy Efficiency,
Natural Resources Canada. This report, however, did not distinguish between housing types.
The authors proportioned the emission based upon the total residential energy use attributable to

7
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

single-detached dwellings (72%). They also noted that this choice is expected to be reasonable
given that the majority of residential greenhouse gas emissions results from the burning of fuel
and use of electricity for heating/cooling, which are also the most significant factors in total
"
energy use. In their analysis, they use an annualized value per unit area for ACEoperation of

33.9 kgCO2 (m 2
)
− year . *

To calculate LCE operation the lifetime and area of the dwelling need to be taken into account.

Following Norman et al. [24], a value of 50 years was taken for the lifetime. A reasonable
estimate for the area is the average of the median area reported in the American Housing Survey
(AHS), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, for single-detached and manufactured/mobile
homes for 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 [12, 25, 26, 27, 28]. The data are summarized in
Table 2. The average area of these dwellings was 164 m2 (1,765 ft2). Using these values the
ACEoperation is equal to 5,560 kgCO2 per year and LCE operation is equal to 278,000 kgCO2 .

Table 2: Home and Fire Statistics from 1999 to 2008

Home Statistics Fire Loss Statistics Loss Estimates
Year Average Median Number Dollar Loss Cost per Percentage
Size Price of Fires (In Billions) Loss Damaged
m2 (ft2) (%)
1999 161 (1,730) $108,999 282,500 $5.3 $18,761 17.2
2001 161 (1,737) $124,569 295,500 $5.7 $19,289 15.5
2003 163 (1,755) $140,269 297,000 $5.9 $19,865 14.2
2005 167 (1,795) $165,344 287,000 $6.4 $22,300 13.5
2007 168 (1,807) $191,471 300,500 $6.5 $21,631 11.3
Average 164 (1,765) $146,130 292,500 $6.0 $20,525 14

To evaluate the embodied carbon, Norman et al. [24] analyzed the annual greenhouse gases
emitted and energy used during manufacturing of the home construction materials. Materials
that did not form part of the dwelling structure, such as, appliances or carpeting, were not
considered in the analysis. Materials considered in the analysis included brick, window (glass

*
Note that gases other than CO2 are considered in terms of CO2 equivalents normalized in terms of global warming
potential calculated according to the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. Greenhouse gases
considered by Norman et al. were carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons [24].

8
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

and metal frames), drywall, structural concrete, reinforcing bar, structural steel, plywood, asphalt
shingles, aluminum siding, hardwood flooring and stairs, insulation (fiberglass and polystyrene),
high-density polyethylene vapor barrier, and sub-foundation aggregate. Of these, the first four
materials accounted for between 60% and 70% of the total embodied greenhouse gases.
Proportioning the greenhouse gases over a lifetime of 50 years, Norman et al. [24] estimated that
the average equivalent annual embodied greenhouse gases per unit area is
( )
7.4 kgCO2 m 2 − year . For a 50-year lifetime and a typical area of 164 m2 (1,765 ft2), the total

embodied carbon emissions, CEembodied , is 60,680 kg CO2 .

No effects corresponding to decommissioning were discussed by Norman et al. [24].

Gritzo et al. [20] reported that, for office buildings, the total embodied fraction of total carbon
CEembodied
emissions were on the order of 15% to 20%. As the ratio of (CE embodied + LCEoperation )
in

the present analysis is 18%, no further additions to the embodied carbon emissions are
considered here.

1.2.4 Effect of Fire on LCE in Homes

Some of the parameters needed to estimate LCE risk (Equations 5-7) can be obtained from
NFPA [29] and AHS [12, 25-28] statistics—for example, the frequency of fires and some insight
into the fraction burned, Fb. Key data needed for these estimates are summarized in Table 2.
Using the same years as the AHS statistics, NFPA statistics indicate that the average number of
fires per year for one- and two-family dwellings, including manufactured homes, was 294,350.
The average number of occupied attached or detached single units and manufactured homes
reported by the AHS for the specified years was 90,797,000. Thus, the frequency of fires per
year was 0.0032.

The fraction of structural damage as a result of a fire event is not well documented; therefore, the
fraction burned was estimated based on the reported dollar losses. The estimated average of total
property damage per year was US$6.0 billion. This represents an average loss per fire of
US$20,370. The average of the median house values reported by AHS [12, 25-28] for the same
years was US$146,130, for an average loss due to fire of 14%.

9
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

It is important to recall the wide variation in fire behavior that is not represented by the average
loss. The fire statistics for Prince George’s County, Maryland, for the period of 1992 to 2007, in
which sprinklers were mandated in newly constructed one- and two-family dwellings, provide a
particularly clear example [14]. For the 15-year period, the average loss in 13,494
non-sprinklered fire incidences was US$9,983 while in 101 non-sprinklered fire incidences in
which there was a fatality, the average loss was US$49,503, or an increase by a factor of five for
these fires. The median value of a single-family home in Prince George’s County was reported
as US$145,600; therefore, the average loss due to fire is estimated to be between 7% and 34%.

Since the NFPA data indicate an average loss due to fire that is bounded by the Prince George’s
County data, in this analysis the fraction burned, Fb, will be assumed to be the two bounding
values of 7% and 34%.

In addition to the fraction of material burned and the area of the home, estimating of the carbon
emissions due to a fire event requires the total mass of combustible material per unit area, m "f ,

and the carbon dioxide released per mass of material burned, eCO2 . Davoodi [30] reports fuel

loads of 19.0, 13.2, 21.0, 17.6, and 15.6 kg/m2 for living rooms, family rooms, bedrooms, dining
rooms, and kitchens respectively. For the present analysis the minimum, i.e., 13.2 kg/m2, and
maximum, i.e., 21.0 kg/m2, values will be used as the bounding cases.

The carbon dioxide released per unit of material burned, eCO2 , is taken as 3.0 kg/kg based upon

combustion analysis and flammability data from Tewarson [31].

Finally, the replacement fraction needs to be determined. A conservative assumption is that the
replacement fraction, Fr, is equal to the fraction burned, Fb; however, information indicates that
after a fire event “the per-square-foot cost can increase by as much as 50 percent for readying a
space for reconstruction” [32]. In this analysis, the replacement fraction is assumed to be 1.5
times the fraction burned; however, if the replacement fraction exceeds 50% it is assumed that a
total constructive loss occurred and a value of 100% is used.

10
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Based on these values, the contribution of fire risk to the total lifecycle carbon emissions of a
home without sprinklers (Equation 8) is between 0.4% and 3.7%.

1.2.5 Improved Sustainability with Automatic Sprinklers

The installation of automatic sprinklers is expected to reduce LCE risk (Equation 7) and the Risk
Factor (Equation 8) through a reduction in the burn, and hence, replacement fractions. The
reduction in burn fraction can be estimated from reduction in property loss with sprinklers. The
fire statistics for Prince George’s County [14] provide a significant record of the effect of
residential sprinklers on fire fatalities and property damage. † Between 1992 and 2007, there
were 13,494 fires in single-family dwellings or townhouses. There were 245 fires in such homes
with residential sprinklers installed. No fatalities occurred in any of the sprinklered fires;
however, there were 101 fatalities in the non-sprinklered fires. The average loss per event with a
sprinkler system was US$4,883.83. Using the dollar loss values for events with and without
sprinklers, the reduction in property loss achieved by automatic sprinklers is estimated to be
between 51% and 90% in Prince George’s County.

The contribution of a fire risk to the total lifecycle carbon emissions of a home is reduced to
0.2% when sprinklers are used, as all large fires are eliminated. In addition to saving lives, the
presence of sprinklers ensures a reduction in carbon emissions and decreases the need for
structural replacement as the fire will be limited to the housing contents initially ignited, and
damage due to smoke and water will be minimized and limited to the room of fire origin.

†
Hall [13] has analyzed the performance of automatic sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings. He reports
that, for the period of 2003 to 2006, fire damage was only reduced from an average of US$19,000 to US$14,000 as a
result of automatic sprinklers. Hall comments that “only 1% of reported dwelling fires involve sprinklered
properties, which means any loss estimate for sprinklered dwelling fires will tend to be statistically unstable” [13].

11
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

1.3 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the present study was to quantify the reduction in the environmental impact via
the use of automatic fire sprinklers. To meet the objective, large-scale fire tests were conducted
using identically constructed and furnished residential living rooms. ‡ In the non-sprinklered test,
fire extinguishment was achieved only by fire service intervention, while in the sprinklered test a
single residential sprinkler was used to control the fire until final extinguishment was achieved
by the fire service. In the tests, the fire service initiated water application 10 minutes after the
fire was detected.

Quantification of the environmental benefit of automatic fire sprinklers was based on

comparisons between the sprinklered and non-sprinklered tests including total greenhouse gas
production, quantity of water required to extinguish the fire, quality of water run-off, potential
impact of wastewater runoff on groundwater and surface water, and mass of materials requiring
disposal.

‡
The primary analysis in this report is based on two fully instrumented tests, referred to as sprinklered and non-
sprinklered. An additional, non-sprinklered test was conducted as a demonstration test. This test is referred to as
non-sprinklered (b) and only used to supplement the water analysis.

12
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

2 FIRE TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES

2.1 FACILITY
Testing was conducted under the 20-MW calorimeter in the Large Burn Laboratory (LBL) of the
Fire Technology Laboratory located at the FM Global Research Campus in West Glocester,
Rhode Island. The LBL measures 43 m (140 ft.) by 73 m (240 ft.) by 20.4 m (67 ft.) high and
consists of three test locations: the north and south movable ceilings, and the 20-MW
calorimeter. An illustration of the Large Burn Laboratory is shown in Figure 2. A separate air
emission control system (AECS) is provided for each test location. The 20-MW calorimeter
consists of a 10.7 m (35 ft.) diameter inlet that tapers down to a 3.05 m (10 ft.) diameter duct.
The inlet to the calorimeter is at an elevation of 11.3 m (37 ft.) from the floor. Gas
concentration, velocity, temperature, and moisture measurements are made within the duct
downstream of an orifice. Beyond the measurement location, the exhaust duct connects to a wet
electrostatic precipitator (WESP) prior to cleaned gases venting to the atmosphere. All tests
were conducted with the ventilation rate set to 94.4 m3/s (200,000 scfm).

43 m (140 ft)

North
Movable
VIEWING

Ceiling
73 m (240 ft)

595 m2
20-MW
Calorimeter

South
CORRIDOR

Movable
Ceiling
595 m2

Figure 2: Illustrations of the large burn laboratory test sites.

13
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

The rooms, described in Section 2.2.1, were positioned under the 20-MW calorimeter as shown
in Figure 3. The room centerline was offset relative to the calorimeter bell centerline by
approximately 1.1 m (3.75 ft.) in the north-south direction to ensure that the gases exiting the
room were collected within the calorimeter.

The demonstration test, non-sprinklered (b), was conducted with the room located under the
north movable ceiling. The room was offset to the south-east corner of the ceiling and the
movable ceiling was set to a height of 12.2 m (40 ft.).

10.7 m

Calorimeter bell

~4.2 m

~2.1 m ~2.4 m

Open vent

Breakable window

Closed door

Figure 3: Room position relative to 20-MW calorimeter.

14
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

2.2 TEST CONFIGURATION

2.2.1 Living Room Construction
The living room was constructed by an outside contractor, R&R Wolf Construction, Inc. of
North Attleboro, Massachusetts, using standard industry practices. The room measured 4.6 m
(15 ft.) wide by 6.1 m (20 ft.) long, and had a 2.4 m (8 ft.) high ceiling. To simulate a single
room of a larger house, two of the walls were considered exterior walls and included windows
and an exterior door. The other two walls were considered interior house walls, with one being
solid with no openings and the other having a 1.2 m wide x 2.1 m tall (4 ft. x 7 ft.) archway.
Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 present illustrations of the room construction, location of the
room penetrations, and a description of common construction terms.

The main deck of the enclosure had interior dimensions of 4.6 m x 6.1 m (15 ft. x 20 ft.) and was
constructed with 50.8 mm x 203 mm (2 in. x 8 in.) lumber. The perimeter decking joist boards
forming the box frame for the floor were constructed with 4.9 m and 6.7 m (16 ft. and 22 ft.)
boards. These boards were doubled up along the perimeter and cut to provide exterior
dimensions of 4.9 m x 6.4 m (16 ft. x 21 ft.). The frame was then filled with kiln dried #2 grade
spruce boards spaced 406-mm (16-in.) on center, which were supported by joist hangers at each
end. The framed deck was then covered with 19.1 mm (3/4 in.) CDX fir tongue-and-groove
plywood flooring.

15
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Figure 4: Room exterior walls (south and east walls).

Figure 5: Location of room exterior door, archway, and windows.

16
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Ceiling joist
Header plates
Window header

Sheetrock

Stud
Window shoe plate

Perimeter decking Shoe plate

Figure 6: Room frame construction.

The enclosure sides consisted of two walls having interior dimensions of 4.6 m x 2.4 m (15 ft. x
8 ft.) and two walls with interior dimensions of 6.1 m x 2.4 m (20 ft. x 8 ft.) that were of
consistent construction using 50.8 mm x 152.4 mm (2 in. x 6 in.) lumber. A shoe plate and two
header plates constructed of 4.9 m (16 ft.) long boards were used for the shorter walls and 6.4 m
(21 ft.) long boards for the longer walls. The walls were then filled with 2.4 m (7 ft. 8 in.) studs
spaced 406-mm (16-in.) on center. The stud pattern was disrupted to allow for windows and
door/archway openings. The window openings included a double shoe plate and single header,
while the door and archway openings had only a single header. The inside walls were finished
with 15.9 mm (5/8 in.) fire rated sheetrock that was taped, spackled, and painted a tan color.

The ceiling was constructed using 50.8 mm x 152.4 mm (2 in. x 6 in.) lumber spaced 406-mm
(16-in.) on center. Since no perimeter boxing was necessary, the joists were towed-in to the wall
header plates. To support the ceiling sheetrock, 25.4 mm x 76.2 mm x 4.9 m (1 in. x 3 in. x
16 ft.) spruce strapping, spaced 406-mm (16-in.) on center, was installed perpendicular to the
ceiling joints. The ceiling was finished with 19.9 mm (5/8 in.) fire rated sheetrock that was
taped, spackled, and painted bright white.

The two exterior walls and the ceiling were insulated using R13 and R19 fiberglass insulation
respectively. The main deck also included Alias (Style 2760) carpeting with an Endure®Plus
backing from J&J Industries. Carpet specifications taken from the manufacturer’s website are
provided in Table 3.

17
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 3: Manufacturer’s Carpet Specifications (J&J Industries’ website)

Alias Style (2760)
Yarn 100% Nylon: Encore® SD Ultima® (with recycled content)
Bulked Continuous Filament
Dye Method Solution Dyed
Surface Texture Level Loop
Pattern Repeat N/A
Gauge 1/8 (3.15 rows/cm)
Tufted Stitches Per Inch 8.5 (3.35 stitches/cm)
Yarn Weight 882 grams/m2 (26 oz./yd2)
Finished Pile Thickness 3.05 mm (0.120 in.) (ASTM D-418)
Density 7,800
Weight Density 202,800
Secondary Backing Endure® PLUS
Special Treatments ProTex® Fluorochemical
Width 3.66 m (12 ft.)
Flammability Class 1
Smoke Less Than 450 flaming
Static Generation Less than 30 kV (AATCC-134)
ADA Compliance Compliant For Accessible Routes

The windows installed in the room were Kasson & Keller, Inc., double hung, replacement
windows measuring 0.9 m by 1.47 m (3 ft. by 4 ft. 10 in.). The windows were constructed of
PVC frames with double-pane glass. The total weight of the windows was 23.6 kg (52 lb.) and
the weight of the frame alone was 9.1 kg (20 lb.). The exterior door was steel clad with an
insulated core and had dimensions of 0.9 m by 2.0 m (36 in. by 80 in.). The door had a 0.51 m
wide by 0.9 m tall (20 in. by 36 in.) single pane window. The exact locations of the exterior door
and windows are shown in Figure 4, and each was installed with a 203 mm (8 in.) sill.

2.2.2 Room Furnishings

Each of the rooms was furnished with the items listed in Table 4. The items are grouped into
four categories: primary fuel items, secondary fuel items, decorative items, and ignition package.
Each category of items will be discussed in detail in Sections 2.2.2.1 to 2.2.2.4. A schematic of
the room with relative positions of the primary and secondary fuel items, and the ignition
package is presented in Figure 7.

18
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 4: Room Furnishings

Quantity Item
Primary Fuel Items
1 Recliner
1 Sofa
1 Loveseat
Secondary Fuel Items
1 Coffee Table
1 Console Table
1 End Table
1 TV Stand with Shelves
2 Bookcase
1 37-inch LCD Television
Decorative Items
1 Ceramic Table Lamp
1 Picture Frame (330 mm x 432 mm) (13 in. x 17 in.)
6 Picture Frame (127 mm x 178 mm) (5 in. x 7 in.)
1 Mirror (400 mm x 972 mm) (15 ¾ in. x 38 ¼ in.)
1 Poster Frame (610 mm x 914 mm) (24 in. x 36 in.)
1 Wall Clock (248 mm) (9 ¾ in. Diameter)
13.5 lbs Magazines
1 Alarm Clock
8 CD Box with Lid
5 Hardcover Books
1 Plant Pot
6 Drapes
Ignition Package
1 Magazine Rack
3 Newspapers

19
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

0.89 m

m
66
0.
0.38 m TV Stand

Bookshelf
Bookshelf

M. rack

0.62 m
Console Table

Coffee Table

0.46 m

Table/lamp 0.08 m
0.98 m

0.28 m
0.08 m
0.66 m 0.81 m

Figure 7: Furnishing positions and locations within the enclosure.

2.2.2.1 Primary Fuel Items

The primary fuel items consisted of a “Big Easy” Recliner and a “Kick Back” Sofa and
Loveseat. The loveseat and sofa came with eight decorative throw pillows that are considered
part of the package as shown in Figure 8. The dimensions, total weight, and major combustible
materials for each item are listed in Table 5. The weights of the sofa and loveseat include four
throw pillows.

20
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 5: Primary Fuel Items

Item Dimensions Total Weight Principle Combustible
(L x D x H) kg (lb.) Material
mxmxm
(in. x in. x in.)
Big Easy Recliner 0.99 x 1.12 x 1.04 44.5 (98.1) Urethane foam, wood frame
(39 x 44 x 41)
Kick Back Sofa 2.41 x 1.04 x 0.97 69.9 (154.1) Polyurethane foam, wood frame
(95 x 41 x 38)
Kick Back Loveseat 1.83 x 1.04 x 0.97 56.9 (125.5) Polyurethane foam, wood frame
(72 x 41 x 38)

Figure 8: Images of the “Big Easy” recliner and “Kick Back” sofa and loveseat
combination (from store website, not to scale).

2.2.2.2 Secondary Fuel Items

The total mass, dimensions, and combustible material for each of the secondary fuel items are
listed in Table 6. Images of each item, taken from the retail store websites, are shown in
Figure 9 and Figure 10.

21
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 6: Secondary Fuel Items

Item Dimensions Total Weight Principle Combustible
(L x D x H) kg (lb.) Material
mxmxm
(in. x in. x in.)
Mission Natural Coffee Table 1.0 x 0.5 x 0.4 15.1 (33.3) Rubberwood
(40.5 x 20 x 16.5)
Mission Natural Console Table 1.2 x 0.4 x 0.8 15.6 (34.4) Rubberwood
(48 x 15.25 x 30)
Mission Natural End Table 0.5 x 0.48 x 0.5 8.3 (18.3) Rubberwood
(20.1 x 19 x 20.1)
TV Stand with Shelves 1.1 x 0.44 x 0.5 21.2 (46.7) Laminated composite wood
(41.5 x 17.25 x 20)
Kilby Bookcase 0.67 x 0.24 x 1.9 18.5 (40.8) Laminated composite wood
(26.4 x 9.5 x 76.4)
37-inch LCD Television 0.9 x 0.2 x 0.67 16.7 (36.8) Unexpanded plastic
(36.75 x 9.5 x 26.5)

Figure 9: Images of secondary fuel items: coffee, console, end tables, and bookcase (from
store website, not to scale).

22
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Figure 10: Images of secondary fuel items: 37-inch LCD TV and TV stand (from store
website, not to scale).

2.2.2.3 Decorative Items

The decorative items listed in Table 4 were arranged throughout the room as shown in Figure 11.
Due to the low fire load contribution of these items to the overall heat release rate, a detailed
breakdown of the individual components has not been made. The primary combustible materials
were cotton, soft woods, polystyrene and polypropylene plastic, cardboard, and paper. The total
weight of all of the decorative materials was 26.7 kg (59 lb.) and is based on the listed shipping
weights.

Figure 11: Orientation of decorative items on console table, bookcases, and coffee table.

23
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

2.2.2.4 Ignition Package

The fire was initiated in a magazine rack filled with three rolled up newspapers (see Figure 12a),
which was positioned adjacent to the loveseat as shown in Figure 12b. The dimensions of the
magazine rack were 338 mm x 152 mm x 279 mm (13.3 in. x 6 in. x 11 in.). The magazine rack
was constructed of medium density fiberboard and weighed 1.7 kg (3.75 lb.). The newspapers
were ignited using a propane torch.

(a) (b)

Figure 12: (a) Ignition source and (b) Magazine rack relative to loveseat and curtain.

2.3 FIREFIGHTING
Fire control and suppression was achieved in the non-sprinklered test by manual fire service
intervention only; in the sprinklered test, a single residential sprinkler was used to control the fire
until final extinguishment was achieved by the fire service.

2.3.1 Sprinkler Protection

A single FM Approved Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products recessed residential sprinkler
(TY4234), Figure 13, was installed at the ceiling center within the living room. The sprinkler
was equipped with a fast-response fusible link, which had a temperature rating of 68°C (155°F).
A nominal operating pressure of 1.3 bar (19.0 psig) was used, resulting in a 4.1 mm/min
(0.1 gpm/ft2) water density, in accordance with FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet
2-5, Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers in Residential Occupancies [10].

24
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Figure 13: Tyco Fire Suppression & Building Products Residential Sprinkler (TY4234).

2.3.2 Fire Service Response Tactics

In all of the tests, the fire service response was initiated via smoke detector activation. Upon
activation a 10-minute response clock was started. The 10-minute delay accounted for fire
service notification, dispatch, arrival, and setup and was based on nationally accepted standards,
including NFPA 1710 [33], NFPA 1720 [34], and other published literature [35]. NFPA 1710,
Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency
Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments,
Section 5.2.4.1.1 states that “The fire department's fire suppression resources shall be deployed
to provide for the arrival of an engine company within a 240-second travel time to 90 percent of
the incidents” [33]. For volunteer fire departments, NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization
and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special
Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments, states that for structural firefighting of
a “low-hazard occupancy such as a 2000 ft2 (186 m2), two-story, single-family home without a
basement” [34] in urban areas shall be 9 minutes, 90% of the time, and in rural areas the
response time increases to 14 minutes, 80% of the time (see Table 7). Furthermore, Section
4.3.3 states “Upon assembling the necessary resources at the emergency scene, the fire
department shall have the capability to safely commence an initial attack within 2 minutes 90
percent of the time” [34].

25
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 7: Table 4.3.2 Staffing and Response Time taken from NFPA 1720

A publication by the Illinois Fire Inspectors Association states that the average time for
firefighters to open hose nozzles after a fire is detected is 10 minutes (see Figure 14).

26
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Figure 14: Timeline of fire development versus typical fire service response (taken from
http://www.illinoisfireinspectors.org/ifia.htm).

Firefighting activities were in compliance with recognized fire service attack standards including
NFPA and Oklahoma State University’s “Essentials of Fire Fighting and Fire Department
Operations” [35].

NFPA 1710, Section 5.2.4.2.2 recommends “establishment of an effective water flow application
rate of 300 gpm from two handlines, each of which has a minimum flow rate of 100 gpm” [33].
This is for an “initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical 2000 ft2 two story
single-family dwelling” [33].

To comply, two 30.5-m (100-ft.) long, 1 ¾ in. attack handlines with Task Force Tip Thunder Fog
Nozzles, model #FTS200, set at 360 lpm (95 gpm), were staffed with two trained firefighters

27
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

each. A constant 6.9 bar (100 psi) nozzle pressure was supplied. For safety reasons, a third
identical attack line was staffed and supported but not utilized.

During the non-sprinklered test, firefighting tactics as recommended by Reference 35 were

closely followed. A realistic and aggressive interior attack occurred once deemed practical as a
result of a direct exterior attack. This was executed by straight stream water application to
obtain maximum cooling and darkening down of visible fire immediately at the 10-minute fire
interval.

Interior entry was gained as soon as possible and a short period of 40-60 degree fog spray was
applied to obtain maximum cooling and fire extinguishment. Proper ventilation had occurred as
the windows and door had already burned out and fallen out of the structure. A straight stream
was then applied to conduct and pursue final extinguishment.

In the sprinklered test, only an interior attack was required because of the sprinkler activation
and subsequent fire control. At the 10-minute mark, firefighters approached the room, pried
open the exterior door and used a single fire hose line to attack the fire. The second attack line
provided backup only. A short period of 40-60 degree fog spray was applied to obtain maximum
cooling and fire extinguishment. Final extinguishment occurred through direct application of a
straight stream.

2.4 INSTRUMENTATION
Scientific measurements internal and external to the room were made in each test. Each room
was instrumented with ceiling and elevation thermocouples, heat flux gages, and gas
measurements. All instrumentation was calibrated in accordance with ISO/IEC
17025-2005 [36]. The instrumentation layout within the room is shown in Figure 15. The
following sections describe each of the instruments used in the tests.

28
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

4.6 m

Figure 15: Instrumentation layout within the room.

2.4.1 Gas Analysis Measurements within the Duct

Multiple gas measurements were made, within the 20-MW calorimeter duct, to evaluate the
products of combustion generated during the fire tests. The data was used to quantify the
reduction in greenhouse gases and pollutants between the sprinklered and non-sprinklered tests,
and to determine the chemical heat release rate and total energy released.

2.4.1.1 FM Global Instrumentation

Continuous real-time gas measurements within the 20-MW calorimeter duct include oxygen,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and total hydrocarbons. A Rosemount Analytical MLT series
analyzer, model MLT-4T-IR-IR-PO2, was used to measure carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide
and oxygen. The analyzer comprises infrared sensors to measure carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide, and a paramagnetic sensor to measure oxygen. Total hydrocarbons were measured, as
equivalent methane, using a Rosemount Analytical analyzer, model NGA2000 FID2. The
analyzers were set to operate with ranges indicated in Table 8.

29
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 8: FM Global Gas Analyzer Measurement Ranges (Duct)

Species Range
Carbon Dioxide (ppm) 0 - 25,000
Carbon Monoxide (ppm) 0 - 5,000
Oxygen (%) 0 - 21
Total Hydrocarbons (ppm) 0 - 5,000

2.4.1.2 External Instrumentation

Standard FM Global measurements within the duct were supplemented by an outside contractor,
Air Pollution Characterization and Control, Ltd. (APCC), retained by Woodard & Curran.
Measurements included the following:
• Criteria Pollutants
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
• Greenhouse Gas Pollutants
• Particulate Matter
• Heavy Metals
• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
• Other Organic and Inorganic compounds
• Total Hydrocarbons
• Oxygen
Full details on the measurement techniques and instrumentation are reported in Reference 37.

2.4.2 Gas Analysis Measurements within the Room

Continuous real-time gas samples for measurement of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen,
and total hydrocarbons were obtained at the center of the room at a 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation. For
the sprinklered test a Rosemount Analytical MLT series analyzer, model MLT-4T-IR-IR-PO2,
was used to measure carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The analyzer comprises
infrared sensors to measure carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and a paramagnetic sensor to
measure oxygen. Total hydrocarbons were measured as equivalent methane, using a Rosemount

30
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Analytical analyzer, model NGA2000 FID2. The analyzers were set to operate with ranges
indicated in Table 9. For the non-sprinklered test, units were rented from Clean Air Instrument
Rental of Palatine, Illinois. The analyzers used were Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd. model ZRH
carbon monoxide analyzer, Horiba, Ltd. model VIA-510 carbon dioxide analyzer, J.U.M.
Engineering GmbH model 3-300A total hydrocarbon analyzer, and a Servomex Ltd. model
1420C oxygen analyzer. The analyzers operated within the ranges indicated in Table 9.

Table 9: Gas Analyzer Measurement Ranges (Room)

Species Sprinklered Non-Sprinklered
Carbon Dioxide (ppm) 0 - 50,000 0 - 250,000
Carbon Monoxide (ppm) 0 - 10,000 0 - 100,000
Oxygen (%) 0 - 21 0 - 25
Total Hydrocarbons (ppm) 0 - 5,000 0 - 100,000

2.4.3 Ceiling and Room Thermocouples

Temperatures under the ceiling were monitored during each test using 13 20-gage Type K bare-
bead thermocouples. These thermocouples have a 19-mm (0.75-in.) exposed length of wire. The
time response of these thermocouples has been measured § and is characterized by an RTI value
of 8 ±1 (m·s)1/2 (14.5 ±1.8 (ft·s)1/2). The thermocouples were positioned as shown in Figure 15
and the beads were located approximately 76 mm (3 in.) below the ceiling. The 13 thermocouple
labels are identified in Figure 15.

An additional thermocouple with the same characteristics as those described above was installed
adjacent to the gas sampling location at the center of the room described in Section 2.4.2.

2.4.4 Heat Flux Measurements

Heat flux gages were used to evaluate the heat transfer from the gases near the ceiling to the
floor and ceiling. The gages were water cooled Schmidt-Boelter sensors. Three gages were used
in each test; two were located on the floor—one at the center of the room and one at the

§
H-Z Yu, “Sensitivity of the certified Omega 20-gage thermocouple used at LBL,” Email dated June 2, 2008.
Also: “RE: Sensitivity of 20-gage TCs,” Email dated August 27, 2008.

31
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

archway; a third gage was located at the ceiling directly above the one installed on the floor at
the archway. The floor mounted gages were installed with the top surface flush with the top of
the carpet as shown in Figure 16. The model and maximum measurement value of each gage, at
each location, are listed in Table 10.

Heat Flux Gage

Figure 16: Heat flux gage installation at the floor.

Table 10: Heat Flux Gage Information

Location Model Maximum Value
Non-Sprinklered Test
Floor (center) 64-5SB-20KS 57 kW/m2 (5 BTU/ft2s)
Floor (archway) 64-5SB-20KS 57 kW/m2 (5 BTU/ft2s)
Ceiling (archway) 64-15SB-20KS 170 kW/m2 (15 BTU/ft2s)
Sprinklered Test
Floor (center) 64-5SB-20KS 57 kW/m2 (5 BTU/ft2s)
Floor (archway) 64-5SB-20KS 57 kW/m2 (5 BTU/ft2s)
Ceiling (archway) 64-5SB-20KS 57 kW/m2 (5 BTU/ft2s)

32
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

2.4.5 Smoke Detectors

Each room was instrumented with two smoke detectors, one ionization detector and one
photoelectric detector. The ionization detector was a Kidde, Model 0916 (Part Number 440375)
and the photoelectric detector was a Kidde, Model PE9 (Part Number 440378). ** Detector
operation was monitored and recorded by connecting the speaker signal to the data acquisition
system.

The detectors were installed on the interior wall with the centerline of the detectors 22.9 cm
(9 in.) below the ceiling. The photoelectric detector was 20.3 cm (8 in.) inward from the edge of
the archway and the ionization detector was 35.6 cm (14 in.) from the edge.

Heat Flux Gage

Smoke Detectors

Figure 17: Smoke detector and ceiling heat flux gage locations.

2.4.6 Water Collection System

A special water collection system was constructed to collect the portion of the water exiting the
living room via the archway. The system generally consisted of a stainless steel collection pan
fastened to the base of the archway. Two sump pumps were located within the pan to transfer
**
FM Approved units were not used for these tests since battery operated residential detectors were required and
FM Approvals does not approve these types of detectors.

33
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

the water to a 1040 L (275 gal.) intermediate bulk container (IBC). Depending on the volume of
water flowing through the archway, either a ⅓ HP Goulds model SP035M or 1/16 HP Simer
model 2310-03 sump pump was turned on to keep the collection pan from overflowing. Each
test used a new IBC, and the stainless steel collection pan was scrubbed and triple rinsed with
distilled water between tests to ensure there was no cross contamination. The collection pan was
also covered in plastic wrap until immediately before the start of each test.

For the non-sprinklered test this system consisted of a 1.85 m long x 0.3 m wide x 0.36 m tall
(6 ft. 1 in. x 1 ft. x 1 ft. 2 in.) stainless steel pan connected to the IBC with plastic tubing.
However, the heat output from the fire exiting the archway was sufficient to damage the pumps
and burn the plastic tubing. This resulted in an unknown amount of contamination to the
collected water. Consequently, the collection system was redesigned to minimize the heat flux to
the pumping system for the sprinklered test and the demonstration test (referred to as
non-sprinklered test (b)). The revisions to the system included increasing the length of the
collection pan to 2.46 m (8 ft. 1 in.) and moving the pumps to the pan edge away from the
archway, Figure 18. Additional revisions to the system for non-sprinklered test (b) included
changing all tubing to stainless steel and surrounding the pumps with a stainless steel baffle,
Figure 19.

34
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Figure 18: Revised water collection pan setup for sprinklered test.

Figure 19: Baffled water collection pan setup for non-sprinklered test (b).

2.4.7 Water Quality Analysis

The services of Woodard and Curran were retained to evaluate the quality of the wastewater
generated in each test and to determine the potential environmental impacts on groundwater and
surface water. Analysis of the water samples included general chemistry parameters, heavy
metals, cyanide, volatile organic compounds, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The
complete list of analysis and appropriate test methods is provided in Table 11. Full details of the
water analysis are reported in Reference 38.

35
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 11: Wastewater Analysis Taken from Reference 38

Analysis Test Method
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) USEPA 624
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) USEPA 625
pH USEPA 150.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand – COD SM 5220
Specific Conductance SM 2510
Ammonia Nitrogen SM 4500
Nitrate Nitrogen SM 4500
Total Cyanide SM 4500
Total Suspended and Dissolved Solids SM 2540
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SM 5310
Total Phosphorous SM-4500P-E(M)
Total and Dissolved Priority Pollutant 13 Metals* USEPA 6010B/7470
*Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.

2.4.8 Solid Waste Analysis

The services of Woodard and Curran were retained to evaluate the solid waste generated in each
test to determine if the debris exhibited the hazardous waste characteristics of toxicity. Samples
of ash and/or charred materials were collected after each test and analyzed per the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), Method 1311. Details of the solid waste analysis are reported in Reference 38.

2.4.9 Video and Photography Details

Each test was documented via video and still photography. Video documentation consisted of
five cameras in total: two cameras viewing inside the living room (Panasonic Color CCTV,
Model # WV-CP504) and three cameras, including a standard definition (Sony DSR-PD170) and
two high definition (Sony HVR-Z1U), positioned around the exterior of the room. The standard
definition camera was positioned to view the east wall of the room, while the two high definition
cameras were positioned to look at the north-west and south-west corners of the room. The
cameras viewing the interior of the room were installed in the west and north walls. The camera

36
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

positions relative to the room are shown in Figure 20. In addition to the video images, still
photography was taken before, during, and after each test, via two digital 35-mm cameras.

Figure 20: Video camera positions relative to the room.

37
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3.1 FIRE TEST CHRONOLOGIES

On September 17, 2009, the first fully instrumented, non-sprinklered test was conducted. The
comparison burn, a fully instrumented sprinklered test was conducted on October 1, 2009; in
addition, a second non-sprinklered test was conducted as a demonstration test for the visitors
present on that day. The test setup and conditions for the demonstration test were identical to the
previous two tests. Very limited data was collected during the demonstration test and it is not
included in the main analysis. The fire test chronologies for the two fully instrumented tests are
provided in Table 12.
 
Table 12: Fire Test Chronologies
Event Sprinklered Test Non-Sprinklered Test
(min:s) (min:s)
Ignition 0 0
Smoke Detector Activation (Ionization) 0:25 0:25
Flames Reach the Ceiling 2.4 m (8 ft.) 0:35 1:55
Sprinkler Activation 0:44 ---
Smoke Detector Activation (Photoelectric) 1:10 0:33
Window 1 Breaks --- 4:00
Window 2 Breaks --- 4:42
Flames Extend Out of Archway --- 4:48
Window 4 Breaks --- 5:12
Window 3 Breaks --- 5:32
Flames Exit Around Exterior Door Seam --- 5:42
Window in Exterior Door Falls Out --- 6:18
Fire Service Pries Open Door 10:30 ---
Fire Service Applies Hose Stream 10:38 10:30
Fire Service Enters Room 10:58 11:42
Fire Out 13:40 24:44
Note: Windows are numbered as East Wall, North (#1), East Wall, South (#2), South Wall, East (#3), and South
Wall, West (#4).

In the non-sprinklered test, fire spread from the magazine rack to the curtains and loveseat and
was noticeably slower compared to the sprinklered test, as seen in the time for the flames to
reach the ceiling. This longer incipient period is reflected in the ceiling thermocouple
measurements reported in Section 3.5; however, the slower fire development does not impact
any of the final results and conclusions. It should be noted that in the demonstration test, non-

38
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

sprinklered (b), the fire development from ignition until 44 seconds was very similar to the
sprinklered test. The difference between the two non-sprinklered tests reflects the inherent
variability of large-scale fires.

3.2 SPECIES MEASUREMENTS WITHIN THE DUCT

A limited number of species was measured by both FM Global and APCC within the 20-MW
exhaust duct. The time resolved concentrations of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and
unburned hydrocarbons are presented for the non-sprinklered and sprinklered tests in Figure 21
and Figure 22, respectively. In Figure 21 and Figure 22 the FM Global data are one-second
samples and the APCC data are 30-second grab samples.

7000
6500
6000
FM Global Carbon Dioxide Data
5500 APCC Carbon Dioxide Data
5000 FM Global Carbon Monoxide Data
APCC Carbon Monoxide Data
Concentration (ppm)

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 21: Duct concentrations of CO2 and CO for the non-sprinklered test.

39
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

600 10

550 FM Global Carbon Dioxide Data

9
APCC Carbon Dioxide Data
500
FM Global Carbon Monoxide Data

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (ppm)

8
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (ppm)

450 APCC Carbon Monoxide Data

7
400

350 6

300 5

250 4
200
3
150
2
100

50 1

0 0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 22: Duct concentrations of CO2 and CO for the sprinklered test.

Excellent agreement is seen between the two independent data sets. The slight deviation
between the FM Global data and the APCC data for the carbon monoxide levels in the
sprinklered test is attributed to the very low concentrations, i.e., less than 7 ppm, and the
dynamic range of the FM Global analyzer. In the following sections, the FM Global data are
used to calculate the heat release rate and the total energy generated during each test, and the
APCC data are used to evaluate the environmental impact.

3.3 HEAT RELEASE RATE AND TOTAL ENERGY

The chemical heat release rate (HRR) of each fire was calculated from calorimetry techniques
based on carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide generation. The total chemical energy released
during each fire was determined by integrating the time-resolved heat release rate data.

40
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

The chemical heat release rates as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered tests
are shown in Figure 23; the peak heat release rates were 300 kW and 13,200 kW respectively.
The total energy released in the non-sprinklered test was 5,169 MJ, 76 times greater than that of
the sprinklered test, which was 68 MJ. The calculated total energy released as a function of time
is shown in Figure 24.

14000
13000 Peak 13,200 kW
Non-Sprinklered
12000
11000 Sprinklered
Chemical Heat Release Rate (kW)

Non-Sprinklered
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000 Peak 300 kW
Sprinklered
1000
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (sec)

Figure 23: Chemical heat release rate as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-
sprinklered tests.

41
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

5500
Non-Sprinklered
5000
Sprinklered
4500 Non-Sprinklered

4000

3500
Total Energy (MJ)

3000
Factor of 76 difference
2500

2000

1500

1000

500
Sprinklered
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 24: Total chemical energy as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-
sprinklered tests.

3.4 ROOM GAS MEASUREMENTS

Gas measurements including the generated carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total
hydrocarbons, and the depleted oxygen levels within the rooms were monitored at a 1.5 m (5 ft.)
elevation in the center of the room as described in Section 2.4.2. The generated species are
plotted as a function of time in Figure 25 and Figure 26, for the non-sprinklered and sprinklered
tests respectively.

42
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

200,000 20

180,000 18
Carbon Dioxide
160,000 16
Carbon Monoxide
Total Hydrocarbons
140,000 14
Concentration (ppm)

Concentration (%)
120,000 12

100,000 10

80,000 8

60,000 6

40,000 Note that the data is truncated at the 4

start of Note
firefighting operations
that the data since
is truncated at the

20,000 the gas start of fire fighting operations since

sampling probe was knocked 2
the gas sampling probe was
over byknocked
the hose streams.
over by the hose streams.
- 0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 25: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbon concentrations
as a function of time within the room for the non-sprinklered test.

43
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

8000 0.8

7000 0.7
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
6000 0.6
Total Hydrocarbons
Concentration (ppm)

Concentration (%)
5000 0.5

4000 0.4

3000 0.3

2000 0.2

1000 0.1

0 0.0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 26: Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbon concentrations
as a function of time within the room for the sprinklered test.

It should be noted that the maximum calibrated gas analyzer range for the carbon monoxide, in
the non-sprinklered test, was 100,000 ppm (10%); measured concentrations above the maximum
range should be viewed with caution. Furthermore, in the non-sprinklered test, at some point
after the initiation of firefighting activities the gas sampling probe was knocked over by the hose
streams; therefore, all of the data is truncated at the initiation of firefighting activities for this
test.

Significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbons were
measured in the non-sprinklered test than in the sprinklered test. Maximum carbon monoxide
levels differed by a factor of 420, while maximum carbon dioxide and total hydrocarbons levels
differed by a factor of 24 and 67 respectively.

44
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

The oxygen concentrations as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered tests are
plotted in Figure 27. In the sprinklered test the oxygen level did not decrease below 18.8%;
however, in the non-sprinklered test the oxygen level decreased to zero.

25

20
Sprinklered
Oxygen Concentration (%)

Non-Sprinklered

15

10

5 Note that thethat

Note data
theis truncated
data at the
is truncated for
start of the
firefighting operations
non-sprinklered since
test at the start
the gas of
sampling probe
fire fighting was knocked
operations since the
gas sampling probe was knocked
over byover
the byhose streams.
the hose streams.

0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 27: Oxygen concentrations as a function of time within the room for the sprinklered
and non-sprinklered tests.

3.5 CEILING TEMPERATURES

Thermocouple measurements near the ceiling were taken at 13 locations as described in
Section 2.4.3. The time resolved temperature measurements for the non-sprinklered and
sprinklered tests are plotted in Figure 28 and Figure 29 respectively. In the non-sprinklered test
a temperature rise across the ceiling is observed at approximately 120 s. The thermocouple
reading directly over ignition, i.e., Tclg10NE, reached 530°C (986°F) as the flames spread up the
curtain and reached the ceiling. The decrease in temperatures observed at 150 s is attributed to
the curtain burning and falling to the floor, thus momentarily decreasing the flame height. As the
fire developed and spread, the temperatures near the ceiling rose rapidly and thermocouple
readings in excess of 900°C (1650°F) were recorded throughout the room up to the initiation of

45
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

firefighting activities at 630 s. The maximum readings at several locations approached the upper
calibrated limit of a Type K thermocouple, i.e., 1250°C (2282°F) and should be viewed with
caution.

1500 2732
1400 Tclg10NW Tclg05N 2552
Tclg05SE Tclg10NE Tclg05NW
1300 2372
Tclg05NE Tclg08W
1200 2192
TclgCntr Tclg08E
1100 Tclg05SW Tclg05SE 2012
1000 TClg10SW Tclg05S 1832
Temperature (C)

Temperature (F)
900 Tclg10SE 1652
800 Tclg10NW 1472
700 Tclg10NW Tclg05N Tclg10NE 1292
600 Tclg05NW Tclg05NE
1112
500 932
Tclg08W TclgCntr Tclg08E
400 752
Tclg05SW Tclg05SE
300 572
200 Tclg10SW Tclg05S Tclg10SE 392
100 212
0 32
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 28: Near-ceiling thermocouple measurements for the non-sprinklered test.

In the sprinklered test, fire propagation from the magazine rack to the curtain and loveseat was
more rapid and is reflected in the rapid temperature rise recorded directly over ignition. Upon
sprinkler operation, at 44 seconds, the temperatures decrease and for the remaining duration of
the test the temperatures near the ceiling do not exceed 260°C (500°F).

46
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

1500 2732
1400 Tclg10NW 2552
1300 Tclg05N 2372
Tclg10NE
1200 Tclg10NW Tclg05N Tclg10NE
2192
Tclg05NW
1100 2012
Tclg05NW Tclg05NE Tclg05NE
1000 Tclg08W 1832
Temperature (C)

Temperature (F)
Tclg08W TclgCntr Tclg08E
900 TclgCntr 1652
800 Tclg05SW Tclg05SE Tclg08E 1472
Tclg05SW
700 Tclg10SW Tclg05S Tclg10SE 1292
Tclg05SE
600 1112
TClg10SW
500 Tclg05S 932
400 Tclg10SE 752
300 572
200 392
100 212
0 32
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 29: Near-ceiling thermocouple measurements for the sprinklered test.

3.6 FLASHOVER
Flashover is defined by the International Standards Organization as “the rapid transition to a state
of total surface involvement in a fire of combustible material within an enclosure” [39].
Although not precise, the typical quantitative criteria for flashover are room temperatures
between 500°C (932°F) and 600°C (1112°F), or radiation to the floor of the compartment from
the gas layer between 15 and 20 kW/m2 (1.3 to 1.8 BTU/ft2s). A more subjective demarcation of
flashover is the visual observation of flames external to the enclosure.

Using these criteria, the time to flashover in the non-sprinklered test was determined to be
between 271 seconds and 327 seconds (see Figure 30). The embedded images in Figure 30 are
of the archway taken at the two defining boundaries, i.e., ceiling temperature of 500°C (932°F)
and a floor heat flux of 20 kW/m2 (1.8 BTU/ft2s). The dashed line indicates the visual

47
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

observation of flames extending to the floor within the enclosure and extending out of the
archway.

1600 80
1500 75
Archway Ceiling Thermocouple
1400 70
Archway Floor Heat Flux
1300 Visual Observation of Flashover 65
1200 60
Ceiling TC Temperatures (C)

1100 55

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

1000 50

Flashover
900 45
800 40
700 35
600 30
500 25
400 20
300 15
200 10
100 5
0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
Time (s)

Figure 30: Flashover analysis of non-sprinklered test.

The occurrence of flashover prior to fire service response is an indication that the fire would
have progressed to adjoining rooms, thus increasing the volume of materials consumed by the
fire and the quantity of water required to extinguish the fire. In the sprinklered test the
temperature near the ceiling at the archway did not exceed 136°C (277°F), the heat flux at the
floor did not exceed 0.3 kW/m2 (0.03 BTU/ft2s), and no flames were observed exiting the
enclosure. All of the data indicate that flashover did not occur in this case and the fire was
contained completely to the room of origin.

3.7 WATER USAGE

As noted previously, the water sample from the first non-sprinklered test was potentially
contaminated due to the melted plastic tubing and sump pumps within the water collection pan;
therefore, water flow measurements and water samples for quality analysis were also taken

48
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

during the demonstration test. Data from the demonstration test are labeled non-sprinklered (b).
It should be noted that a more aggressive firefighting approach was also implemented in the
demonstration test to better represent typical fire service response.

The volume of water discharged as a function of time in each of the three tests is plotted in
Figure 31 and the results are tabulated in Table 13.

4500
4200 1120

3900 1040

3600 960
3300 880

Total Water Flow (gallons)

Total Water Flow (liters)

3000 800
2700 720
2400 640
2100 560
1800 480
1500 Sprinklered 400
1200 Non-Sprinklered (a) 320
900 Non-Sprinklered (b) 240
600 160
300 80
0 0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 31: Total volume of water used as a function of time.

Comparing the water usage between non-sprinklered test (a) and (b), the difference in the total
quantity of water discharged was not significant, i.e., ~379 L (100 gal.); however, the more
aggressive firefighting tactic resulted in extinguishment of the fire 7 minutes and 46 seconds
faster. Taking the lower water discharge volume as the representative volume of water for the
non-sprinklered tests and comparing it to the total combined sprinkler and hose stream volume,
for the sprinklered test, it is seen that 50% less water was used in the sprinklered test compared
to the non-sprinklered test. Furthermore, the fire with the sprinkler was extinguished 3 minutes

49
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

and 17 seconds faster than the non-sprinklered fire. This comparison is conservative, i.e.,
expected values for the non-sprinklered case will be larger, for two reasons, 1) the time to
extinguishment and the volume of water used with the more aggressive firefighting tactics was
used for the calculations; and more importantly, 2) in the non-sprinklered tests the fire would
have propagated to adjacent rooms, if not the entire house, requiring more time and water to
extinguish the fire. Conversely, the fire was contained to the ignition area in the sprinklered
room making the results independent of any additional rooms. Extrapolation of the water usage
data to larger occupancies will be made in Section 4.2.

Table 13: Water Usage Results

Sprinklered Non-Sprinklered Non-Sprinklered
(a) (b)
Sprinkler [L (gal.)] 1393 (368) 0 0
Hose Stream [L (gal.)] 545 (144) 4221 (1115) 3835 (1013)
Total [L (gal.)] 1938 (512) 4221 (1115) 3835 (1013)
Time to Extinguishment [s] 820 1484 1017

3.8 AIR EMISSION RESULTS

The following table, labeled Table 14, has been extracted directly from Reference 38. In the
original report the table is labeled Table 3-1: Controlled Burn Air Emissions and the results are
reported in pounds. †† In addition to the mass of each species, the ratio between the non-
sprinklered and sprinklered values is reported for each species. Of the 123 species analyzed,
only 76 were detected in either the sprinklered or non-sprinklered test. There were 24 species
detected at ratios in excess of 10:1, of which 11 were detected at ratios in excess of 50:1, and of
those six were detected at ratios in excess of 100:1. Four species, NH3, 1,2,3-trichloropropane,
carbon tetrachloride, and o(rtho)-xylene, were detected in the non-sprinklered test but not in the
sprinklered test. Similarly, four species, ethanol, hydrogen chloride (HCl), isopropyl alcohol
(IPA), and bromoform, were detected in the sprinklered test but not the non-sprinklered test. The
data indicate that “The total emissions from the Sprinkler controlled burn were lower than the
emissions from the No Sprinkler controlled burn” [38].

††
Note: Woodard and Curran used the terms “No Sprinkler” for the non-sprinklered test, and “Sprinkler” for the
sprinklered test.

50
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 14: Controlled Burn Air Emissions (Table 3-1 extracted from Reference 38)
Emissions (lbs/burn)
17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No
Criteria Pollutants No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
CO 26.42 0.23 113
NO2 0.14 0.14 1
SO2 0.48 0.20 2.4
Total VOC - THC (as CH4) 3.77 0.02 184
Particulate 17.76 1.39 13
Emissions (lbs/burn)
17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No
Greenhouse Gases No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
CO2 793.95 12.98 61
Methane 1.80 0.01 130
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.17 0.02 7
Emissions (lbs/burn)
17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No
Metals No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
Antimony (Sb) 0.017 0.00056 30
Arsenic (As) 0.00056 0.00023 2.5
Barium (Ba) 0.012 0.012 1
Beryllium (Be) 0.0014 0.000056 25
Cadmium (Cd) 0.0014 0.00012 12
Total chromium (Cr) 0.050 0.015 3.3
Copper (Cu) 0.016 0.0091 1.8
Mercury (Hg) 0.0082 0.0048 1.7
Lead (Pb) 0.013 0.0087 1.5
Manganese (Mn) 0.081 0.010 8.3
Nickel (Ni) 0.043 0.0095 4.6
Phosphorous (P) 0.012 0.0084 1.5
Selenium (Se) 0.012 0.00063 19
Silver (Ag) 0.00052 0.00026 2
Thallium (Tl) 0.00070 0.00028 2.5
Zinc (Zn 0.147 0.018 8.4

51
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 14: Controlled Burn Air Emissions (Table 3-1 extracted from Reference 38) (cont’d)
Emissions (lbs/burn)
17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No
Air Toxics and Other Pollutants No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
Acetaldehyde 0.32 0.0016 200
Acrolein 0.21 0.35 0.6
Benzene 0.69 2.06 0.3
Ethanol 0 1.44 0
Ethylene 0.51 0.012 43
Formaldehyde 0.15 0.0092 17
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 0.0026 0.0045 0.6
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0 0.016 0
Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) 0 0.35 0
Methanol 0.20 0.037 5.5
NH3 0.0026 0 ---
NO 0.91 0.021 44
Toluene 0.58 0.084 6.9
Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) 0.07 0.013 5.4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.46 0.56 0.8
Bromoform 0 0.0011 0
Carbon Disulfide 25.15 0.037 678
Chloroform 0.046 0.012 3.8
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) 3.52 0.053 67
Iodo-methane 1.042 0.077 14
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 28.31 0 ---
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.13 0 ---
m(eta)-Xylene 0.057 0.016 3.5
o(rtho)-Xylene 2.97 0 ---
p(ara)-Xylene 7.22 0.90 8
Total Xylenes 10.24 0.91 11
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK) 3.16 0.032 98

52
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 14: Controlled Burn Air Emissions (Table 3-1 extracted from Reference 38) (cont’d)
Emissions (lbs/burn)
17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No
Semi-Volatile Organic Air Toxics No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0 0 ---
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 ---
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 ---
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0 0 ---
1-Chloronaphthalene 0 0 ---
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0056 0.0017 3.3
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0 0 ---
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0 0 ---
2,4-Dichlorophenol 0 0 ---
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0 0 ---
2,4-Dinitrophenol 0 0 ---
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0 0 ---
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0 0 ---
2-Chloronaphthalene 0 0 ---
2-Chlorophenol 0 0 ---
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0065 0.0011 5.7
2-Methylphenol 0.0095 0.0017 5.5
2-Nitroaniline 0 0 ---
2-Nitrophenol 0 0 ---
3 & 4-methylphenol 0.015 0.0020 7.6
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0 0 ---
3-Nitroaniline 0 0 ---
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 0 0 ---
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 0 0 ---
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 0 0 ---
4-Chloroaniline 0 0 ---
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0 0 ---
4-Nitroaniline 0 0 ---

53
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 14: Controlled Burn Air Emissions (Table 3-1 extracted from Reference 38) (cont’d)
Emissions (lbs/burn)

Semi-Volatile Organic Air Toxics 17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No

(con’t) No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
4-Nitrophenol 0 0 ---
Acenaphthene 0 0 ---
Acenaphthylene 0.021 0.00029 75
Aniline 0 0 ---
Anthracene 0.0032 0.00023 14
Benzidine 0 0 ---
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0017 0.00023 7.4
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0018 0.00029 6.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0029 0.00023 13
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0021 0.00023 9
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00088 0.00029 3.1
Benzoic Acid 0.15 0.0011 130
Benzyl Alcohol 0.0011 0.00029 3.7
Benzyl butyl phthalate 0.00026 0.0044 0.1
Biphenyl 0.013 0.0011 12
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 0 0 ---
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 0 0 ---
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether 0 0 ---
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.15 0.061 2.5
Carbazole 0 0 ---
Chrysene 0.0013 0.00023 5.5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00042 0.00023 1.8
Dibenzofuran 0 0 ---
Diethyl phthalate 0 0 ---
Dimethyl phthalate 0 0 ---
Di-N-butyl phthalate 0 0 ---
Di-N-octyl phthalate 0 0 ---
Fluoranthene 0.0085 0.00061 14
Fluorene 0.0035 0.00023 15
Hexachlorobenzene 0 0 ---
Hexachlorobutadiene 0 0 ---
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0 0 ---
Hexachloroethane 0 0 ---
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0019 0.00029 6.7
Isophorone 0 0 ---
Naphthalene 0.092 0.0012 78
Nitrobenzene 0 0 ---
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0 0 ---
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 0 0 ---

54
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 14: Controlled Burn Air Emissions (Table 3-1 extracted from Reference 38) (cont’d)
Emissions (lbs/burn)

Semi-Volatile Organic Air Toxics 17 September 1 October Ratio of Emissions, No

(con’t) No Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler vs. Sprinkler
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0 0 ---
Pentachlorophenol 0 0 ---
Phenanthrene 0.024 0.00055 44
Phenol 0.075 0.00085 88
Pyrene 0.0067 0.00029 23
Note: Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are greenhouse gases that were 
measured during the controlled burns. A result of zero indicates that the constituent was either not 
detected or controlled burn test results were below the detection limit of the analysis. A dash (­­­) 
indicates that ratio was not calculated, because a constituent was not detected in the analysis. 

3.9 WATER QUALITY RESULTS

The following results and discussion related to the wastewater analysis have been extracted
directly from Reference 38. The section and table numbering of the original report have been
maintained. The water analysis includes water samples from each of the fire tests. In addition,
since FM Global uses a closed-loop recycled water system for firefighting purposes, samples of
the recycled water on each day were also analyzed to establish a baseline.

4.2.1 Analytical Results

As discussed, one composite wastewater sample was collected from each controlled burn (i.e.,
with and without sprinkler) immediately following fire response activities. Samples were
analyzed for general chemistry parameters, dissolved and total metals, VOCs, and SVOCs.
Additionally, one recycled water sample was collected per controlled burn and analyzed for the
same suite of parameters. Analytical results for all constituents detected at least once in
wastewater samples are summarized in Table 4-2a and 4-2b. Recycled fire fighting water sample
results are also reported on these tables. The laboratory analytical reports for these samples are
provided in Appendix B. As discussed, there were potential sample contamination issues
associated with the September 17, 2009 sampling event for the No sprinkler controlled burn.
However, for comparative purposes, the analytical results for this wastewater sample and
recycled water samples collected on this date are presented on Table 4-2a.

The values presented in the analytical results table show either a detected concentration, or a
“non-detect” concentration, indicated by a qualifier of “U”. The “U”-qualified value is the
reporting limit (RL), which is the lowest concentration that an analytical instrument can
accurately measure, within specified limits of precision and accuracy. The constituent may
potentially be present at a level below the RL, but the instrument is not able to detect it at a
concentration lower than the RL. Note that RLs are, in part, dependent on sample-specific

55
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

characteristics, such as the level of contaminant present or the sample dilution required for
analysis, and thus, the RL for one analyte in one sample may vary considerably from the RL
reported for the same constituent in another sample.

Because various constituents were detected in the recycled fire fighting water samples, the tables
below provide adjusted concentrations of constituents in each wastewater sample. This adjusted,
or net, concentration represents the difference between the detected level of a constituent in
wastewater and the corresponding detected level in the recycled water sample. Non-detect
results were not included in calculation of the adjusted concentration. A positive net value
indicates that the concentration of constituent in the wastewater sample was greater than that of
the recycled water sample; conversely, a negative value indicates that the concentration in the
recycled water sample was greater than that of the wastewater sample.

56
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 4-2a: Summary of Analytical Results – Wastewater Samples, September 17, 2009
September 17, 2009 Sampling Event
LOCATION RW - 1 WW-1 WW-1
Recycled Water No Sprinkler No Sprinkler
SAMPLING DATE 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009
Units Result Qual Result Qual Net Result*
General Chemistry
pH (H) SU 7.8 11.6 3.8
Specific Conductance umhos/cm 2,100 5,100 3,000
Solids, Total Dissolved ug/l 1,200,000 4,000,000 2,800,000
Solids, Total Suspended ug/l 5,000 U 2,000,000 2,000,000
Cyanide, Total ug/l 5 U 96 96
Nitrogen, Ammonia ug/l 75 U 7,200 7,200
Nitrogen, Nitrate ug/l 100 U 1,900 1,900
Phosphorus, Total ug/l 19 337 318
Chemical Oxygen Demand ug/l 220,000 850,000 630,000
Total Organic Carbon ug/l 71,000 240,000 169,000
Volatile Organic Compounds
Chloroform ug/l 150 160 10
Benzene ug/l 50 U 50 U ND
Styrene ug/l 50 U 50 U ND
Acetone ug/l 5,900 6,400 500
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Phenol ug/l 7 U 230 230
2-Methylphenol ug/l 6 U 100 100
3-Methylphenol/
4-Methylphenol ug/l 6 U 200 200
Benzoic Acid ug/l 86 1,300 1,214
Total Metals
Antimony, Total ug/l 50 U 208 208
Arsenic, Total ug/l 5 U 5 U ND
Chromium, Total ug/l 10 U 10 U ND
Copper, Total ug/l 45 35 -10
Lead, Total ug/l 2 U 12 12
Mercury, Total ug/l 0.2 U 1.3 1.3
Silver, Total ug/l 0.8 U 0.8 U ND
Zinc, Total ug/l 82 188 106
Dissolved Metals
Antimony, Dissolved ug/l 50 U 210 210
Copper, Dissolved ug/l 10 U 10 U ND
Mercury, Dissolved ug/l 0.2 U 1.5 1.5
Zinc, Dissolved ug/l 50 U 50 U ND
U = Constituent not detected at laboratory reporting limit
ug/L = micrograms per liter
SU = standard units
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
Free CN- = Cyanide (CN-) criteria are available for free, or bioavailable, cyanide. Wastewater results are reported for
total cyanide. Total cyanide concentrations are not necessarily indicative of free cyanide concentrations.

*Wastewater concentrations were corrected to account for the contribution of contamination from the recycled firefighting
water used to extinguish the test burns. The net result shown above is the difference between the measured level of a
constituent in the test burn sample and the corresponding recycled water sample.
Non-detect (ND) results were not included in calculating the difference (i.e., these results were assumed equivalent to zero).
A negative result indicates that the test burn sample level was lower than the recycled water concentration.

57
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 4-2b: Summary of Analytical Results – Wastewater Samples, October 1, 2009

October 1, 2009 Sampling Event
LOCATION RW-1 WW-1 WW-1 WW-2 WW-2
Recycled Water Sprinkler Sprinkler No Sprinkler No Sprinkler
SAMPLING DATE 10/1/2009 10/1/2009 10/1/2009 10/1/2009 10/1/2009
Units Result Qual Result Qual Net Result* Result Qual Net Result*
General Chemistry
pH (H) SU 8.1 7.9 -0.2 12.1 4
Specific Conductance umhos/cm 2,200 2,300 100 7,300 5,100
Solids, Total Dissolved ug/l 1,200,000 1,300,000 100,000 5,500,000 4,300,000
Solids, Total Suspended ug/l 5,000 U 36,000 36,000 640,000 640,000
Cyanide, Total ug/l 5 U 639 639 55 55
Nitrogen, Ammonia ug/l 75 U 1,470 1,470 4,850 4,850
Nitrogen, Nitrate ug/l 100 U 130 130 440 440
Phosphorus, Total ug/l 16 500 484 401 385
Chemical Oxygen Demand ug/l 160,000 420,000 260,000 810,000 650,000
Total Organic Carbon ug/l 54,000 110,000 56,000 190,000 136,000
Volatile Organic Compounds
Chloroform ug/l 290 84 -206 82 -208
Benzene ug/l 100 U 62 62 50 U ND
Styrene ug/l 100 U 50 U ND 63 63
Acetone ug/l 13,000 11,000 -2,000 8,000 -5,000
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Phenol ug/l 6.8 U 280 U ND 370 370
2-Methylphenol ug/l 5.8 U 240 U ND 180 180
3-Methylphenol/
4-Methylphenol ug/l 5.8 U 240 U ND 290 290
Benzoic Acid ug/l 80 2,000 U ND 960 U ND
Total Metals
Antimony, Total ug/l 50 U 50 U ND 272 272
Arsenic, Total ug/l 5 U 5 U ND 7 7
Chromium, Total ug/l 10 U 10 U ND 10 10
Copper, Total ug/l 40 61 21 46 6
Lead, Total ug/l 2 U 2 2 18 18
Mercury, Total ug/l 0.2 U 2.5 2.5 0.8 0.8
Silver, Total ug/l 0.8 U 0.8 U ND 1.8 1.8
Zinc, Total ug/l 165 337 172 350 185
Dissolved Metals
Antimony, Dissolved ug/l 50 U 50 U ND 150 150
Copper, Dissolved ug/l 10 U 30 30 10 U ND
Mercury, Dissolved ug/l 0.2 U 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6
Zinc, Dissolved ug/l 128 182 54 50 U ND
U = Constituent not detected at laboratory reporting limit
ug/L = micrograms per liter
SU = standard units
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
Free CN- = Cyanide (CN-) criteria are available for free, or bioavailable, cyanide. Wastewater results are reported for
total cyanide. Total cyanide concentrations are not necessarily indicative of free cyanide concentrations.

*Wastewater concentrations were corrected to account for the contribution of contamination from the recycled firefighting
water used to extinguish the test burns. The net result shown above is the difference between the measured level of a
constituent in the test burn sample and the corresponding recycled water sample.
Non-detect (ND) results were not included in calculating the difference (i.e., these results were assumed equivalent to zero).
A negative result indicates that the test burn sample level was lower than the recycled water concentration.

58
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

4.2.1.2 Pollutant Concentrations in Wastewater

Recycled Water Samples: Analytical results for both of the recycled water samples indicate that
total copper, total zinc, two VOCs (acetone and chloroform), and benzoic acid, a SVOC, are
present at a level above the laboratory reporting limits. In general, the types of constituents
detected in both September 17 and October 1 samples were similar, although concentrations of
these constituents were variable. Of the metals, only zinc was detected in dissolved form, and
only in the October 1, 2009 sample. General chemistry results showed that organic solids were
also present in the water samples. These results indicate that a baseline level of chemical
constituents is present in the recycled water system.

Sprinkler controlled burn: Acetone, benzene, and chloroform were detected in the sample
obtained from the Sprinkler controlled burn, WW-1, on October 1, 2009. Both chloroform and
acetone levels in the Sprinkler controlled burn sample were lower than those of the recycled
water sample collected on the same sample date. No SVOCs were detected in the Sprinkler
sample; however, reporting limits for several of the constituents were elevated in this sample
compared to those in the recycled water sample (due to the high concentrations of several
analytes present in the sample), thereby potentially “masking” the presence of these
constituents. Total and dissolved copper, mercury, and zinc were detected in sample WW-1; lead
was detected only in total form in this sample.

No Sprinkler controlled burn: Similar types of constituents were detected in the samples
obtained from the No Sprinkler controlled burn (samples WW-1, on September 17, 2009 and
WW-2, on October 1, 2009). Chloroform, styrene, acetone, and several phenolic compounds
were detected; both acetone and chloroform levels were lower than those detected in the
recycled water sample. Heavy metals, including antimony, arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury,
and silver, were also detected. Of the metals, only antimony and mercury were detected in
dissolved form, and in both samples, implying that most of the detected metals are likely
associated with suspended particulate matter.

During the October 1, 2009 event, both chloroform and acetone concentrations were highest in
the recycled water sample compared to concentrations detected in the Sprinkler and No
Sprinkler samples. Because both of these compounds are volatile, one would expect a higher
degree of volatilization resulting from either controlled burn (because recycled fire fighting
water is spread over a larger area and because the heat from the fire would increase
volatilization), which may, in part, explain the difference in concentration for these
contaminants.

Three SVOCs were detected in the No Sprinkler sample, whereas none was detected in the
Sprinkler sample; however, the reporting limits for SVOCs in the Sprinkler sample were similar
to or higher than those of the No Sprinkler sample. It is therefore unclear whether SVOCs in the
Sprinkler sample are not actually present or are present but at levels below the reporting limits.

Relative to the recycled water samples, the Sprinkler and No Sprinkler samples contained higher
levels of both total suspended and dissolved solids, organic carbon, and nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorous). In general, the No Sprinkler water samples contained the highest levels of solids
and TOC, and a higher pH. This is expected, considering the high generation of ash resulting

59
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

from the No Sprinkler controlled burn compared to the Sprinkler controlled burn. Of all of the
wastewater samples, the total cyanide concentration was highest in the October 1, 2009
Sprinkler sample. Cyanide gas can be generated from burning synthetic polymers in building
materials and furnishings, as well as natural materials such as wood.

Metals concentrations were variable between the Sprinkler and No-Sprinkler controlled burn
samples, with no clear bias shown by either sample. In general, however, the differences in
concentration between the two controlled burns were less than an order of magnitude. Of the
eight metals analyzed (as total metals), six metals were detected in the No Sprinkler sample at
concentrations higher than that of the Sprinkler sample. However, dissolved copper, mercury,
and zinc concentrations were highest in the Sprinkler controlled burn. Dissolved antimony
concentrations were highest in the No Sprinkler sample.

The pH of the composite wastewater samples from the two No Sprinkler controlled burns were
11.6 and 12.1 vs. pH of 7.9 for the wastewater sample from the Sprinkler controlled burn. Thus,
the wastewater from the No Sprinkler controlled burns was approximately four orders of
magnitude higher in alkalinity than the wastewater from the Sprinkler controlled burn. The
discharge of any wastewater with pH values of higher than 10 would be a serious environmental
concern. Wastewaters exhibiting pH values of greater than 9.0 would be exceeding the allowable
discharge range of pH 5.5-9.0 required by most environmental regulatory agencies.

3.10 SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS

Solid waste from each of the tests, including non-sprinklered test (b) was analyzed as described
in Section 2.4.8. The results of the analysis indicate that all three samples “would not be
considered ‘hazardous waste’ under USEPA regulations”. Furthermore, “the wastes are not
anticipated to significantly leach once landfilled” [38].

60
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

4 DISCUSSION

In the following sections, the reduction in the environmental impact due to the use of automatic
fire sprinklers in a fire will be discussed. Quantification of the environmental impact will be
based on analysis of greenhouse gases, water usage, potential environmental impacts of
wastewater runoff, fire damage, and solid waste material disposed in landfills. In addition, the
benefits of automatic fire sprinklers from a life safety perspective will be presented.

4.1 IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GASES

This section discusses the impact of sprinkler protection on the generation of greenhouse gases.
The measured greenhouse gases reported in Section 3.8 can be converted to an equivalent mass
of carbon dioxide:

CO2,equivalent = GWPgas ⋅ m gas (9)

Where:
CO2,equivalent - equivalent mass of carbon dioxide for a gas

m gas - mass of the greenhouse gas

GWPgas - global warming potential of the gas

The global warming potentials (GWP) “are a measure of the relative radiative effect of a given
substance compared to another, integrated over a chosen time horizon. [40]” A common time
horizon used by regulators is 100 years.

The global warming potential, measured masses of greenhouse gases, and calculated equivalent
carbon dioxide levels are listed in Table 15. The equivalent mass of CO2 generated in the non-
sprinklered test was 404.4 kg (890.7 lb.) versus 8.7 kg (19.2 lb.) generated in the sprinklered test.
This indicates that in the event of a fire, the use of sprinklers can reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions by 97.8%. It should be noted that this is a conservative value, i.e., the expected values
will be larger, since in the non-sprinklered test the fire would have propagated to adjacent rooms,
if not the entire house, before firefighting intervention commenced.

61
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 15: Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Values for Measured Greenhouse Gases
Gas GWP* Measured Mass Equivalent CO2
(Non-Sprinklered) (Sprinklered) (Non-Sprinklered) (Sprinklered)
kg (lb.) kg (lb.) kg (lb.) kg (lb.)
CO2 1 360.1 (794) 5.9 (13.0) 360.1 (794) 5.9 (13.0)
CH4 25 0.82 (1.8) 0.004 (0.019) 20.5 (45.2) 0.1 (0.22)
N2O 298 0.08 (0.17) 0.009 (0.02) 23.8 (52.5) 2.7 (6.0)
Total 404.4 (890.7) 8.7 (19.2)
* Based on a 100-year time interval

These results can be extrapolated to estimate the total greenhouse gas production resulting for all
residential fires within the U.S. between 1999 and 2008. As discussed previously in
Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, the average size of a single-family home during that time period was
164 m2 (1,765 ft2) and the estimated average damage, per NFPA statistics, was 14%.
Furthermore, data from NFPA indicate that the total number of residential fires in one- and two-
family homes (including manufactured homes) between 1999 and 2008 was 2,943,500.
Assuming a direct proportionality between the greenhouse gas emissions and the area of the
room, it is estimated that 14.5 kg/m2 (3.0 lbs/ft2) of equivalent carbon dioxide was generated.
Based on these values, the total amount of greenhouse gases generated between 1999 and 2008,
as a result of residential fires, was 979,950,020 kg (2,160,419,982 lb.) If sprinklers had been
used, the total mass of greenhouse gases, over the 10-year period, would have been reduced by
97.8% to 21,558,900 kg (47,529,240 lb.) On a yearly basis the values are reduced by a factor
of 10.

As a reference, the EPA reports that “In the United States, approximately 4 metric tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) equivalent (almost 9,000 pounds) per person per year (about 17% of total U.S.
emissions) are emitted from people's homes. The three main sources of greenhouse gas
emissions from homes are electricity use, heating and waste.”

62
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

4.2 WATER USE EXTRAPOLATION

In this section, the quantity of water needed to extinguish a fire in structures larger than the one
used in this study will be estimated. The key assumption in this analysis is that the quantity of
water needed to extinguish the fire is directly proportional to the area of the room. It is reported
in Section 3.7 that the quantity of water used in non-sprinklered test (b) was 3,835 L (1,013 gal.).
Based on the area of the room used in this study the quantity of water per unit area needed to
extinguish the fire without a sprinkler was 138 L/m2 (3.4 gal/ft2).

Assuming various percentages of damage to a typical sized residence, the projected quantity of
water required by firefighters can be determined and the percent reduction achieved by using a
sprinkler can be estimated. The experimental data reported in Section 3.7 and the estimates in
Table 16 indicate that, in the event of a fire, for an average sized home of 164 m2 (1,765 ft2)
using sprinklers can reduce the water usage between 50% and 91%.

Table 16: Water Usage Estimates

Percentage Area Damaged Estimated Water Usage Reduction Achieved by
Damaged m2 (ft2) by Firefighters Using Sprinklers
L (gal.) (%)
25 41 (441) 5,644 (1,491) 66
50 82 (883) 11,292 (2,983) 83
75 123 (1,324) 16,936 (4,474) 89
100 164 (1,765) 22,584 (5,966) 91

4.3 FIRE DAMAGE

The combustible loading within each living room consisted of the primary and secondary fuel
items, decorative items, and ignition package comprising a combined mass of 309.8 kg
(683.0 lb.). The carpet, carpet padding, and plastic window frames are also considered part of
the combustible loading, adding an additional 130 kg (287 lb.) of combustible material.
Therefore, the total mass of combustible material in each living room was 440 kg (970 lb.).

In the sprinklered test, the items that sustained fire damage included the recliner, loveseat,
magazine rack, carpet, and carpet padding. The initial and final mass of each of these items is
listed in Table 17. The final mass of the magazine rack, carpet, and carpet padding was not

63
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

recorded; however, based on the post test images, it is assumed that 80% of the magazine rack
was consumed in the fire, and a 457 mm x 457 mm (1.5 ft. by 1.5 ft.) area, or 0.75%, of carpet
and carpet padding was damaged in the fire.

Table 17: Mass of Combustibles Consumed in Sprinklered Test

Item Initial Weight Final Weight Mass Consumed
kg (lb.) kg (lb.) kg (lb.)
Big Easy Recliner 44.5 (98.1) 40.8 (90) 3.7 (8.1)
Kick Back Loveseat 56.9 (125.5) 49.9 (110) 7.0 (15.4)
Carpet + Carpet Padding 94.0 (207) 93.3 (205.7) 0.7 (1.3)
Magazine Rack 1.7 (3.75) 0.34 (0.75) 1.4 (3.0)
Total 197.1 (434.5) 184.3 (406.4) 12.8 (28.5)

Based on the values listed in Table 17, and the initial weight of all the combustibles in the room,
the fraction of material burned in the sprinklered test was 3.0%.

In the non-sprinklered test, following the fire extinguishment, none of the items within the room
were recognizable and the final mass of individual items could not be determined directly. The
mass of materials consumed is, therefore, estimated based on the total energy released and an
assumption for the chemical heat of combustion. In Section 3.3, the total energy released from
the fire was calculated to be 5,169 MJ. Using the chemical heat of combustion for pine, i.e.,
12,400 kJ/kg, as the lower bound and that of flexible polyurethane foam, i.e., 19,000 kJ/kg, as
the upper bound, it is calculated that the mass of material consumed in the fire was between
272 kg (600 lb.) and 417 kg (919 lb.), or 62% to 95% of the total room fuel load. For the fire
scenario used in this study, in an actual home, the fire would likely have propagated to adjacent
rooms increasing the mass of materials damaged.

The increased fire damage, in the non-sprinklered test, will have a direct impact on a building’s
sustainability via the embodied carbon associated with materials necessary for reconstruction.
As stated previously, Norman et al. [24] estimated that the average equivalent annual embodied
greenhouse gases per unit area for construction materials associated with residential dwellings is
7.4 kgCO2 (m 2 − year ) . Estimates of the embodied carbon associated with furnishings, contents,

and carpet are beyond the scope of this study.

64
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

4.4 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WASTEWATER RUNOFF

The following results and discussion related to the wastewater analysis have been extracted
directly from Reference 38. The section and table numbering of the original report have been
maintained.

4.3 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FIRE WATER RUNOFF

Fire water runoff carries with it numerous contaminants and solids that may enter soil,
groundwater, or a waterbody and potentially pose a health risk or cause ecological harm. There
are numerous examples of large industrial fires where fire fighting water runoff resulted in both
short- and long-term devastating environmental impacts, such as fish kills [41]. However, even
relatively small-scale fires have the potential to affect the local environment as a result of
wastewater runoff ‡‡.

During and after fire-fighting activities, there are several major pathways that the resultant fire
wastewater can take to enter the environment:
• Runoff can enter soil, where contaminants in the runoff may adsorb onto soil particles;
• Contaminants bound to soil may eventually leach into groundwater;
• Runoff may directly discharge into a nearby pond, wetland, or stream; and
• Runoff can enter a stormwater system and eventually discharge into a waterbody.

Both human and ecological receptors may then contact contaminants adsorbed to soils, may
ingest or contact contaminated groundwater or surface water, or may ingest contaminants that
have accumulated in food items such as home-grown produce or fish. Pollutant loading to the
environment will be directly influenced by the volume of water generated from fire fighting
activities and associated wastewater runoff. By reducing the volume of fire wastewater, the
potential hazard to the environment may be reduced.

To evaluate the difference in pollutant loading and associated environmental hazards between
the Sprinkler and No Sprinkler controlled burns, wastewater results generated from the
controlled burns conducted on October 1, 2009 were compared to two types of federal water
quality standards: Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria (WQC). Although MCLs and WQC are not directly applicable to wastewater,
these criteria can be used as tools to assess potential environmental impacts that may be
associated with fire wastewater runoff.

MCLs (USEPA 2006) are criteria applicable to ground and surface waters and are relevant to
all potable water supplies (both surface and ground) in the United States. MCLs are not
available for each constituent detected in the wastewater samples; in such instances, wastewater

‡‡
Air and particulate emissions from fires are also significant pathways with respect to potential environment impacts; however, this section
evaluates only the wastewater pathway. Air emissions from the controlled burn scenarios are discussed in Section 3 of this report.

65
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

data lacking MCLs were compared to USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standards, Action
Levels or Health Advisories, when available. These drinking water standards are generally
designed to be protective of human health. Note that drinking water standards are not available
for several of the detected organic constituents or general chemistry parameters. Drinking water
standards are presented on Table 4-4.

WQC (USEPA 2009) are numeric limits on the amounts of chemicals that can be present in a
river, lake, wetland, or stream and are designed to be protective of both human health and
aquatic life. Altogether, there are six separate sets of WQC. Those protective of human health
are applicable to waters that can be used as not only a source of potable water but also for fish
or shellfish consumption. There are separate human health criteria for potable and non-potable
waters. The “water + organism” WQC (for potable water supplies) are equivalent to or lower
(i.e., more conservative) than the “organism only” WQC (for non-potable waters). Aquatic life
WQC are available for fresh water and saltwater environments, as well as short- and long-term
exposures. Of the aquatic life WQC, the Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) represents
acute exposures in water, whereas the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) represents
chronic exposures. For a single fire event, CMCs are most relevant, since the discharge of fire
wastewater to a waterway is expected to be a one-time event that occurs for a relatively short
duration. Note that WQC are not available for the detected organic constituents and several of
the general chemistry parameters. Water quality criteria are presented on Table 4-5.

For purposes of this evaluation, the net concentrations of constituents detected in the controlled
burns conducted on October 1, 2009 were compared to these standards. As discussed, these
standards are not applicable to wastewater, and this comparison is intended to be used only as a
means to assess the relative impact to water quality of both types of controlled burns. The net
concentrations in the wastewater represent a worst-case estimate of ground or surface water
contamination. Under a more typical scenario, one would expect that only a portion of the total
fire wastewater volume would percolate through the ground into an underlying aquifer or
migrate overland and discharge into a waterbody. In all likelihood, the concentrations of
pollutants in wastewater could be substantially reduced by the time the wastewater enters the
receiving waterbody, or the volume of wastewater may never reach a waterbody.

Because there are a variety of environmental factors (such as soil type, volume of the receiving
waterbody, depth to groundwater etc.) that could affect the extent of dilution of wastewater into
either surface water or a groundwater aquifer, Woodard & Curran applied a generic ten-fold
dilution factor to the net wastewater concentrations of constituents in order to estimate
hypothetical surface or groundwater concentrations. This generic dilution factor represents the
assumption that a ten-fold dilution of the levels of contaminants in wastewater would occur once
the wastewater enters a receiving waterbody and is likely conservative for most situations where
wastewater would percolate directly into the ground or discharge into a waterbody containing a
relatively high volume of water. (Note that many states [e.g., Massachusetts, Connecticut] also
use a generic 10-fold dilution factor to derive groundwater contaminant standards that are
protective of groundwater migration to surface water bodies.) For smaller streams or wetlands,
however, the ten-fold dilution factor may not necessarily be conservative. Estimated
surface/groundwater concentrations were compared to drinking water standards and WQC, as
shown on Tables 4-4 and 4-5, respectively.

66
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 4-4: Comparison of Wastewater Results to USEPA Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines

Analytical Results, 10/1/09

Drinking Water Sprinkler No Sprinkler
Standard or Guideline WW-1 Diluted WW-2 Diluted
Parameter Concentration1 Concentration1

Units Value Basis Result Estimated Result Estimated

General Chemistry
pH SU 6.5-8.5 SDWR 7.9 7.9 12.1 12.1
Specific Conductance umhos/cm 100 10 5,100 510
Solids, Total Dissolved ug/l 500,000 SDWR 100,000 10,000 4,300,000 430,000
Solids, Total Suspended ug/l 36,000 3,600 640,000 64,000
Cyanide, Total ug/l 200 MCL (free CN-) 639 63.9 55 5.5
Nitrogen, Ammonia ug/l 30,000 Lifetime HA 1,470 147 4,850 485
Nitrogen, Nitrate ug/l 10,000 MCL 130 13 440 44
Phosphorus, Total ug/l 484 48.4 385 38.5
Chemical Oxygen Demand ug/l 260,000 26,000 650,000 65,000
Total Organic Carbon ug/l 56,000 5,600 136,000 13,600
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene ug/l 5 MCL 62 6.2 50 U
Styrene ug/l 100 MCL 50 U 63 6.3
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Phenol ug/l 2,000 MCL 280 U 370 37
2-Methylphenol ug/l 240 U 180 18
3-Methylphenol/
4-Methylphenol ug/l 240 U 290 29
Total Metals
Antimony, Total ug/l 6 MCL 50 U 272 27.2
Arsenic, Total ug/l 10 MCL 5 U 7 0.7
Chromium, Total ug/l 100 MCL 10 U 10 1
Copper, Total ug/l 1,300 MCLG 21 2.1 6 0.6
Lead, Total ug/l 15 Action Level 2 0.2 18 1.8
Mercury, Total ug/l 2 MCL 2.5 0.25 0.8 0.08
Silver, Total ug/l 100 SDWR 0.8 U 1.8 0.18
SDWR/ Lifetime
Zinc, Total ug/l 5,000 / 2,000 HA 172 17.2 185 18.5
Dissolved Metals
Antimony, Dissolved ug/l 6 50 U 150 15
Copper, Dissolved ug/l 1,300 Action Level 30 3 10 U
Mercury, Dissolved ug/l 2 1.1 0.11 0.6 0.06
Zinc, Dissolved ug/l 5,000 SDWR 54 5.4 50 U

Notes:
U = Constituent not detected at laboratory reporting limit MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
ug/L = micrograms per liter MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
SU = standard units SDWR = Safe Drinking Water Regulation
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter HA = Health Advisory
Free CN- The MCL is available for free cyanide. Results are THM = Total trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromoform,
available for total cyanide. bromodichloromethane)

(1) Estimated surface or groundwater concentration based on wastewater analytical results, adjusted to account for baseline contamination from firefighting water.
Estimated concentration assumes wastewater is diluted to one-tenth of the original concentration. pH level of sample was not adjusted.
Bold italicized font indicates that concentration or detection limit exceeds the drinking water standard or guideline.
(2) Results are presented for only the constituents detected at levels higher than those of the recycled firefighting water sample.

67
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 4-5: Comparison of Wastewater Results to Federal Water Quality Criteria

National Recommended Analytical Results, 10/1/09
Water Quality Criteria Sprinkler No Sprinkler
Aquatic Life Criteria Human Health Criteria
WW-1 Diluted WW-2 Diluted
Freshwater Saltwater
Parameter Water + Organism Concentration Concentration5 Concentration Concentration5
Organism Only
CMC CCC CMC CCC
Units Result Estimated Result Estimated
General Chemistry
pH SU 6.5-9 6.5-8.5 5-9 7.9 7.9 12.1 12.1
Specific Conductance umhos/cm 100 10 5,100 510
Solids, Total Dissolved ug/l 250,000 100,000 10,000 4,300,000 430,000
Solids, Total Suspended ug/l 36,000 3,600 640,000 64,000
1
Cyanide, Total ug/l 22 5.2 1 1 140 140 639 63.9 55 5.5
(4)
Nitrogen, Ammonia ug/l 100 1,470 147 4,850 485
(4)
Nitrogen, Nitrate ug/l 100 10,000 130 13 440 44
(4)
Phosphorus, Total ug/l 8 484 48.4 385 38.5
Chemical Oxygen Demand ug/l 260,000 26,000 650,000 65,000
Total Organic Carbon ug/l 56,000 5,600 136,000 13,600
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene ug/l 2.2 51 62 6.2 50 U
Styrene ug/l 50 U 63 6.3
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Phenol ug/l 10,000 860,000 280 U 370 37
2-Methylphenol ug/l 240 U 180 18
3-Methylphenol/
4-Methylphenol ug/l 240 U 290 29
2
Total Metals
Antimony, Total ug/l 5.6 640 50 U 272 27.2
Arsenic, Total ug/l 340 150 69 36 0.018 0.14 5 U 7 0.7
3
Chromium, Total ug/l 16 11 1,100 50 10 U 10 1
Copper, Total ug/l 13 9 4.8 3.1 1,300 21 2.1 6 0.6
Lead, Total ug/l 65 2.5 210 8.1 2 0.2 18 1.8
Mercury, Total ug/l 1.4 0.77 1.8 0.94 2.5 0.25 0.8 0.08
Silver, Total ug/l 3.2 1.9 0.8 U 1.8 0.18
Zinc, Total ug/l 120 120 90 81 7,400 26,000 172 17.2 185 18.5
Dissolved Metals
Antimony, Dissolved ug/l 5.6 640 50 U 150 15
Copper, Dissolved ug/l 13 9 4.8 3.1 1,300 30 3 10 U
Mercury, Dissolved ug/l 1.4 0.77 1.8 0.94 1.1 0.11 0.6 0.06
Zinc, Dissolved ug/l 120 120 90 81 7,400 26,000 54 5.4 50 U
Notes:
U = Constituent not detected at laboratory reporting limit
ug/L = micrograms per liter
SU = standard units
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
CMC = No CCC available. Value is the Criterion Maximum Concentration
Free CN- = Cyanide (CN-) criteria are available for free, or bioavailable, cyanide. Wastewater results are reported for total cyanide. Total cyanide concentrations are not
necessarily indicative of free cyanide concentrations.

(1) Value is for free (physiologically available) cyanide. Note that wastewater samples were analyzed for total cyanide.
(2) Aquatic life criteria are expressed in terms of dissolved metals. Many of the metals criteria are also dependent on water hardness and/or other chemical properties of the waterbody.
The values presented on this table are those reported in the EPA 2009 criteria document and have not been adjusted.
(3) Criteria are presented for hexavalent chromium, the more toxic form of chromium. Note that wastewater samples were analyzed for total chromium.
(4) EPA Ecoregional criteria. Values are the lowest ecoregional criteria for rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. Nitrate value is for total nitrogen.
(5) Estimated surface or groundwater concentration based on wastewater analytical results, adjusted to account for baseline contamination from firefighting water.
Estimated concentration assumes wastewater is diluted to one-tenth of the original concentration. pH level of sample was not adjusted.
Bold italicized font indicates that concentration or detection limit exceeds the drinking water standard or guideline.
(6) Results are presented for only the constituents detected at levels higher than those of the recycled firefighting water sample.

Comparison to Drinking Water Standards

For this evaluation, wastewater net concentrations based on the October 1, 2009 results were
compared to Federal drinking water standards and guidelines (i.e., MCLs and Health
Advisories; USEPA 2006), assuming that ground- or surface water at a site could be used as a
potential source of potable water. Drinking water standards and guidelines are presented in
Table 4-4.

Under a worst-case scenario, where all of the wastewater from a fire runs off or percolates into
a potable water source and assuming that there is no decrease in the concentration of
contaminants (i.e., the drinking water source would contain 100% of the initial concentration of
a contaminant present in the wastewater), the resultant concentrations of numerous
contaminants could exceed drinking water standards for both Sprinkler and No Sprinkler

68
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

controlled burns, suggesting that wastewater could potentially pose a health risk to users of an
impacted water supply. Under a more realistic scenario, assuming that a 10-fold dilution of
contaminant concentrations in wastewater would occur once wastewater enters a drinking water
supply, fewer constituents exceed the MCLs. The following table summarizes the parameters and
constituents that exceed MCLs for each controlled burn.

Table 4-6: Constituents in Wastewater Exceeding Federal Drinking Water Standards

Sprinkler Controlled Burn No Sprinkler Controlled Burn
pH
Benzene
Antimony

This comparison indicates that different classes of pollutants in wastewater generated from a fire
in a structure may potentially be present at levels exceeding Federal drinking water standards.

Comparison to Water Quality Criteria

Detected concentrations and diluted concentrations of constituents in each wastewater sample
were compared to WQC, as shown on Table 4-5. Exceedances are summarized in the following
table for each controlled burn.

Table 4-7: Constituents in Wastewater Exceeding Federal Water Quality Criteria

Sprinkler Controlled Burn No Sprinkler Controlled Burn
pH
Total dissolved solids
Total cyanide
Total cyanide
Nitrogen (ammonia)
Nitrogen (ammonia)
Phosphorous
Phosphorous
Benzene
Antimony
Arsenic

As indicated above, more constituents detected in the No Sprinkler controlled burn sample (in
particular, heavy metals) exceed WQC compared to the Sprinkler controlled burn sample. Again,
assuming that a 10-fold dilution of pollutant concentrations would occur once the wastewater
entered a waterbody, several constituents remain at levels exceeding WQC in the No Sprinkler
controlled burn, whereas fewer constituents under the Sprinkler controlled burn exceed WQC.

4.5 LANDFILL IMPACTS

In this section the environmental impact associated with disposing solid waste materials in a
landfill is discussed §§ in terms of total lifetime carbon dioxide emissions.

§§
Evaluating the impact associated with alternative disposal such as recycling or energy recovery is beyond the
scope of this project.

69
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

In the sprinklered test, only a small portion of the room furnishings was damaged. However, any
fire damaged items would need to be replaced. The total mass of materials needing to be
disposed of is 184.3 kg (406 lb.); the final mass of each of the items is listed in Table 17.
Additional materials damaged due to smoke and water may need to be disposed of and replaced;
however, assessment of this part of the damage would be very subjective and beyond the scope
of this analysis.

In the non-sprinklered test, the mass of materials within the enclosure requiring disposal is
assumed to be the remaining 5.3% to 38.2% of material, or 23.2 kg to 168 kg (51.1 lb. to
370.4 lb.), as discussed in Section 4.3. Although not included in this study, the extensive
damage to the entire enclosure would require complete demolition increasing the landfill
contribution.

Decomposition rates of furniture and furnishings in landfills, and the associated greenhouse gas
emissions, are not readily available; however, estimates can be made based on data for wood and
forest products. Micales and Skog [42] state that only “0-3% of the carbon from wood are ever
emitted as landfill gas. The remaining carbon . . . remains in the landfill indefinitely.” The
kgCH 4
methane yield for wood in a landfill is reported as 0.000 – 0.013 . To determine
kg dry wood

the equivalent mass of CO2 the value is multiplied by the GWP of methane. The resulting
equivalent carbon dioxide generated by furniture and furnishings in landfills is
kgCO2
0.000 - 0.325 .
kg dry wood

The EPA reports that “as with other inorganic materials…there are zero landfill methane
emissions, landfill carbon storage, or avoided utility emissions associated with landfilling
carpet” [43]. In other words, carpet in landfills does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions
and can be omitted from this analysis.

The amounts of materials disposed of in a landfill from the sprinklered and non-sprinklered test,
based on the analysis in Section 4.3, are listed in Table 18. For the sprinklered test the mass of

70
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

materials is divided into carpet and furniture. Since the carpet does not contribute to the landfill
emissions, the total equivalent carbon dioxide emission of 33.5 kg (74 lb.) is based solely on the
quantity of wood products. For the non-sprinklered test, due to the excessive damage, the mass
of materials could not be separated. As such, the total equivalent carbon dioxide emission of
7.5 - 54.6 kg (16.5 - 120.4 lb.) is based on the total mass of disposed materials.
 

Table 18: Mass and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Damaged Materials in a Landfill
Mass of Materials Carbon Dioxide Emissions
[kg (lb.)] [kg (lb.)]
Carpet Wood Products Carpet Wood Products
Sprinklered 94.0 103.1 0 33.5
(207) (227.3) (74)
Non-Sprinklered --- 23.2 – 168 --- 7.5 – 54.6
(51.1 - 370.4) (16.5 – 120.4)

The values presented represent a conservative estimate of the impact of a non-sprinklered fire on
landfill greenhouse gas emissions. As noted previously, there was extensive damage to the entire
enclosure in the non-sprinklered test that would require complete demolition and add to the mass
of material sent to a landfill. Furthermore, if additional rooms had been present, the fire would
have propagated and additional materials would have required disposal in a landfill.

4.6 ROOM TENABILITY

Although not the main focus of this project, a brief analysis on the tenability within the
sprinklered and non-sprinklered rooms will be provided in this section.

Fires generate a variety of toxic gases that have a synergistic physiological effect on humans;
however, carbon monoxide inhalation is considered the key factor in fire fatalities. The
physiological effects from carbon monoxide exposure range from headaches to death depending
on the level of carbon monoxide exposure and the duration; some examples are provided in
Table 19 [44]. In addition to the maximum concentrations, Reference 45 states that a time
integrated exposure of 43,000 ppm-minutes will result in incapacitation, while 120,000 ppm-
minutes is lethal.

71
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

Table 19: Physiological Effects of Carbon Monoxide Exposure and the Times Critical
Levels Were Reached in the Sprinklered and Non-Sprinklered Tests
Level Physiological Effects Non-Sprinklered Sprinklered
of CO (s) (s)
(ppm)
0 Normal, fresh air 0 0
100 Slight headache after 1-2 hours 157 179
200 Possible mild headache after 2-3 hours 167 334
400 Headache and nausea after 1-2 hours 238 NA
800 Headache, nausea, and dizziness after 45 246 NA
minutes; collapse and possible
unconsciousness after 2 hours
1,000 Loss of consciousness after 1 hour 247 NA
1,600 Headache, nausea, and dizziness after 20 249 NA
minutes
3,200 Headache and dizziness after 5-10 minutes; 254 NA
unconsciousness after 30 minutes
6,400 Headache and dizziness after 1-2 minutes; 261 NA
unconsciousness and danger of death after
10-15 minutes
12,800 Immediate physiological effects; 272 NA
unconsciousness and danger of death after
1-3 minutes

Elevated temperatures can also impact survivability. Purser states that “a victim exposed for
more than a few minutes to high temperatures and heat fluxes (exceeding 120°C) in a fire is
likely to suffer burns and die either during or immediately after exposure, due principally to
hyperthermia” [46].

For the sake of this analysis, tenability within the rooms will be assessed based on the following
three criteria measured at the 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation within the center of the room:
• Maximum carbon monoxide level
• Time integrated carbon monoxide exposure
• Air temperature

The measured carbon monoxide levels at a 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation in the center of the room are
shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33, for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered rooms respectively.

72
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

In addition to the time resolved carbon monoxide concentrations, the integrated carbon
monoxide is also plotted for each test.

350 3,500
Concentration
Time Integrated Exposure
300 3,000

Time Integrated CO Exposure (ppm-min)

250 2,500
CO Concentration (ppm)

200 2,000

150 1,500

100 1,000

50 500

- -
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 32: Carbon monoxide concentrations and integrated values as a function of time for
the sprinklered test.

73
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

150,000 600,000

Concentration
125,000 Time Integrated Exposure 500,000

Time Integrated CO Exposure (ppm-min)

CO Concentration (ppm)

100,000 400,000

75,000 300,000

50,000 200,000

Note that the data is truncated at the

25,000 start of firefighting operations since
Note that the data is truncated at the
100,000
the gas sampling
start of fire fightingwas
probe knocked
operations since
over by the hosesampling
the gas streams.probe was
knocked over by the hose streams.
- -
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 33: Carbon monoxide concentrations and integrated values as a function of time for
the non-sprinklered test.

In the non-sprinklered test the maximum carbon monoxide concentration was in excess of 12%
(120,000), an order of magnitude greater than that associated with immediate physiological
effects and death. Conversely, in the sprinklered test the maximum carbon monoxide level was
300 ppm, which, based on the data in Table 19, would result in a headache and possibly nausea
after one to three hours of exposure.

The integrated carbon monoxide levels in the sprinklered test did not reach either the
incapacitation or lethal levels. The maximum value was 1,952 ppm-minutes, more than 20 times
lower than the value associated with incapacitation. In the non-sprinklered test, the
incapacitation level of 43,000 ppm-minutes was reached 339 seconds after ignition, while the
lethal level of 120,000 ppm-minutes was reached 420 seconds after ignition.

74
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

The measured air temperatures at the 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation in the center of the room as a
function of time for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered tests are shown in Figure 34.

Note that the data is truncated for

140 Note thatthethe data is truncated
non-sprinklered at start
test at the the 1400
start of offirefighting operations
fire fighting operations since
since the
the gas gas
sampling
samplingprobe
probewas knocked
was knocked

Non-Sprinklered Room Gas Temperture (C)

over byover the by the hose streams.
hose streams.
Sprinklered Room Gas Temperture (C)

120 1200
Sprinklered
100 Non-Sprinklered 1000

80 800

60 600

40 400

20 200

0 0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (s)

Figure 34: Air temperature as a function of time for the sprinklered and non-sprinklered
test at 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation within the center of the room.

In the non-sprinklered test the critical air temperature of 120°C (248°F) was reached at
230 seconds after ignition and reached a maximum level of 1274°C (2325°F). In the sprinklered
test the maximum air temperature at the 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation was 31°C (88°F).

The results clearly indicate that, in addition to the environmental benefits of using sprinklers, the
use of sprinklers also results in maintaining safe, tenable conditions within the room.

75
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

5 CONCLUSIONS 

The research presented in this report has demonstrated that automatic fire sprinklers protect the
environment while further verifying that they reduce property damage and protect lives. The
work included an analysis of the contribution of risk factors, such as fire, on the total lifecycle
carbon emissions of a home and the reduction to that contribution achieved via the use of
automatic fire sprinklers.

In support of the theoretical analysis, large-scale fire tests were conducted to quantify the
reduction in the environmental impact via the use of sprinklers. Quantification of the
environmental benefit achieved by using automatic fire sprinklers was based on comparisons of
measurements between a sprinklered and non-sprinklered test and included total greenhouse gas
production, quantity of water required to extinguish the fire, quality of water run-off, potential
impact of wastewater runoff on groundwater and surface water, and mass of materials requiring
disposal. Key conclusions from the experimental portion of the project are:

• In the event of a fire, the use of sprinklers reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 97.8%.
• In the event of a fire, the use of sprinklers reduces water usage between 50% and 91%.
• In the event of a fire, the use of sprinklers reduces fire damage.
• In the sprinklered test, flashover did not occur and the fire was contained to the room of
origin.
• In the non-sprinklered test, flashover occurred prior to fire service intervention; therefore,
additional materials would have been damaged, a greater mass of greenhouse gases
would have been emitted, and additional materials would have been disposed of in a
landfill.
• The total air emissions generated during the sprinklered test were significantly lower than
the total air emissions generated during the non-sprinklered test.
• Of the 123 species of greenhouse gas and criteria pollutants, volatile and semi-volatile
organic and inorganic compounds, heavy metals, and particulate matter analyzed, only 76
were detected in the air emissions in either the sprinklered or non-sprinklered tests.

76
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

• Of the 76 species detected, the ratio of non-sprinklered to sprinklered levels for 24 of the
species was in excess of 10:1. Eleven were detected at a ratio in excess of 50:1, and of
those six were detected at a ratio in excess of 100:1. The remaining species were
detected at the same order of magnitude.
• Fewer persistent pollutants, such as heavy metals, and fewer solids were detected in the
wastewater sample from the sprinklered test compared to those found in the
non-sprinklered test.
• More constituents were detected in the non-sprinklered test that exceeded both federal
drinking water standards and water quality standards than in the sprinklered test.
• The pH value of the non-sprinklered wastewater was between 11.6 and 12.1 versus the
pH of 7.9 for the sprinklered test. Wastewater exhibiting pH values greater than 9.0
exceed the allowable discharge range of 5.5 to 9.0 required by environmental regulatory
agencies. Wastewater exhibiting pH values greater than 10.0 represent a serious
environmental concern.
• Wastewater generated from a fire in a structure not equipped with a sprinkler system may
potentially have a greater impact on a water supply, due to the higher pollutant load that
is carried with the wastewater stream.
• Analysis of the solid waste samples indicated that the ash/charred materials from neither
the sprinklered nor the non-sprinklered test would be considered “hazardous waste,” and
that the wastes are not anticipated to significantly leach once landfilled.

77
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

78
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

6 REFERENCES

1 Kung, H.-C., Spaulding, R. D., Hill, E. E., and Symonds, A. P., “Field Evaluation of
Residential Prototype Sprinkler – Los Angeles Fire Test Program,” Technical Report J.I.
0E0R3.RA(1), Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Norwood, MA, 1982.

2 Bill, Jr., R. G., Kung, H.-C., Anderson, S. K., and Ferron, R., “A New Test to Evaluate
the Fire Performance of Residential Sprinklers,” Fire Technology, 38, 101-124, 2002.

3 Bill, Jr., R. G., Kung, H.-C., Brown, W. R., Hill, Jr., E. E., and Spaulding, R. D.,
“Predicting the Suppression Capability of Quick Response Sprinklers in a Light Hazard
Scenario, Part 1: Fire Growth and Required Delivered Density Measurements,” Journal of
Fire Protection Engineering, 3, 81-93, 1991.

4 NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family
Dwellings and Mobile Homes, 1984 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA.

5 FM Approvals Standard Class Number 2030, Approval Standard for Residential

Automatic Sprinklers for Fire Protection, 1983 Edition, FM Approvals, Norwood, MA.

6 UL 1626, Proposed First Edition of the Standard for Residential Sprinklers for Fire
Protection Service, 1986 Edition, Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, IL.

7 UL 1626, Standard for Residential Sprinklers for Fire Protection Service, 2008 Edition,
Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, IL.

8 FM Approvals Standard Class Number 2030, Approval Standard for Residential

Automatic Sprinklers for Fire Protection, 2009 Edition, FM Approvals, Norwood, MA.

79
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

9 NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family
Dwellings and Mobile Homes, 2010 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA.

10 FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 2-5, Installation Guidelines for
Automatic Sprinklers in Residential Occupancies, 2009 Edition, FM Global, Johnston, RI.

11 Madrzykowski, D., and Fleming, R. P., “Residential Sprinkler Systems,” Fire Protection
Handbook, 20th Edition, Vol. II, Section 16, Chapter 6, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA, 2008.

12 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/07, American Housing
Survey for the United States: 2007, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
20401 (2008). http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/ahs07.html

13 Hall, Jr., J. R., “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire
Extinguishment Equipment,” NFPA Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.

14 Weatherby, S.,“Benefits of Residential Fire Sprinklers: Prince George’s County 15-Year

History with its Single-Family Residential Dwelling Fire Sprinkler Ordinance,” Home Fire
Sprinkler Coalition, August 2009.
http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/assets/files//PrinceGeorgesCountyReport.pdf

15 NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2006 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.

16 NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2006 Edition, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA.

80
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

17 NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, 2006 Edition, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA.

18 Cade, G. B., “A Message from the U.S. Fire Administrator about Residential Sprinklers,”
United States Fire Administration, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Emmetsburg, MD,
March 28, 2008.

19 http://www.residentialfiresprinklers.com/blog/icc-approves-residential-fire-sprinklers-in-
the-international-residential-code

20 Gritzo, L. A., Doerr, W., Bill, R., Ali, H., Nong, S., and Krasner, L., “The Influence of
Risk Factors on Sustainable Development,” FM Global, Johnston, RI, 2009.
http://www.fmglobal.com/page.aspx?id=0401030,

21 U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Brochure, Washington, DC. http://www.usgbc.org

22 U.S. EPA Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, May 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/statply/resourses/design.htlm

23 Brown, M., “The Residential Energy and Carbon Footprint of the 100 Larger U.S.
Metropolitan Areas,” Working Paper #39, Ivan Allen College, Georgia Tech, May 2008.
http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/22228.

24 Norman, J., MacLean, H. L., and Kennedy, C. A., “Comparing High and Low Residential
Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Journal of
Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 132, No. 1, March 2006.

25 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H-150-99, American Housing
Survey National Tables: 1999, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

81
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs99/ahs99.html

26 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/01, American Housing
Survey for the United States: 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
2002. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs01_2000wts/ahs01_2000wts.html

27 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/03, American Housing
Survey for the United States: 2003, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
2004. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs03/ahs03.html

28 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/05, American Housing
Survey for the United States: 2005, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
2006. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs05/ahs05.html

29 “The U.S. Fire Problem,” Fire Statistics, NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, National
Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.
http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=953&itemID=23858&URL=Research/Fire
%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20problem

30 Davoodi, A., “Confinement of Fire,” Fire Protection Handbook, 20th Edition, Vol. II,
Section 18, Chapter 1, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2008.

31 Tewarson, A., “Generation of Heat and Chemical Compounds in Fires,” The SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition, Section 3, Chapter 4, National Fire
Protection Association, 2002, pg. 3-82 – 3-161.

32 http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/03/30/yrb_516386.shtml
(accessed March 3, 2010)

82
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

33 NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career
Fire Departments, 2010 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.

34 NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by
Volunteer Fire Departments,” 2010 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA.

th
35 Brady/Prentice Hall Health. Essentials of Fire Fighting and Fire Department Operations. 5
edition. Oklahoma State University: Fire Protection Publications, 2008.

36 ISO/IEC 17025:2005, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and

Calibration Laboratories, 2005 Edition, International Standards Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.

37 Powell, J. H., “Test Burn Emissions Testing,” Air Pollution Characterization and Control,
LTD., Technical Report, December 2009.

38 “Air and Water Quality Impacts of Residential Fires from Controlled Burns,” Woodard
and Curran Technical Report prepared for FM Global, 222415, March 2010.

39 ISO/CD 13943, Glossary of Fire Terms and Definitions, 1996 Edition, International
Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

40 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2001: The

Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, 2001.

83
 FM Global
PUBLIC RELEASE

41 Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), “The Ecotoxicity of

Fire-Water Runoff. Part 1: Review of the Literature,” New Zealand Fire Service Commission
Research Report, No. 17, 2000.

42 Micales, J. A., and Skog, K. E., “The Decomposition of Forest Products in Landfills,”
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 1997, pg. 145-158.

43 Environmental Protection Agency, “Background Document for Life-Cycle Greenhouse

Gas Emission Factors for Carpet and Personal Computers,” EPA530-R-03-018, November
21, 2003.

44 Black, A., “Carbon Monoxide Detection in Residential Occupancies,” Fire Protection

Handbook, 20th Edition, Vol. II, Section 14, Chapter 9, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA, 2008.

45 Bill, R. G., and Kung, H.-C., “Evaluation of an Extended Coverage Sidewall Sprinkler
and Smoke Detectors in a Hotel Occupancy,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Vol. 1,
No. 3, 1989, pg. 77-98.

46 Purser, D. A., “Toxicity Assessment of Combustion Products,” The SFPE Handbook of

Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition, Section 2, Chapter 6, National Fire Protection
Association, 2002, pg. 2-83 – 2-171.

84
Questions regarding this report may be directed to
FM Global at research@fmglobal.com.

P10062 Printed in USA (4/10)

© 2010 FM Global
All rights reserved. www.fmglobal.com
In the United Kingdom:
FM Insurance Company Limited
1 Windsor Dials, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1RS
Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.