Subject: Fire suppression systems
On behalf of Matthew Siegal, Susanne Gansicke <sgansicke [at] mfa__org> writes >I would like to inquire if anyone is using a wet-pipe sprinkler >system (versus a pre-action system) for fire suppression in >exhibition galleries. > >Would you refuse loans on the grounds that the borrower had a >wet-pipe system? Wet pipe sprinkler systems are the gold standard because in most cities in public buildings often crowded with visitors they are required by law. No other system has 100+ years of history of working every single time except where pipes were broken by freezing or earthquake or valves turned off. The last time I checked the statistics with Ton Cremer, a leading expert in this field, the best pre-action systems had a 20% failure rate- slightly worse than Russian Roulette. Gas systems cannot be relied upon in large areas or those where public may be present. I witnessed the failure of a gas system to put out a fire in a relatively small and enclosed area. The use of gas or other systems may be appropriate in non-public areas such as small storage, electronics and I.T. rooms where if the system fails to operate the fire and combustion products can be contained by fire-rated construction or in the surrounding areas sprinklers will function independently to contain the fire long enough for people to escape. However, in public areas where 100's or 1000's of lives are at stake wet pipe sprinklers are the only sensible choice- and due to building regulations, in most cases, the only choice. It is essential to knock the fire down before large amounts of smoke can be generated- a matter of very few minutes- as the smoke and volatilized materials can kill large numbers of people very quickly. An early warning smoke detection system is critical- if an alarm is raised and pinpoints the fire while it is still small quick action with hand held fire extinguisher or fire blanket can deal with it. Wilbur Faulk, then head of security at Getty, some years ago showed a film clip of the Director of a Historical Museum standing in front of his building with flames coming out the windows being interviewed by TV news: when asked why there weren't sprinklers he replied because conservators said they might damage the works of art. I have since visited, among other fire sites, a university library where the collection was largely destroyed by smoke and volatilized materials and the vast amount of water poured into the building by 4" hoses from several fires trucks- a fire originating in a single computer that would have been put out by one sprinkler keeping damage to a limited physical area but for similar advice. Thankfully both fires occurred after hours and no one was killed. I would not only not refuse loans of art works on the grounds the borrower had a wet pipe system, I'd require it along with a state of the art early warning smoke detection system monitored 24/7 and for very valuable works, 24/7 human attendance. The comprehensive book on painting conservation to be published early in 2012 has a section regarding this subject which I authored in consultation with fire, security and insurance experts. Thomas Dixon former Chief Conservator, National Gallery of Victoria (retired) Susanne Gansicke <sgansicke [at] mfa__org> writes >I would like to inquire if anyone is using a wet-pipe sprinkler >system (versus a pre-action system) for fire suppression in >exhibition galleries. Ellen Carllee has written a good comparison of fire suppressions systems for the Alaska Museum. See <URL:http://ellencarrlee.wordpress.com/ 2009/03/19/fire-suppression-systems/> **** Moderator's comments: The above URL has been wrapped for email. There should be no newline. See also the Disaster preparedness and response page in CoOL: <URL:http://cool.conservation-us.org/bytopic/disasters/> *** Conservation DistList Instance 25:22 Distributed: Monday, October 31, 2011 Message Id: cdl-25-22-003 ***Received on Tuesday, 25 October, 2011