Fire Safety Journal, 14 (1988) 113 - 125
Quantification of Thermal Responsiveness of Automatic Sprinklers
Including Conduction Effects
GUNNAR HESKESTAD and R O B E R T G. BILL, JR.
Factory Mutual Research Corporation, 1151 Boston Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062
(U.S.A.)
(Received March 2, 1987)
SUMMARY
The response time index ( R T I ) represents
the p r o d u c t o f the thermal time constant for
the heat-responsive element o f an automatic
sprinkler and the square root o f the asso-
ciated gas velocity. The R T I and sprinkler
temperature rating are usually sufficient to
predict sprinkler reponse, provided gas tem-
peratures and velocities generated by the fire
at the sprinkler site are known. However,
recent evidence has indicated that a compa-
nion response parameter may be needed to
quantify response for low gas temperatures
and velocities and for l o w - R T I sprinklers in
growing fire situations. The companion param-
eter accounts for heat loss by conduction to
the sprinkler mount. The technical basis and
m e t h o d s o f measurements o f the response
parameters are presented, along with prelim-
inary results o f room fire tests conducted to
verify the refined response model.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of the RTI, response time
index, for characterizing the thermal respon-
siveness of automatic sprinklers has become
quite well k n o w n over the decade since it was
introduced [1], although the term was n o t
used until later [2]. The RTI is the product
of the thermal time constant of the heat-
responsive element and the square r o o t of the
associated gas velocity. This parameter has
been claimed [1, 2] to be essentially constant
for a given sprinkler and orientation and to
be sufficient, together with the sprinkler tem-
perature rating, for predicting sprinkler res-
ponse for known gas temperatures and gas
velocities near the sprinkler.
0379-7112/88/$3.50
113
Recently, the constancy of RTI has been
questioned b y Pepi [3] for fire situations
where gas velocities are low at the sprinkler
location, as in slowly growing fires and at
distant sprinkler sites. Pepi found (a) that in
plunge tests*, the RTI increased significantly
with decreasing air velocity for b o t h conven-
tional and fast-response sprinklers, and (b)
that in fire tests, response times increased
more rapidly with distance from the fire than
would be expected assuming constant RTI.
Furthermore, he found that these effects were
enhanced when the thermal insulation was
reduced between the heat-responsive element
and its support. Pepi attributed this behavior
to conductive heat loss from the heat-respon-
sive element to its support structure. He sug-
gested that a conductive heat loss might some-
times be desirable to reduce the probability
that sprinklers operate remote from the fire
source.
This paper reviews the original thermal
response model leading to the RTI concept
and the plunge test devised for measuring
RTI. An attempt is then made to incorporate
conductive heat loss in the model and devise
a method for characterizing this loss in the
laboratory. Finally, first results from a r o o m
fire test program to verify the modified
response model are presented and certain
consequences of the model explored.
ORIGINAL THERMAL RESPONSE MODEL
The original model [1] assumes:
(1) that the heat-responsive element of a
sprinkler is heated purely b y forced convec-
tion until actuation;
*Sudden immersion of sprinkler in flow of constant
temperature and velocity.
© Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands
114
(2) that all heat transferred to the element
is stored in the element with no conduction
loss to the supporting structure;
(3) that the element heats isothermally;
(4) that no additional heat is required to
actuate the element, such as heat of fusion
for solder-type sprinklers.
The heat balance on the element is:
mc(dTe/dt) = h A ( T g - - Te)
where
m = mass o f element
c = specific heat of element, assumed invariant
with temperature
h = convective heat transfer coefficient
A = surface area of element
Te = temperature o f element
Tg = gas (essentially air) temperature
t = time.
Expressing temperatures relative to the
initial (ambient) temperature, To, and rear-
ranging, eqn. (1) becomes:
d(ATe)/dt = T- I ( A T g - - ATe)
where
ATe = Te -- To
ATg = T ~ - - To
r = mc/hA
Equation (2) is the temperature-response
equation of the sensing element, which can
be solved once A T g ( t ) a n d r ( t ) are specified,
together with initial conditions (AT~(t = o) =
0).
The quantity r has dimensions of time and
is referred to as the t i m e c o n s t a n t . For a given
heat-responsive element, the time constant
depends only on the convective heat transfer
coefficient, h. In f o r c e d ~ o n v e c t i o n flows, the
nondimensional heat transfer coefficient, the
Nusselt number (Nu), is uniquely related to
the Reynolds number ( R e ) for a given ele-
m e n t geometry:
Nu = f(Re)
where
N u = h L / k , Nusselt number
L = characteristic linear dimension of element
k = thermal conductivity of gas (assumed to
have the properties of air) at film temperature
((Tg + Te)/2)
R e = u L / v , Reynolds number
u = gas velocity
v = kinematic viscosity of the gas (air) at film
temperature.
Experimental data on convective heating
and cooling of bluff objects [4] (circular
cylinders, spheres) similar to typical sensing
elements show that, for Reynolds numbers
expected in the fire environment:
Nu = B(Re)1/2 (4)
where B is a constant characteristic of the
element geometry. Using the definitions of
(1) N u and R e under eqn. (3), eqn. (4) gives:
h = B ( k / p l / 2 ) u l / 2 L - 1/2 (5)
Both k and v are sensitive to temperature.
However, using tabulated data on air, it turns
o u t that k / v w2 is nearly independent of tem-
perature. It follows from eqn. (5) that for a
given sensing element (B and L constant):
h oc u 1/2 (6)
As a consequence, the time constant of a
given element (r = m c / h A ) is proportional*
to u -1/2 or, equivalently:
rUl/2 = constant (7)
(2)
The product r u ~/2 is a measure of the ther-
mal inertia of a heat-responsive element, in
principle independent of gas velocity and
temperature, which is best determined experi-
mentally. The term "response time index",
or RTI, has been adopted [2] for the product,
i.e.,
RTI = r u 1/2 (8)
In terms of the RTI, the temperature-response
relation, eqn. (2), can be written:
d(ATe)/dt = (ul/2/RTI)(ATg - - ATe) (9)
Hence, given the RTI, together with AT~ and
u as functions of time, the thermal response
ATe(t) can be calculated. Sprinkler actuation
occurs when ATe = ATea, where ATea is the
actuation temperature of the heat-responsive
element above ambient.
The various assumptions of the response
(3)
t h e o r y were originally examined in some
detail [ 1], with the following conclusions:
(1) forced convection would indeed be
the dominant mode of heat transfer to the
heat-responsive element in most fire situations
relative to b o t h free-convection effects and
radiation from the fire;
*The same velocity dependence of the convective
heat transfer coefficient has been employed by
Pickard e t al. [5] and Alpert [6].

TABLE 1
U.S. s p r i n k l e r t e m p e r a t u r e r a t i n g s a n d m i n i m u m p l u n g e - t e s t t e m p e r a t u r e s [ 1 ]
Classification
Ordinary
Intermediate
High
E x t r a high
Very extra high
Ultra high
(2) the element would most likely heat in
approximate isothermal manner, as assumed,
in the sense that temperature differentials
within the element would generally be small
compared to the average temperature rise of
the element from ambient conditions;
(3) assuming negligible actuation heat m a y
be questionable for heavily solder-loaded,
heat-responsive elements, depending on the
effective solder fraction which has to be fused
before the element actuates;
(4) quantitative estimates of conduction
heat loss from an element are so difficult that
the errors associated with ignoring this loss
are n o t readily assessed.
An experimental program was conducted
to examine the constancy of RTI for com-
mercial sprinklers [1]. The sprinklers were of
the conventional response, industrial type;
fast-response sprinklers had n o t yet entered
the market. A plunge test* was adopted for
measuring RTI, wherein a sprinkler was sud-
denly immersed in the steady flow in the
(horizontal) test section of a hot,air tunnel.
The test sprinkler was attached to a fitting in
a plate which was rapidly positioned over the
open t o p of the test section in the plunge
operation. The sprinkler was pressurized with
air to a b o u t 35 kPa. For a plunge test, the
solution of eqn. (9) can be written in the
following form for RTI:
--tr ul/2
RTI =
ln(1 -/XToa/aTg)
where t~ is the response or actuation time; u
is the gas (air) velocity in the test section;
A T e a is A T e a t response (temperature rating
*A r a m p t e s t h a s b e e n used b y o t h e r s [7 ], w h e r e
t h e test s p r i n k l e r is e x p o s e d t o a linear r a t e o f rise in
gas t e m p e r a t u r e .
115
T e m p e r a t u r e r a t i n g range Min. air t e m p e r a t u r e
C°F) (°C) (°F) (°C)
135 - 170 57-77 245 118
175 - 225 79-107 360 182
250 - 300 121-149 530 277
325 - 375 163-191 710 377
400 - 475 204-246 960 516
500 - 575 260-302 1180 638
from liquid bath test relative to ambient tem-
perature prior to plunge) and ATg is the gas
temperature relative to the ambient tempera-
ture. For the range of gas velocities covered,
1.5 - 5.2 m/s, it was determined in special
experiments [1] that the gas temperatures
had to exceed certain limits, depending on the
sprinkler temperature rating, in order to
prevent radiant heat loss from the sprinkler
to the tunnel walls (uninsulated at the test
section) from affecting the RTI measurement.
The temperature limits are listed in Table 1.
Above these limits, 10 different sprinkler
models responded with fairly constant RTI
over the velocity range examined and up to
the maximum attainable gas temperature,
430 °C. Among the sprinkler models exam-
ined, RTI varied in the range 136 - 346
m In s w2. In these tests the sprinklers were
positioned near their most sensitive orienta-
tions in the test stream, the frame being in a
plane perpendicular to the flow. Other tests
indicated that effects of orientation on RTI
could occasionally be significant in the rela-
tively smooth test stream, always associated
with the heat-responsive element being in the
wake of a frame arm (frame in a plane aligned
with the flow). However, such effects were
smaller in the turbulent ceiling flow of a
test fire, presumably because the wake no
longer stayed fixed on the heat-responsive
element.
(10) The insensitivity of RTI to gas temperature
in these experiments m a y be interpreted* to
mean that the heat of fusion of the solder for
the solder-type sprinklers was not impor-
tant**. Furthermore, none of the (small)
*With t h e aid of eqn. (17) in ref. 1.
* * E v a n s a n d M a d r z y k o w s k i [ 8 ] have since investi-
g a t e d s e p a r a t e l y t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e h e a t o f
fusion to the RTI measurement.
116
variations observed in the RTI could be attri-
buted to conduction heat loss.
FMRC PLUNGE TEST
Based on the first experimental program, a
special plunge-test tunnel was designed and
calibrated for further work [ 1, 2]. This tun-
nel still serves as FMRC's plunge-test appara-
tus. Figure 1 illustrates the schematic design.
Air heated electrically by heating rods is di-
rected into a mixing duct via an orifice. The
orifice serves the dual functions of metering
the flow (in conjunction with pressure taps
in the plenum and the mixing duct) and inter-
acting with the mixing duct to generate uni-
form temperature and velocity profiles suffi-
ciently far downstream of the orifice. The
circular mixing duct is transformed to a duct
of rectangular cross section which serves as
a test section (300 mm wide X 150 mm high).
Turbulence-reducing screens are installed at
the inlet to the test section. The return flow
is taken to the blower inlet via two right-angle
bends. To reduce the heat load, the entire
apparatus, except the test section, is insulated;
the test section is bare to prevent high wall
temperatures from contributing excessive
radiant heating to the sprinkler under test.
Flow is controlled with a sliding gate at the
blower exit. A temperature control thermo-
couple is m o u n t e d between the screens up-
stream of the test section; this thermocouple
is connected to a temperature controller/
power controller which feeds electric power
to the heating rods to maintain test tempera-
2.3m
Press. Diff.
,~w Rate
, Rectangular
Round Mixin~lDuct Test Section
........... f
Blower
Fig. 1. Schematic design of FMRC plunge-test tunnel.
Test section is 300 mm wide X 150 mm high.
ture relative to the set point. The plunge-test
tunnel is capable of test-section velocities up
to approximately 3.5 m/s. Maximum obtain-
able air temperature is in excess of 400 °C,
which makes it possible to test sprinklers up
to the "extra high" temperature rating (Table
1). The test sprinkler is m o u n t e d in a detached
cover which is inserted into a hinge m o u n t e d
on top of the upstream end of the test section.
To perform a plunge operation, the operator
removes an idling cover over the test-section
opening and immediately closes the cover
with the test sprinkler. The plunge operation
closes a mercury switch which starts a timer.
The timer is stopped by a pneumatic switch
when air pressure is released at the actuation
of the sprinkler.
An extensive test program [2] was con-
ducted in the FMRC plunge-test tunnel. First,
four sprinkler models, two solder-type and
two bulb-type, and each at three temperature
ratings ("ordinary", "high", and "extra
high"), were tested at combinations of five
air temperatures in the range 127 - 400 °C and
three gas velocities of 1.54, 2.56 and 3.48 m/s.
RTI values were quite uniform above the
minimum plunge-test temperatures listed in
Table 1. However, there was a slight tendency
to higher RTI values at the lowest gas velocity
which, in retrospect, may be attributed to
conduction effects as discussed in the next
Section. For subsequent work, nominal test
temperatures were standardized at the values
listed in Table 2, combined with a standard
test velocity of 2.56 m/s. Twenty-three
sprinkler models, both solder and bulb types
and each at three to seven temperature ratings
( " o r d i n a r y " through "extra high"), were
plunged-tested. Tests were conducted in tri-
plicates for each model and temperature
rating, and an average RTI was determined.
TABLE 2
Standard, nominal plunge-test temperatures selected
for FMRC plunge-test tunnel
Classification Air temperature
(°C) (°F)
Ordinary through 191 375
intermediate
High 282 54O
Extra high 382 720

For a given sprinkler model, the average RTI
generally did n o t vary much with the temper-
ature rating, consistent with expectations
assuming identical geometry and material
of the heat-responsive element from one
temperature rating to the next. Averaged over
the available temperature ratings for each
sprinkler model, the smallest RTI was 125
m 1/2 s 1/2 and the largest was 332 m 1/2 S 1/2,
nearly a threefold variation. The reproducibil-
ity of the RTI measurement in the particular
apparatus was estimated to be within +2 -
+3%, depending on the temperature rating.
Variations in replicate tests can be larger
because of nonuniformities among sprinkler
samples.
INCORPORATION OF CONDUCTIVE HEAT
IN R E S P O N S E M O D E L
On the first reports of definite effects of
conductive heat loss in the response of sprin-
klers [3], efforts were made to incorporate
such effects in the original response model.
The simplest possible form of conductive
heat loss rate was assumed, proportional to
the temperature difference b e t w e e n the heat-
responsive element and the sprinkler fitting.
Assuming the sprinkler fitting is essentially at
ambient temperature, the conductive heat loss
rate would be proportional to the tempera-
ture rise of the element. With a conductive
heat loss term, eqn. (1) becomes:
m c ( d T e / d t ) = hA(Tg -- Te) -- C'(Te -- To) (11)
where C' is a constant for a given sprinkler.
The equivalent to eqn. (2) now becomes:
d(ATe) C'
- v-l(ATg -- ATe) -- - - ATe
dt mc
or, rearranging and using eqn. (8):
d tT e ) - U l /RT---I
d(A 2[ ATg-- ( 1+ E
C ' )R A
TIT
\_ e l ]
Now, if C' and RTI are constants for a sprin-
kler, so is C'RTI/(rnc). Consequently, define:
C = C'RTI/(mc)
117
where C Can be considered a conduction (loss)
parameter, a characteristic of the sprinkler. In
terms of C, eqn. (13) becomes:
d(ATe) u 1/2
- [ATg - - ( 1 + C/ul/2)ATe] (15)
dt RTI
Hence, instead of a one-parameter response
equation in RTI, we now have a two-parameter
response equation in RTI and C. Conveniently,
while the units of RTI are (length X time) 1/2,
the units of C are (length/time)1z2.
Equation (15) can be transformed into a
very useful form whenever the gas velocity,
u, is constant as in a plunge test, or does not
change sufficiently rapidly with time* (appears
to be practically always the case in fire situa-
tions). Then:
(1 + C/u 1/2) d(ATe) _ d[(1 + C/ttl/2)ATe]
LOSS dt dt
(16)
and eqn. (15) can be written:
d ( A T e v ) / d t = ( u l n / R T I v ) [ A T g -- ATev] (17)
where
ATev = (1 + C/ul/2)ATe (18)
RTI~ = RTI/(1 + C/u i n ) (19)
Note that eqn. (17) is precisely in the form of
the original model response relation, eqn. (9),
where ATe is replaced b y ATe~ and RTI is
replaced b y RTI~. The quantity ATev can be
considered as a virtual temperature rise of the
heat-responsive element, and RTIv can be con-
sidered as a virtual RTI.
The solution of eqn. (17) for a plunge test
(or fire generating constant temperature and
velocity) is obtained from eqn. (10) b y replac-
ing RTI with RTIv and ATea with ATeva. The
result is:
(12) RTI --trttI/2
1 + C/u 1/2 in(1 --ATea(1 + C / u i n ) / A T g )
(20)
Generalizing the solution to any instant, t, of
the heating process, the solution for ATe is:
(13)
*Turbulent fluctuations axe not considered here.
Turbulent fluctuations in u and A T g will cause small
A T e ripples in the element response and these are
(14) ignored.
118
ATg
ATe 1 + C/u 1/2 [1 - - e x p
-- ( t u l / 2 ( 1 + C / u a J 2 ) / R T I ) ]
As an illustration, consider a sprinkler with
RTI = 200 m 1/z s 1/2, exposed to fire gases at
1 m/s velocity and a temperature above am-
bient of 110 °C. The thermal response now
depends on the conduction parameter, C.
Figure 2 shows the temperature rise ATe as a
function of time, calculated from eqn. (21)
for C = 0 (no conduction heat loss) and for
C = 1 (m/s) 1/2 (a realistic value). For C = 0,
the element reaches an actuation temperature
rise of 50 °C at 120 s; for C = I (m/s) 1/2,
actuation occurs much later, at 240 s. In fact,
it is readily verified from eqn. (21) that had
the conduction parameter been larger than
1.2, the sprinkler would never have actuated.
Alternatively, there would have been no
actuation if the gas velocity had been lower
than 0.69 m/s. If the gas velocity had been
2 m/s instead of 1 m/s, response times for
C = 0 and C = 1 (m/s) 1/2 would have been
86 s and 126 s, respectively, considerably
closer than for 1 m/s. If the gas temperature
had been 200 °C above ambient rather than
110 °C, response times for C = 0 and C = 1
(m/s) 1/: would have been 58 s and 69 s, res-
pectively, again considerably closer than in
the base case. Clearly the conductive heat loss
effect associated with a given value of C varies
120 J I I l
~'~ 100
IuJ
o~ 8o
n,, 60
n conductive heat loss from the heat-responsive
IM
I---- 20
O0 I i I I
50 100 150 200
TIME (s)
Fig. 2. T e m p e r a t u r e rise o f a h y p o t h e t i c a l (RTI = 200
m 1/2 s xt2 sprinkler in e n v i r o n m e n t o f c o n s t a n t t e m p -
p e r a t u r e (ATg = 110 °C) and velocity (1 m/s) for t w o
d i f f e r e n t values o f the c o n d u c t i o n p a r a m e t e r .
greatly with the gas temperature and gas
velocity.
In the example of Fig. 2, it is implicitly
(21) assumed that the sprinkler fitting remains at
the ambient temperature during the exposure,
an assumption used in the derivation of eqn.
(17). In a real fire situation, one may expect
some heating of the fitting, either directly by
hot gases or indirectly by heat conducted
away from the sprinkler. This situation can
be easily handled if the temperature rise of
the sprinkler m o u n t or fitting is known. Re-
turning to eqn. (11), the conduction term is
now - - C ' ( T e - - T f ) , where Tf is the fitting
temperature. The new form can be written:
- - C ' ( T e -- Tf) = - - C ' A T ~ + C ' A T f (22)
where ATf = Tf -- To, the rise in temperature
of the sprinkler fitting. The correction term,
C ' A T f , produces in eqn. (15) an additive term
inside the square brackets:
dATe u 1/2
- -- [(AT~ + ( C / u l / 2 ) A T f )
dt RTI
-- (1 + C/ul/2)/XTe] (23)
Similarly, the revised form of eqn. (17) be-
comes:
d( A T ~ v ) / d t = (u x/Z/RTIv)
× [(ATg + ( C / u l / 2 ) A T f ) -- ATev] (24)
From these forms it is clear that in order to
accommodate a temperature rise in the sprin-
kler fitting, the instantaneous fitting tempera-
I ture function ( C / u l / 2 ) A T f is added to the
instantaneous gas temperature rise ATg, to
produce a pseudo gas temperature rise.
P R E L I M I N A R Y T E S T OF M O D I F I E D M O D E L
An experimental program is now underway
at FMRC to investigate the efficacy of the
response model as modified to accommodate
element. A few results obtained to date are
reviewed in this Section.
The program consist of two parts, (1) a
L laboratory determination of the RTI value
250 300
and conduction parameter C using the FMRC
plunge test tunnel, and (2) room fire tests
comparing actual response times to predic-
tions based on the model and laboratory
values of RTI and C. Attention in this paper

will be focused on measurements involving
t w o solder-type, pendent sprinklers: a conven-
tional response model, sprinkler A; and a fast-
response model, sprinkler B. Both of these
sprinklers were rated at 74 °C, although their
liquid-bath operating temperatures (slightly
lower) were used in the calculations.
The selected sprinklers are of "ordinary"
temperature rating, and the nominal air tem-
perature listed in Table 2 for this temperature
rating, 191 ~C, was used in the FMRC plunge-
test tunnel, together with the standard air
velocity of 2.56 m/s, to determine the RTI
values of the sprinklers. RTI values were
determined b y two methods: (a) first ignor-
ing the existence of a conduction heat loss
using eqn. (10), termed "apparent R T I " ,
(2) then incorporating the conduction param-
eter, C, and calculating RTI according to
eqn. (20). However, first, the conduction
parameter had to be determined.
The conduction parameter, C, was mea-
sured in a specially devised test in the plunge-
test tunnel, where the sprinkler m o u n t (fitting)
was held at constant temperature over a pro-
longed period b y circulating cold (tap) water
through the mount. The m o u n t temperature,
measured with a thermocouple, was carefully
monitored. According to the response model,
the steady~tate temperature rise (referenced
to the m o u n t temperature) of the heat-
responsive element in a prolonged response is
given b y the factor in front of the square
brackets in eqn. (21), i.e., b y hTg/(1 + C/ul/2).
As the gas velocity is increased to a higher
value from one prolonged exposure to the
next, the steady-state temperature rise of the
element increases. For a sufficiently high air
velocity, Uc, the element will just actuate in a
prolonged exposure. At that point:
ATg/(1 + C/Uc 1,2) -~ ATea (25)
TABLE 3
Response parameters for tested sprinklers
Sprinkler Operating*
temp. (°C)
A 72.1
B 72.7
*From liquid bath tests.
**According to eqn. (10) using measurements at standard plunge-test conditions for " o r d i n a r y " temperature
rating: 191 °C temperature, 2.56 m/s velocity.
119
which can be solved for C. In order to deter-
mine Uc, a series of standard test velocities
were selected for the plunge-test tunnel, the
square r o o t of the ratio of sequential test
velocities being fixed at 1.10. For each test
velocity, a sprinkler was exposed for 10 min-
utes (deemed sufficient to establish steady-
state element temperature) until actuation
was bracketed between t w o successive test
velocities. The conduction parameter was
taken as the average of the values C calculated
for the bracketing velocities, using eqn. (25).
Hence, the conduction parameter in this pro-
cedure can be assumed to have been estab-
lished to an accuracy of 10%. In order n o t to
require unreasonably low air velocities, the
fairly low test temperature of 127 °C was
chosen, which is still above the (radiation)
limit in Table 1 for "ordinary" temperature
rating.
The results of the plunge tests and the
prolonged-exposure tests are summarized in
Table 3. It is seen that the RTI of sprinkler B
is only 1/8 of that for sprinkler A, while the
conduction parameter of sprinkler B is a b o u t
1/3 of that for sprinkler A.
The r o o m fire tests employed a test r o o m
within a larger test building, Fig. 3. The r o o m
measured 3.66 m × 7.32 m × 2.44 m high and
was made from w o o d studs and ½-in. gypsum
board. There was only one opening to the
room, an open door at one end. A fire source
was placed near the opposite end, and ceiling
sprinklers together with associated instru-
ments were located at distances from the fire
source of 1.63 and 4.55 m. Each ceiling
station incorporated a sprinkler A and a
sprinkler B, screwed into ~-m.1 • (steel) pipe
couplings extending d o w n 0.038 m from the
ceiling, attached to pipe nipples above the
roof. Each nipple was fitted to the center of
a 1.6-m-long, 1-in.<lia. horizontal steel pipe
Apparent** RTI RTI C
(m 1/2 s 1/2) (m I/2 s 1/2 ) (mt/2js t/2)
249 200 1.56
27 25 0.54
120

-'- 3.66

t
Y~
FIRE SOURCE

! ! •

NEAR STATION
SPRINKLER /
\ \THE 0uP

~- 0.076

FAR STATION

I I
OPEN DOOR
(1.18 x 2.06 HIGH)
Fig. 3. Fire r o o m w i t h t w o sprinkler a n d i n s t r u m e n t s t a t i o n s at t h e ceiling. The fire source, e i t h e r a h e p t a n e p o o l
o r w o o d crib, r e s t e d o n a weighing p l a t f o r m o n t h e floor. All d i m e n s i o n s are in meters.

above the r o o f with 0.13-m-high risers open
t o the atmosphere at b o t h ends. After a sprin-
kler had been installed for testing, the pipe to
which it was m o u n t e d was filled with water.
A thermocouple monitored the water temper-
ature within the water-way of each sprinkler.
To record actuation times, metal electrodes
were positioned in the path of the weak spray
produced when the sprinklers actuated, the
spray completing an electric circuit which was
monitored. Along with the two sprinklers at a
ceiling station, there were two thermocouples
to measure gas temperature and one bidirec-
tional flow probe (connected to an electronic
manometer) to measure gas velocity, all at a
sensing level of 0.076 m beneath the ceiling,
very nearly the level of the center of the
heat-responsive element of each sprinkler.
The fire source used was either a 0.46-m-
dia. pool of heptane floated on water, or a
wood crib {pine) measuring 0.51 m X 0.51 m
X 0.38 m high made from 19-mm square
sticks (8 sticks per layer, 20 sticks high).
Remote ignition with an electric match was
employed, in the case of the wood crib, via a
0.10-m-dia. pan of heptane underneath the
central shaft of the crib. Both fire sources
were continuously weighed on load platforms
to monitor the mass-loss rate. The ceiling
clearances above the fire sources were 2.24 m
 121

20O
for the heptane pool and 1.90 m for the w o o d r
crib.
One heptane pool fire, test 8, and one w o o d ~ lO0

crib fire, test 19, will be considered here;

detailed calculations have not y e t been made,
0 , • j
at this writing, for other tests. In test 8, the • 0 150 SECONDS 300
mass-loss rate of the heptane pool attained a (a) SPRINKLER RESPONSE TEST S

steady value of 3.50 g/s after 25 s, which cor- 3

responds to a heat release rate of 133 kW
when a combustion efficiency for heptane of 2

85% is assumed [9]. For the w o o d crib fires,

which employed a different load platform N i

than the pool fires, the load platform was

damaged b y water at the end of the first test
with this fuel, test 17. In test 17, the mass- .!
. . . . . . . . . :1~ . . . . sE~o~'os' ~oo'
loss rate, together with an assumed actual (b) SPRINKLER RESPONSE TEST S
heat of combustion [9] of 12 500 kJ/kg, indi-
cated that the fire growth could be repre- S

sented by: ~2
Q (kW) = 1 0 0 0 [ ( t -- to)/tg] 2 (26)
where* the "growth time", tg, was 256 s and
the effective ignition time, to, was 29 s. The > 0 o

temperature data under the ceiling for test 19 _|

closely matched the data for test 17 when the
time axis for test 19 was shifted 22 s to smaller
times. Hence, it may be assumed that test 19
also behaved according to eqn. {26), with
tg = 256 s and to = 2 9 - - 22 = 7 s.
Figure 4 presents gas temperatures and
velocities measured at the instrument stations
(sprinkler sites) for the heptane pool fire. In
Fig. 4(a), it can be seen that the two thermo-
couples at each station indicated very similar
temperatures. The spikes on the curves were
due to electronic noise. The velocity data in
Figs. 4(b) and 4(c) also exhibit a few elec-
tronic noise spikes. Data for the w o o d crib
fire are presented in Fig. 5. This time, the t w o
thermocouples at the near station {Fig. 5(a))
indicated slightly different temperatures, and
no electronic noise can be discerned in the
velocity data (Figs. 5(b) and 5(c)). In addi-
tion to the measurements in Figs. 4 and 5,
data on the fitting temperatures (measured
as temperatures in sprinkler water-ways) were
available; ATf until sprinklers operated ranged
from 0 °C to 22 °C for the heptane pool fire
and from 3 °C to 17 °C for the crib fire.
*It is implied in eqn. (26) that the growth time, tg,
is the time required for a fire, growing in heat release
rate with the square of time, to exceed 1000 kW.
0 "150 SECONDS 300
(C) SPRINKLER RESPONSE TEST S
Fig. 4. Heptane pool fire (test 8): gas temperatures
and velocities at ceiling instrument stations. (a)Tem-
perature at near station (top) and far station (bot-
tom); (b) velocity at near station; (c) velocity at far
station.
Response times were calculated from eqn.
(24), with eqns. (18) and (19), using RTI and
C values from Table 3, the data in Figs. 4 and
5, as well as the ATf data. Each temperature
curve (Figs. 4(a) and 5(a)), " c o r r e c t e d " for
( C / u l / 2 ) A T ~ (see eqn. (23)), was approxi-
mated b y a sequence of linear segments*
over which u 1/2 was considered constant at
the average value for the interval. An analy-
tical solution exists for eqn. (24) over such
a linear segment, according to which the res-
ponse of the heat responsive element can be
followed from one segment into the next
until response occurs (ATe = ATea).
Calculated response times are compared to
experimental response times in Fig. 6. All the
*For the heptane pool fire, the following time end
points were selected for the linear segments: 0, 69,
144, 240 s (near station) and 0, 7.5, 71, 144, 240,
300 s (far station). The time end points selected for
the wood crib fire were: 0, 24, 54, 98, 116, 150 s
(near station) and 0, 35, 61.5, 88, 140, 190 s (far
station).
122

500 300
, , //
400
/
bJ
=J /
300
i-
200
/
¢n
200 z
o
(n ,/
100
r, /
0
= i , , , , , , , : 100. . . . . . SECONDSa = 2"00 p ::D
1 O0 2
(a) SPRINKLER RESPONSE TEST t 9 q

3
/
0 I i
1O0 200 300
EXPERIMENTAL RESPONSE TIME ( e )

Fig. 7. Like Fig. 6, except calculated response times

based on C = 0 and apparent RTI (Table 3).
~o-

-!
data fall near the dashed line representing
. . . . . . :io~ .... SE~ONbS' 200'
SPRINKLER RESPONSE TEST 19
perfect correlation. At the upper right corner
(b) is shown a triangle (far station in heptane
3 pool fire) with an arrow; in this case, the
sprinkler did not operate in the test interval
and neither did the calculation indicate that
it would.
i'
~o
Suppose one ignores the conduction effect
(C = 0) and calculates response according to
the apparent RTI listed in Table 3. Figure 7
• , , , , . . . . . . • , , , , ,
-I
'lO0 SECONDS 200 gives the results in the same form as Fig. 6.
(c) SPRINKLER RESPONSE TEST 19
The crib fire data {solid symbols) exhibit
Fig. 5. Wood crib fire (test 19): gas temperatures and only slightly worse correlation, calculated
velocities at ceiling instrument stations. (a) Tempera- versus experimental, than in Fig. 6, whereas
ture at near station (top) and far station (bottom};
(b) velocity at near station; (c) velocity at far station.
the pool fire data exhibit considerably less
favorable correlation. For example, whereas
sprinkler A at the far station did not operate
, , // in the pool fire, it did operate in the calcula-
tion (at 255 s).
i.i
Many pairs of data, laboratory (RTI, C)
=
I--
A and fire tests, remain to be analyzed. It might
,., 200 / be of interest to point out that the C value
pertaining to sprinkler A, 1.56 ml/2/s 1/2
(Table 3), is the largest value observed to date
among eleven sprinkler models examined, the
° 100 / lowest being about 0.5 m1/2/sl/2.
q

SOME MODEL PREDICTIONS

/
0 i l
1 O0 200 300 Most accidental fires grow with time and
EXPEmMENTALRESPONSETiME (=)
the growth model represented by eqn. (26),
Fig. 6. C o m p a r i s o n o f c a l c u l a t e d a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l
where the heat release rate grows with the
sprinkler response times for sprinkler A (triangles)
and sprinkler B (circles). Open symbols pertain to square of time, is quite realistic. The growth
heptane pool fire and solid symbols pertain to wood time to 1000 kW output, t~, may vary from
crib fire. The dashed line represents perfect correlation. less than 10 s to more than 500 s in industrial

fires [10]. The typical home fire m a y be in
the tg range 150 - 300 s.
Response calculations have been paramet-
rized in the variable RTI and C for a given
fire scenario: tg= 146 s; ceiling clearance
above the fire source of 2.44 m; distance
under the ceiling from the fire axis of 2.15 m;
an ambient temperature of 24 °C and a sprin-
kler temperature rating of 74 °C. Using simpli-
fied formulas [11] which assume large flat
ceilings and quasi-steady fires (flow under
ceiling adjusts to instantaneous heat release
rate), the temperature and velocity can be
calculated at the sprinkler site. Response is
then predicted in the manner of the preceding
Section, using predicted temperature and
velocity instead of experimental values. How-
ever, instead of response time, the more
meaningful measure for a growing fire of heat
release rate at response, QR, is adopted as a
criterion of sprinkler responsiveness.
Figure 8 presents the heat release rate at
response as a function of RTI for three con-
duction parameters: C = 0, 1, and 2 ml/2/s 1/2.
Although there is a clear effect throughout of
the conduction parameter, the relative effect
is strong only at low values of RTI. For in-
stance, at RTI = 25 ml/2/s ~/2, the heat release
at response more than doubles as C ranges
from 0 to 2 ml/2/s 1/2.
It can be shown from the basic equations
that the effect of changing the growth time,
2000 L I I I
I S00
/,
/.
1200 / -"
~: //...""
,.~ / ,..'
/ .."
./ ..'
O 800 // ......
400
I I I I
0 100 200 300
RTI (mi/25 I/2)
Fig. 8. P r e d i c t e d h e a t release rates at sprinkler res-
p o n s e as f u n c t i o n o f R T I f o r various c o n d u c t i o n
p a r a m e t e r s C a n d a given, growing-fire scenario: tg =
146 s; ceiling clearance = 2.44 m ; d i s t a n c e o f sprin-
kler f r o m fire = 2.15 m; e l e m e n t t e m p e r a t u r e rise t o
a c t u a t e = 50 °C.
123
tg, to a new value in Fig. 8 is to change the
RTI corresponding to a given QR b y the ratio
of new value tg to original value tg. Hence, the
curves for a larger tg (slower fire growth)will
be flatter, and effects of C at a given RTI will
be larger than before. Conversely, the curves
for a smaller tg (faster fire growth) will be
steeper, and effects of C at a given RTI will
be smaller than before. Overall then, effects
of C b e c o m e increasingly more important as
RTI decreases and fire growth becomes slower.
Each combination o f RTI and C in Fig. 8
gives rise to an apparent RTI, i.e., the RTI
measured in a standard plunge test (Table 3)
assuming C = 0. In Fig. 9 the heat release
rates at response in Fig. 8 have been plotted
as a function of the apparent RTI. The effect
of C is quite large at low apparent RTI, b u t is
less significant at the higher values of apparent
RTI. For instance, for apparent RTI in the
range 125 - 332 m 1/2 s 1/2, the ffect of increas-
ing C from 0 to 2 ml/2/sl/2 varies from a 30%
increase in QR at the lower RTI to practically
no effect on QR at the higher RTI. The appar-
ent RTI range, 125 - 332 m 1/2 s 1/2, pertains
to the 23 "conventional response" sprinkler
models investigated in the FMRC test pro-
gram [2] discussed previously.
The finding that the conduction parameter
is important primarily for low-RTI sprinklers
pertains to growing fires, hence would apply
to the operation of the first sprinkler in most
fire scenarios. After the first sprinkler oper-
I ates, the heat o u t p u t of the fire m a y begin to
decrease or at least not increase. In a leveled-
I
.C=2 mL/2/! x/2
// • c-]. ml/Z/Bl/2
t " .."
// ..... c=o 2000 J ~ a
,..."
.,-
1600
A 1200 f
~ 7,+.'"
0 800 /
1" ...'
•
.."
400 500
400
I r ] I
o Ioo 200 300 +oo 500
APPARENT RTI (ml/251/2)
Fig. 9. P r e d i c t e d h e a t release rates at sprinkler res-
p o n s e in Fig. 8 p l o t t e d as a f u n c t i o n o f a p p a r e n t RTI.
124

off heat-release-rate situation, additional
sprinklers may or may not operate, and here
the conduction parameter will be important
for both low- and conventional-RTI sprinklers.
using RTI from standard plunge tests in the
FMRC plunge-test tunnel, and conduction
parameters, C, from "prolonged exposure"
tests at different velocities in the plunge-test
tunnel.

CONCLUSIONS
LIST OF SYMBOLS
(1) Of the several assumptions entering the
original sprinkler response theory leading to A surface area of heat-responsive ele-
the concept of constant RTI, two assump- ment
tions could not be justified a priori: (a) negli- B nondimensional constant
gible actuation heat for the heat-responsive C conduction parameter; see eqn. (14)
element (as associated with solder, for in- C' conduction coefficient
stance), and (b) insignificant conductive heat C specific heat of heat-responsive ele-
loss from element. ment
(2) The first experimental program con- h convective heat transfer coefficient
ducted at FMRC to study the constancy of k thermal conductivity of heat-respon-
RTI for industrial type sprinklers, incorporat- sive element
ing gas velocities of 1.5 m/s and higher, sug- L characteristic linear dimension of
gested that the actuation heat was not impor- heat-responsive element
tant. Furthermore, variations observed in RTI m mass of heat-responsive element
could not be attributed to conductive heat Nu hL/k, Nusselt number
loss. Q heat release rate
(3) RTI values measured subsequently in QR Q at sprinkler response
the FMRC plunge-test tunnel for velocities in Re uL/v, Reynolds number
the range 1.5 - 3.5 m/s and several air temper- RTI ru ' n , response time index of heat-
atures, selected above a limit to preclude responsive element
significant radiation effects, were found to be RTIv virtual KTI
quite uniform, although with some tendency Te temperature of heat responsive ele-
to increase at the lowest velocity investigated. ment
(4) Triggered by recent reports on signifi- T~ temperature of sprinkler fitting or
cant effects of conductive heat loss in certain mount
fire situations, modifications have been pro- gas or air temperature
posed for the original response theory to To initial or ambient temperature
accommodate such effects. The conductive ATe Te -- To
heat loss rate has been assumed proportional ATea ATe at actuation of sprinkler
to the difference in temperature between the ATev virtual temperature rise of heat-
heat-responsive element and the sprinkler responsive element
fitting. In the modified model, the response ATeva ATev at actuation of sprinkler
of a sprinkler for a given fire environment and ATf Tf -- To
temperature rating depends on two param- Tg -- To
eters, the RTI and a conduction parameter, C. t time
(5) According to the modified sprinkler tg growth time of fire to I000 k W for
response model, conductive heat loss effects fire growing with square of time
are primarily important at low gas tempera- to effective ignition time
tures and velocities. For rising temperatures tr response or actuation time of sprin-
and velocities, as in growing fires, conduction kler
effects become increasingly more important U gas or air velocity
as RTI decreases and fire growth becomes Uc limiting air velocity for sprinkler
slower. response
(6) Response times of sprinklers in specially V kinematic viscosity
designed room fires were found to be consis- T time constant of heat responsive
tent with calculations according to the model, element

REFERENCES
1 G. Heskestad and H. F. Smith, Investigation o f a
New Sprinkler Sensitivity Approval Test: The
Plunge Test, FMRC 22485, F a c t o r y Mutual Re-
search Corporation, Norwood, MA, December,
1976.
2 G. Heskestad and H. F. Smith, Plunge Test for
Determination of Sprinkler Sensitivity, FMRC
3AIE2.RR, Factory Mutual Research Corpora-
tion, Norwood, MA, December, 1980.
3 J. S. Pepi, Design Characteristics of Quick Res-
ponse Sprinklers, Grinnel Fire Protection Sys-
tems Company, Providence, Rhode Island, May,
1986.
4 W. H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, 1954, pp. 266 - 267.
5 R. W. Pickard, D. Hird and P. Nash, The Thermal
Testing of Heat-Sensitive Fire Detectors, Fire
Res. Note No. 247, Fire Research Station, Bore-
hamwood, January, 1957.
6 R. L. Alpert, Calculations of response times of
125
ceiling-mounted fire detectors, Fire Technol., 8
(1972) 181 - 195.
7 FRS Wind Tunnel for Sprinkler Evaluation, BRE
Research for Industry, Building Research Estab-
lishment, Department of the Environment, U.K.,
1984.
8 D. D. Evans and D. Madrzykowski, Characterizing
the Thermal Response of Fusible-Link Sprinklers,
NBSIR 81-2329, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, DC, August, 1981.
9 G. Heskestad, A Fire Products Collector for
Calorimetry into the MW Range, FMRC 0C2E1.
RA, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Nor-
wood, MA, June, 1981.
10 Guide for Smoke and Heat Venting, NFPA
204M-1982, National Fire Codes, Vol. 15, Na-
tional Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA,
p. 204M-1.
11 G. Heskestad, Similarity Relations for the Initial
Convective Flow Generated by Fire, Paper No.
72-WA/HT-17, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, November, 1972.