A pioneer's experience
The Life Safety Suppression System
it's development, testing, and impact
In this article the author describes his part in the origin and development of the Life
Safety Suppression System. He dramatically describes the testing of that system in a
Tucson hotel, and provides detailed material on the Newton, New Jersey fire tests.
Richard M. Patton
I have been asked to prepare a history of the development
of the Life Safety Fire Suppression System. To do this I
must go back to early 1954. The distilling industry (alco-
holic beverages) was in deep trouble with the fire insur-
ance companies. The insurers had suffered an excessive
number of major chemical, industrial and warehouse fires,
and they were taking a hard look at all industries having
extremely high values and unusual fire problems. They
were also beginning to realize that some properties could
not be protected with conventional "rule book" sprinkler
systems. Insurers began testing the sprinkler designs.
Whiskey warehouse fire tests
Fire tests of sprinklers protecting whiskey in barrels on
racks had been run at Underwriters Laboratories. A five
man insurance committee of the National Board of Fire
Underwriters (NBFU) had interpreted the data. The
sprinkler system design and warehouse construction rules
that were drawn up had pushed the cost of fire protection
right through the roof. While this disturbed the distilling
industry, the insurers took it in stride because, if sprink-
lers weren't installed or if warehouses weren't "fire-
proof,- the insurance rates went up. As I was to discover
much later, the distilling industry had an approximate 20
per cent loss ratio. (Twenty cents is returned in losses for
every dollar spent on fire insurance.)
I was hired as a fire protection engineer by the world's
largest distiller, Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and
sent out to Underwriters Laboratories where the five man
Richard M. Patton is president of Patton Life
Safety Systems, Inc., Columbus, Ohio. He is a
well known expert in life safety, and has au-
thored several other articles that have ap-
peared in this magazine. He is a professional
member of BOCA International.
The Building Official and Code Administrator, September, 1975
NBFU committee was meeting to go over the test data and
vote on the new proposed regulations.
I studied all the sprinkler performance data, including
prior distilling industry fire tests, carefully, and found
where some of the design rules originated. For example,
during some of the fire testing of whiskey in wood barrels
on wood racks, a barrel of high proof alcohol was spilled
on the floor and ignited while at the same time the sprink-
ler control valve was choked down so the sprinklers dis-
charged a very low density for the hazard (0.12 gallons per
minute per square foot). During one of these tests involv-
ing much fuel and very little water, a sprinkler head in the
far corner of the test building opened. Based on this, and
because the test building was 4,000 square feet in area, it
was concluded that all sprinklers in any 4,000 square foot
area would open. In another example, the distilling indus-
try had many open wood rack warehouses, up to 100 feet
in height, with no floors between ground and roof levels.
The committee concluded that, in order to sprinkler a high
open-rack warehouse, solid floors must be installed first,
wall to wall, at six barrel height intervals. Only then could
a sprinkler layout be installed below each floor. Why?
Well, the height of the roof at the Underwriters Laborator-
ies permitted only a six barrel height during the tests. The
test building configuration became a model for whiskey
warehouse design.
When I studied the tests, I paid more attention to those
few tests where higher density was used. For example,
during one test the density was 0.625 and only four heads
opened. The four open sprinklers put the fire out in two
minutes and 32 seconds with a total water usage of 400
gallons. This was a far cry from the many thousands of
gallons being demanded. The more I studied the data, the
more convinced I became that there were simple solu-
tions.
I went to Underwriters Laboratories the day before the
NBFU committee meeting and proposed a new idea in
sprinkler design. I proposed that by putting more water on
the fire to begin with (higher pressure, higher density), we
would reverse the heating process, cool the combustion
gases at the ceiling, suppress the fire, and prevent those
(Continued on next page)
17
LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM . . .
(Continued from preceding page)
extra heads from opening — this would reduce the total
water demand. Use less water by using more water? This
surprised all.
We go our own way
At Seagram, we decided we'd try to set some rules our-
selves to explore this theory. We began to plan our own
fire research programs. Soon I was chairman of an all-in-
du g try fire research group. Step by step, we ran tests to
check out the most practical and economical ways of
designing sprinkler systems for distilleries. These tests
gave basic information from which new design concepts
could be developed.
Because fire protection and insurance were related, we
at Seagram also initiated a revolutionary new insurance
program. Seagram formed a "captive" insurance com-
pany in the Bahamas. We began to deal directly with the
London insurance market and the reinsurers. We wrote
our own fire protection standards. Finally, we wrote our
own insurance policies. Over the years, as the London
insurers became familiar with our activities, they not only
accepted our concepts; they embraced them. The last
figures I've seen showed that Seagram's had accumulated
approximately $20 million in earned premiums which paid
for our research many times over.
Our systems work, but application is limited
During nearly 15 years of research into fire sprinklers for
the distilling industry, we pioneered a whole new en-
gineering method to design sprinklers. If there was any
fault with the methods used, it was that they were too
good. The concepts opened the door to a new world of fire
fire involving 21 foot high storage of bottled whiskey in
cardboard cases with only four sprinklers opening. The
water demand was 190. Of course, we would add safety
factors to this, but we still ended up with realistic water
supply requirements.
As we've shown, the contrast between the old methods
of sprinkler design and the new engineering concepts were
so dramatic that acceptance by the insurers would have
voided most of the rules, regulations and theories of the
insurers. Seagram and the other distillers won their bat-
tle. In some cases, we reduced sprinkler system costs by
an excess of 75 per cent and warehouse construction costs
by a similar ratio. But the distilling industry was not in-
terested in fighting the battle for others. Therefore, the
sprinkler concepts we proved for one industry did not
become "general rules" applicable to all.
The life safety system concept
During the years when I worked for Seagram and the other
distillers, and as I progressed in the understanding of
sprinkler design, some things began to concern me in
connection with my profession as a fire protection en-
gineer — and as a human being. I saw how fire actually
existed, not as the inspector visualizes it the next day in
surveying the ruins, but as it really is.
I had read all those brochures that tell one what to do in
case of fire. Instructions were given, such as: "Feel the
top of the door — if cool open it slowly — check for smoke
— plan your escape in advance." Always, it was an es-
cape plan that was needed. Presumably, if you planned
your escape in advance, fire was no big problem. You
were directed to get up, get the children out, then call the
fire department. Everything is okay, provided you plan
ahead.

"People weren't dying because they failed to read all those escape plan instructions. They
were dying because on the way to the exit, they got killed! Conventional theories were
making people think they could get out when there's a fire — so they didn't do the things
that were really necessary to save lives. It was somewhat like the movies that show people
running around through the flames for half an hour as beams fall all about them. The
movies, and the 'procedures' made people think that there was an easy way to escape
when fire occurs."

safety that was so startling that it frightened many people.
It made "accepted" fire safety look as dated as the horse
and buggy.
For example, the Factory Insurance Association (FIA)
conducted "high piled stock" fire tests in June, 1963.
Then they published a new standard covering many types
of warehousing, including whiskey storage. The FIA
standard included a set of requirements for "alcohol in
cans or bottles in cartons." Using the tables in this FIA
publication, a cased goods whiskey warehouse with stor-
age on pallets 21 feet high would require the sprinkler
system to be designed to discharge approximately 4,000
gallons per minute. This was a most unrealistic require-
ment. But, when we were able to call the shots on follow-
up tests at Factory Mutual Laboratories, we controlled a
The time from ignition until death may be only 180
seconds, and those in danger may not even be aware of a
fire until 170 seconds have passed. For example, a father
could wake up, stand up straight, take one breath and drop
in his tracks with his lungs mortally seared. Or a father
who plans his escape well, may become aware of the fire,
open his door, take two steps toward his son's room, and
drop in the hallway.
People weren't dying because they failed to read all
those escape plan instructions. They were dying because,
on the way to the exits, they got killed! Conventional
theories were making people think they could get out when
there's a fire — so they didn't do the things that were really

The Building Official and Code Administrator, September, 1975

LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM . . .
necessary to save lives. It was somewhat like the movies
that show people running around through the flames for
half an hour as beams fall all about them. The movies,
and the "procedures" made people think that there was an
easy way to escape when fire occurs.
The fire explosion
A fire in a room starts out small. It can burn silently, in-
conspicuously, and produce virtually no smoke. But sud-
denly, fire reaches the point where the trapped heat energy
becomes a catalyst to a fantastic fire reaction. The entire
room explodes into one "flashover" fire. The occupants
may only at this point become aware that there is a fire.
They may have only ten seconds to get out of the house. It
is at this point that they are supposed to act calmly and
remember those emergency plans.
There is a solution to fire, but it is not in "escape plans."
Install one sprinkler in the room, and that small fire can
never grow to be the big deadly fire. It just can't do it.
Why? Because once the sprinkler (with proper pressure)
opens, the ceiling temperature cannot build to flashover.
Fine water spray puts a lid on ceiling temperature.
A new plan for breakthrough
Finally, in pursuit of some way to break through the bar-
riers, I came to believe that if we could separate the life
safety , sprinkler from the property protection sprinkler
(and permit those locked into the obsolete concepts to
"A fire in a room starts out small. It can burn silently, inconspicuously, and produce
virtually no smoke. But suddenly, fire reaches the point where the trapped heat energy
becomes a catalyst to a fantastic fire reaction. The entire room explodes into one
'flashover' fire. The occupants may only at this point become aware that there is a fire."
continue undisturbed), we might then have the freedom
needed to save lives witlibetter sprinkler systems. I hoped
no one would fight a "life safety system," provided we
made it clear that it was not for property protection (insur-
ance). So I left Seagram and began to look for research
money. After two years of searching, I found some. The
Copper Development Association in New York City was
interested in copper sprinkler systems and agreed to fund
the program.
The Newton, New Jersey, test program
Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I honestly believe that the
Newton, New Jersey, test program of March, 1971, rep-
resented the single most important event in fire protection
since sprinklers were "standardized" in the 1890's. This
may be saying a lot, but this series of live fire tests in a
large dwelling was evolutionary in the following ways:
1. This test series was the opening gun in the struggle
to gain recognition for the fire sprinkler system as the
single most important tool for protecting human life in
buildings.
The Building Official and Code Administrator, September, 1975
2. It initiated a large number of very significant
technological advances (see Box score).
3. It began to break the control of sprinkler design by
the insurance industry, and properly brought building
code officials and the fire services more deeply into the
field.
To most people the test program was a fire safety tonic.
For years, the fire protection community had been strug-
gling with "fire proofing" and "compartmentation" regu-
lations, believing such means to be the way to protect lives
and reduce fire injuries. But no gains were being made.
Suddenly, a new door was opened. The sprinkler was not
just a tool for protecting factories. The Newton tests
proved the concept of protecting human life with water.
The Pioneer Hotel
Having proven the many individual pieces of a new sprink-
ler design, it then became necessary to incorporate the
various pieces into the composite "Life Safety System"
and to test the system as a "prototype". It was at this
point that the Pioneer International Hotel in Tucson,
Arizona, came into the picture.
The Pioneer International Hotel was more than just a
very well maintained older "fireproof" hotel. It was a
landmark. Weathly cattlemen, mining industry executives
and prominent people throughout the Southwest met
there. Thus, when on December 20, 1970, a fire devastated
the hotel, killing 28, including prominent citizens, the city
of Tucson was shocked beyond belief.
The fire was also significant in another way. It was
another classic failure of the "fireproof' building. During
the months following the fire, Tucson became a hot bed of
fire-safety controversy. Chief Peterson of the Fire De-
partment and Will Lucas of the Building Department were
strong on sprinklers. They wanted sprinklers in most, if
not all, of the downtown high rises. But there were many
who strongly opposed sprinklers. Both sides were calling
on us to find out more about the new Life Safety System
which had been in the news.
The hotel became a key element in our research pro-
gram. We would design a prototype Life Safety System for
the Pioneer. Then we would test it in guest rooms on the
top floors (which were already smoke damaged). The
hotel would donate the furnishings. If the tests proved
successful, Tucson would become the first city in the
United States to approve the new system. If approved, the
hotel would install it. If all went well, the ad hoc commit-
tee of fire experts assembled from across the nation would
also consider the tests as "proving" the system.
(Continued on next page)
LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM...
(Continued from preceding page)
The tests
Five of us acting as observers remained in the room with
the fire burning. The door was closed. "If things get too
hot, bang and we'll open up fast and let you out," they told
us, but we worried a little anyway. The lazy fire burned
along the sofa, ever so slowly it seemed. For one, two,
three. . . nine, ten, eleven minutes it burned with just a lit-
tle haze forming at the ceiling. The clock ticked away
. . . endlessly. The minutes seemed like hours. And still the
fire burned silently, slowly, lazily, almost as though it
would die down soon and go out. The heavy draperies
behind the sofa seemed to steam a little, but did not burn,
and someone cursed the "fireproofing."
Then it happened. Fire flashed across the draperies and
then flowed upward. Flames mushroomed at the ceiling.
Like a giant breaker heading toward the beach, the yellow
wave rolled across the ceiling toward us. Four bodies
hurtled toward the door knocking the camera and the
cameraman helter-skelter. The door being closed, and a
second of time being forever, we all dove into a huddle at
the alcove. But in that instant the sprinkler fused, the
room exploded with steam, the air turned white, then
gray, and hot water fell from above, frightening us even
more. Then the door opened, the water was washing away
the steam, the darkness disappeared as light crept back in;
and I could hear someone saying, "Thank God, the sprink-
ler opened." The five of us, undamaged, picked ourselves
up sheepishly from the soggy floor. One veteran fireman,
who moments before was diving for the floor, turned to me
and said, "Dick, are these the conditions where we tell the
little old ladies to stay cool, calm, and collected?"
We ran more tests the following day. When it was all
over, we met in one of the Pioneer Hotel suites (the two
lowest floors were still in use), and all agreed the system
was a complete success. Now all that remained was to
write it up, prepare the new NFiPA Standard, and go on to
new matters.
Just a beginning
Many people believe the battle is won. They believe that
the Life Safety Fire Suppression System has been fought
through to acceptance and that now we can all relax. But
those who think this way are the type that thought the
battleship was the "ultimate weapon" of war.
I visualize the situation quite differently. The most im-
portant weapon ever invented to fight fire had been stag-
nated for many, many years. There are at least 75 years
worth of catching up to get on with. The Life Safety
System of today is nothing but a beginning. This begin-
ning is not just a beginning for a new sprinkler system. It is
a beginning for a new philosophy of fire safety. First we
tried to "fireproof' ' the building. Then we tried to com-
partment it and construct "paths of safety" to the out-
doors. We considered "construction" to be the key to
human fire safety. But, now we have the "Life Safety
System" and the concepts of "in-place" safety. Where
this will lead us nobody knows for sure, but we are going
someplace new.
The Building Official and Code Administrator,
Box score
The Newton, New Jersey, fire tests
At Newton, New Jersey, 22 live fire tests were held to estab-
lish parameters both to prove and to gain recognition for the
various concepts incorporated in the Life Safety Fire Sup-
pression System. As a result of the success of this test pro-
gram, the following criteria and concepts were established:
1. Sprinkler as a "Life Safety" System: The concept that
the sprinkler is a "life safety" system was established.
2. Extended spray sprinklers: Ways to extend sprinkler
coverage through pressure increase, orifice size increase, and
deflector change were proven. The concept was established
of considering the covered plat as a function of nozzle
engineering.
3. Sidewall sprinkler a general sprinkler: The general use
of the sidewall sprinkler (sometimes with extended spray) for
aesthetic and economic reasons was advanced.
4. Reduced water requirements: All fires were extin-
guished with less than 500 gallons of water. The concept of
protecting properties with very small water supplies was
proven valid.
5. Higher density at the fire site: A density of 0.025 was
proven adequate for light hazard properties. A safety factor of
four-to-one was placed on density. The concept of designing
for higher density (more water at the fire site) rather than
designing for an excessive number of open sprinklers was
established. This produces stronger designs.
6. The grid system: In the grid system, small pipe serves
the dual function of feeding the sprinklers and distributing the
water.
7. On/off sprinkler: The first on/off sprinkler was tested.
8. Room as "section": The concept of considering each
room as a separate design section for determining water needs
was established.
9. New piping systems: A practical copper sprinkler sys-
tem was tested and found satisfactory. The concept that pip-
ing requirements should be performance set was established.
10.Composite system: The concept of considering an alarm
system, a sprinkler system, the fire brigade, and the fire
department as components of one overall system was estab-
lished. This included the ideas that the alarm should go to the
fire department, and that the water supply can be keyed to the
running time of the fire department.
11. Ceiling height: The concept of keying section size, and
to some degree density, to ceiling height was established.
12. Level pipe: The concept of allowing wet sprinkler pipe
to be run level without pitch was established.
13. Practical pipe hanging methods: More practical pipe
hanging methods were established.
14. Fire loading: Fire loading (amount of combustibles per
square foot) was established as a measure of fire severity, to
be a base to measure density (gpm/sq. ft.) against.
September, 1975
 •

3. The wooden crib being ignited in the photo above weighs 35 pounds and
provides a fire loading of approximately ten pounds per square foot in the crib
area. 4. At right, the progress of the fire in one of the test rooms is noted by
observers prior to sprinkler head actuation.

5. Photo to the left shows a test room fire just at the point of the sprinkler system
actuation. 6. In above photo, an observer points to the slight scarring received by a
plywood panel in the course of a fire test. The Life Safety System is designed to
control a room fire before construction becomes involved.

The Building Official and Code Administrator, September, 1975