It is not my present purpose, however, to traverse the evolution
in America of the Automatic Sprinkler on either its mechanical
or commercial side, but to tell the story, as simply and as
briefly as I can, of its introduction to our own country and the
difficulties with which its pioneers were beset.
It was in the early days of 1881 that Mr George F Parmelee
arrived in Manchester from America, bringing with him the
Sprinkler invented by his brother Henry in 1874. The Parmelee
Sprinkler had already achieved a considerable amount of success
in the States, and the first demonstration of its working in
this country naturally aroused much interest. For this purpose,
Mr Parmelee erected in the Wholesale Market Square of Bolton a
wooden shed 20ft x 30ft which he fitted with six of his
Sprinklers.
The floor was strewed with a mass of chips, shavings, tallow,
cask shavings, barrels, etc, all well saturated with paraffin
oil, and to this combustible material light was set in three
places by Superintendent Philips of the Bolton Fire Brigade.
Immediately huge volumes of flames burst forth and drove the
spectators back some distance from the shed. In one minute and
twenty seconds the first Sprinkler opened, followed by two
others, and in a short time not a vestige of the fire remained.
My old Friend and partner, Mr John Taylor- then a very young man
- was a keenly interested spectator, and he well remembers the
deep impression made on his mind by the experiment.
One week later a second test was given in the same building,
but on this occasion the fuel consisted of "a large store of old
mule carriages, broken up and intermingled with wood shavings,
strewed down three sides and in the centre". According to a
report that appeared in the Bolton Evening News of 30 June 1881
- "fire was set to this inflammable material in five places, and
in 58 seconds one of the caps had burst off and the Sprinkler
was at work. The flames had no sooner appeared to be getting
hold, and from the open doorway could be seen leaping to the
ceiling, then they were hidden to sight in a cloud of smoke, and
in three minutes the fire was practically quelled." It was
afterwards found that all the Sprinklers had been unsealed.
During the remainder of 1881 and the early months of 1882, Mr
Parmelee devoted himself to educating the Insurance Companies up
to an appreciation of the value of the Automatic Sprinkler as a
means of reducing the loss ratio. He realized that he could
never succeed in obtaining contracts from the mill owners
necessitating the expenditure of considerable amount of capital
unless he could at the same time ensure for them a reasonable
return upon their outlay in the shape of reduced premiums. In
this connection he was fortunate enough to enlist the sympathies
of two men, both possessed of considerable influence in the
insurance world. The first of these was the late Major Hesketh,
who, in addition to being a cotton spinner in a large business
in Bolton, was Chairman of the Bolton Cotton Trades Mutual
Insurance Company; a concern which had been founded some 10
years earlier by the Fine Cotton Spinners of Bolton and the
surrounding neighborhood, to undertake, on what were practically
co-operative lines, the insurance of mills belonging to its
members. The Directors of this Company and more particularly its
Secretary, the late Peter Kevan, C.A., took the keenest possible
interest in Mr Parmelee's early experiments, and eventually it
was to Major Hesketh, its Chairman, that Mr Parmelee owed his
first order for the Sprinkler Installations which were installed
in the Cotton Spinning Mills of John Stones & Co., at Astley
Bridge, Bolton, to be followed soon afterwards by the Alexandra
Mills belonging to Mr John Butler of the same town.
The Bolton Mutual Company was after all only a small local
concern (at least in those days), and they neither sought nor
accepted business even in the other cotton districts of
Lancashire. It was therefore very necessary that Mr Parmelee
should seek the support of a far wider influence, and this he
found in the late Mr James North Lane, the Manager of the Mutual
Fire Insurance Corporation of Manchester. This Company was
founded in 1870 by the Textile Manufacturers' Associations of
Lancashire and Yorkshire as a protest against the high rates of
Insurance then charged by the Fire Offices for their Mills, and
with the declared policy of encouraging risk improvement and
more particularly the adoption of the most up-to-date and
scientific apparatus for extinguishing fires. The Mutual
Company's operations were, however, not confined to an extensive
business with the Cotton Mills of the North, for it operated
largely in the wooled and worsted districts of Yorkshire, the
West of England and South of Scotland, in the jute and linen
mills of Dundee and the North of Ireland, and in fact in every
description of manufacturing risk throughout the country. It was
then, very natural that this automatic fire-fighting device, to
which the Americans had given the name of a "Sprinkler," should
attract Mr Lanes's keen interest.
It was at this Juncture - i.e. the summer of 1881 - that my
connection with the Automatic Sprinkler began. After passing two
extremely useful and interesting years in the Cotton Mills of
Barlow & Jones Ltd of Bolton gaining much valuable experience,
I obtained, in 1878, an appointment on the staff of Mr Lane's
Company in Manchester, and became its chief surveyor about the
time of Mr Parmelee's arrival in England. Mr Lane at once
introduced me to him with the request that I should take up the
study of this new system of fire extinction. It was not long
before I became most deeply interested in the Automatic
Sprinkler, not only on its scientific but its practical side,
and I threw myself with all available energy into the work of
pioneering the new invention.
About a year later Mr Parmelee decided that a more thorough
test, under conditions
approximating to those of a Cotton Spinning Mill, was needed to
convince the Industrials of Lancashire of the efficiency of his
Automatic Sprinkler. In conjunction with the Bolton Insurance
Company, the bold step was taken of hiring the Spa Mill in
Bolton, an old cotton spinning factory of non-fireproof
construction, five stories in height, with wooden boarded floors
which were saturated with the oil of 50 years work. The test was
made on the 22 March 1882, and the Bolton Evening News of the
same date published the following report of what took place:
"It will be remembered that, in June last, a trial was made
in a specially erected wooden building on the Wholesale Market,
and it was then considered that the contracted space condensed
the heat, and therefore the Sprinklers came into operation
sooner than would have been the case under less circumscribed
conditions. The present experiment was therefore arranged, and
on the fourth floor two pairs of spinning mules were erected.
Thirty-two Sprinklers were fixed in this room, and a similar
number in the top storey. A quantity of shavings and combustible
material was scattered around one pair of mules and a light
applied. Within a very short time the flames obtained complete
mastery and dense volumes of smoke filled the room; in fact, it
was all but impossible to breathe within two minutes after the
light was applied. At the expiration of a minute and a half the
first Sprinkler came into operation, and two others shortly
followed. Within three and a half minutes the fire was
extinguished and the spectators, who had made a hasty and
somewhat undignified exit, were able to return. It will,
therefore, be seen that the experiment was entirely
satisfactory, and furnishes the best recommendation for the
general adoption of the system. It is clear that a general
stampede of the inmates would have taken place before the fire
was extinguished."
I attended, and assisted Mr Parmelee with this demonstration,
the complete success of which made a profound impression on the
large and influential company present. For a few brief moments
after the fire had got well alight I feared that nothing could
save the mill, and along with others rushed to the staircase to
escape the intense heat and dense smoke, only to find on
returning that the Sprinklers had done their work splendidly and
performed all, and even more than had been claimed for them.
But despite all our efforts it was slow and weary work
getting Sprinklers established in this country, and during 1882
and 1883 not more than a score of factories were protected by Mr
Parmelee. Nevertheless much valuable pioneering work was
accomplished. The old and immensely influential Tariff Insurance
Companies were still standing aloof, but the day of their
conversion was at hand.
The next chapter in our story is an extremely interesting
one. Mr (Sir William) Mather, the head of the old-established
Engineering firm of Mather and Platt, of Salford Iron Works,
Manchester, who was then a member of Parliament, had been
appointed a member of the Royal Commission on Technical
Education, which, in the summer of 1883, proceeded to America to
gather evidence for their report to our Government.
Whilst in the States, Mr Mather, during a visit to the Brown
University at Providence, met Mr Fredrick Grinnell, formerly the
chief mechanical engineer and general manager of the Jersey City
Locomotive Works, who, on his retirement from the Railway's
service, had purchased the Providence Steam and Gas Pipe
Company's plant and settled down in that town. Mr Grinnell had
already become associated with Mr. Henry Parmelee, for whom he
not only manufactured the "Parmelee" Sprinkler, but designed and
erected the piping installations in which the "Parmelee" Heads
were fitted. Recognising the essential importance of
sensitiveness in any self-operated fire extinguisher, Mr
Grinnell-who was possessed of great mechanical genius-set to
work to improve upon Mr Parmelee's invention and eventually
evolved the well known "Grinnell" Sprinkler, in which he secured
greatly increased sensitiveness by removing the fusible joint
from all contact with the water, and, by the ingenious method of
seating a valve in the centre of a flexible diaphragm, relieved
the low fusing soldered joint of the strain of water pressure or
hammer. By this means the valve seat was forced against the
valve by the water pressure, producing a self-closing action, so
that the greater the water pressure, the tighter the valve. The
flexible diaphragm had a further and most important function,
viz; that it caused the valve and its seat to move outwards
simultaneously until the solder joint was completely severed.
The invention of Mr Grinnell's which was entirely novel in
the field of Hydraulics, was destined to revolutionize the whole
sphere of fire protection. It appealed at once to Mr. Mather,
who there and then secured the Patent rights for the whole world
outside the Continent of America. On his return to England he
proceeded to place the Grinnell Sprinkler on the market, and not
long afterwards the brothers parted with their business both in
America and England to the Grinnell interests. With the Parmelee
Head withdrawn in both America and England, the way was left
clear for Mr Grinnell's wonderful invention.
The advent of such a well known firm as Mather and Platt to
the Fire Engineering field naturally gave the Sprinkler movement
considerable impetus at home and abroad, and when shortly
afterwards the British Tariff Insurance Companies decided to
give official recognition to the Grinnell and grant rebates of
premium for its installation, things commenced to go ahead.
At this point I wish to place on record the great debt which
this country owes to the late Mr J N Lane for the immensely
important part he played in the development of the Automatic
Fire Protection this side of the Atlantic. It was in fact due to
his sagacity and prescience that the Automatic Sprinkler
obtained its real foothold in this country. Mr Lane had long
before Mr Parmelee's days, been the first insurance manager to
advocate and encourage tangibly the adoption of fire-fighting
devises, such as hydrants, hose, steam fire pumps, private fire
bridges, chemical extincteurs, handpumps, etc., and it was his
Company-the Mutual Fire Corporation of Manchester-that published
the first schedule of discounts for non-automatic fire
appliances by which their insurers could obtain rebates from
their premiums of two and a half per cent to fifteen per cent,
according to the value and quality of the appliances provided.
It was but a natural step for Mr Lane, once he had gripped
the importance of the Automatic Sprinkler, to lead the way
boldly by offering for installations of Parmelee Sprinklers a
discount of twenty per cent over and above what his Company were
allowing for non-automatic appliances. Mr Lane's Company was not
at that time a member of the Fire Offices Committee; it was a
non-tariff office -in fact the only one of influence outside the
tariff fold, and his courageous action in recognizing officially
this new and comparatively untried American device created at
the time quite a sensation in Insurance circles and was sternly
reprobated by many of his brothers managers.
During the next two years I was largely occupied in studying
methods of installation involving such vital factors as the
areas of pipes, the determination of water supplies, the
capacities and elevation of tanks, the provision of auxiliary
pumps, etc. It had always been the subject of surprise to Mr
Lane and myself that, with their much wider experience of
Sprinkler practice, the Insurance Companies in America or their
Engineers had never established their own rules. As nothing of
the nature had appeared, and with the feeling that it was high
time that regulations for the control of all Sprinkler work were
provided, I decided to try my hand, and so gain for my own
country the credit of being the pioneers in Sprinkler
legislation. On October 22nd 1885, I copyrighted and published
the first code of Sprinkler Rules that had been given to the
world, and these were based on the data and experience provided
by the previous three years of experiment and practice. So
saturated was my mind with the subject in all it's detail that I
well remember composing the whole pamphlet on a Sunday afternoon
without having to refer to any notes. I did not expect that
these regulation would find general acceptance, but as a mater
of fact not only were they adopted by the British Tariff
Companies, but in America they paid us the compliment of taking
them as the groundwork of their own rules subsequently
published. Many of the original provisions of this first edition
of Sprinkler Rules remain unaltered today although nearly forty
years have since elapsed.
The following introductory paragraphs to this first edition
provide interesting reading:-
"As the application of Automatic Sprinklers for the
protection of property against fire is daily becoming more
general, it seems desirable that there should be some official
record of the bases upon which our completed installations in
England and Scotland have been founded. It is therefore proposed
to set forth, within the briefest possible limits, the lines
upon which we have been working, with the view to such
information forming a groundwork for all future installations in
which the Corporation is interested.
Before going into details, it may be explained that in
dealing with the protection of risks with Sprinklers we lay down
three fundamental conditions, compliance with which we insist
upon, each and all being made a sine qua non to a perfect
installation. These are as follows:-
1. The provision of a duplicate water supply, automatic in
its action
2. Compliance as regards the areas of main and distributing
feed pipes, with the accepted sizes.
3. Protection of all non-fireproof portions of one hazard.
The interest exited by the appearance of these Rules both at
home and in America was so wide that within a few months ( 20
April 1886 ) I found it necessary to print a second and revised
edition, to which the following is the preface:-
" When we decided six months ago to publish a short pamphlet
on the subject of Automatic Sprinklers, it was not anticipated
that the demand for copies would have been so great. The first
issue has, however, already become exhausted, and to enable us
to comply with continued requests for the pamphlet, we have
decided to prepare a second edition which shall embody such
alterations and additions as have
been suggested by additional experience. We have also appended a
table showing the head of water required to give stated
pressures, together with the discharge of an Automatic Sprinkler
at such pressures. This table will be found useful in fixing the
capacity and height of water tanks.
It is particularly gratifying to us to note the headway now
being made by Automatic Sprinklers as a means of protection
against fire, more especially amongst the hazardous textile
risks in the North of England and Scotland, and it is not
unreasonable to hope that before long their application will be
extended to general risks and warehouses throughout the United
Kingdom".
As was expected, the advent of the Automatic Sprinkler
attracted the attention of Fire Engineers who had hitherto been
engaged in the manufacture of non-automatic appliances, and in
the succeeding years there appeared on the British market
numerous types of new Sprinklers, each claiming to be an
improvement on Mr Grinnell's invention.
As these new and untried devises had to receive the endorsement
of my Company before being placed upon the market for sale, it
became necessary to establish a system of mechanical tests, and
in this work I received assistance of the utmost value from the
late Mr C J H Woodbury, of Boston, USA. A member of the Fire
Insurance profession like myself, Mr Woodbury held the office of
Chief Mechanical Engineer and Vice-President of the Boston
Manufacturers' Mutual Fire Insurance Association. Having to deal
with an avalanche of new Sprinkler Heads submitted for his
Company's endorsement, he instituted an elaborate system of
tests for determining not only the factors of discharge and
distribution, but what was of far greater importance, the
strength of the soldered joint. Mr Woodbury and I kept in close
touch with each other's work, and between us, I think we could
claim to have saved the public large sums of money in protecting
them from imposition of worthless devises. In the second edition
of the Sprinkler Rules (April 20 1886) I set forth the lines
upon which these tests were to be conducted. This declaration
read as follows:-
"CHOICE OF SPRINKLERS" - Whilst unwilling to express any
opinion as to the comparative merits of the various patterns of
Automatic Sprinklers now in the market, we shall be glad to
inform insurers what Sprinklers are accepted by the Corporation.
Only those which have stood the most exhaustive tests are passed
by us, particular attention having been paid to the following
points, viz. : strength, liability to leakage, action in slow
fires, sensitiveness, and simplicity of construction.
Exhibition fires in which large bodies of heat and flame are
generated almost instantaneously, are deceptive as tests, and a
true estimate of the reliability of an Automatic Sprinkler can
only be arrived at after very careful investigation."
Of the many devices submitted for examination three British
Sprinklers were deemed of sufficient merit to justify their
endorsement, viz.: the "Simplex" (Dowson & Taylor, Bolton), the
"Witter" (Witter & Son, Bolton), and the "Titan" (J H Lynde and
George Mills, Radcliffe).
The "Simplex" was a sealed or non-valve device of the
Parmelee type, though much more sensitive in its operation, and
had the great advantage of being placed on the market in
conjunction with the well-known Variable Pressure Alarm Valve
invented by John Taylor. This valve is operated by the flow of
the water, and is constructed so as to prevent false alarms
being given by any variations of pressure in the main supply
pipes. When the water pressure has achieved an equilibrium above
and below the valve, the clack, which is of differential area,
drops by its own weight upon a seating on which is grooved an
annular chamber with an outlet pipe to a small water motor, to
the spindle of which are attached revolving hammers that strike
a loud sounding gong. In practice the opening of a Sprinkler
Head reduces the pressure above the Valve, which is lifted by
the upward flow from the main supplies, and so long as this
continues, water passes to the motor and the gong sounds a
continuous alarm. In the clack of the Valve there is a small
compensating valve which takes up any violent Fluctuation of
pressure without lifting the valve itself, thus obviating false
alarms.
Next to Mr Grinnell's invention this ingenious valve of Mr
Taylor's remains the most important step in advance in the
development and practice of Automatic Fire Extinction.
Previously there was nothing better than a rude and clumsy
clockwork arrangement consisting of a copper cord wound around a
drum with a weight attached which, when released, caused a
hammer to strike a gong just as in an 8-day clock. When the
weight reached the ground the alarm ceased. Mr Taylor's new
valve was speedily adopted by Mr Grinnell himself and applied
all over America. It is still an integral part of every
Sprinkler Installation.
The "Simplex" Sprinkler was superseded by the Grinnell when
Dowson & Taylor joined forces with Mather & Platt early in 1888,
but the "Witter" and the "Titan" Sprinklers, in considerably
modified forms, are still on the market with other devises of
later date.
There was one important point upon which my manager, Mr Lane,
had been most insistent from the very start of the Sprinkler
Campaign in this country - viz.: that the provision of a
Sprinkler Installation should not interfere with the
maintenance, in the highest possible state of efficiency, of
ordinary fire appliances. It was therefore at his request that,
in the second edition of the Rules, there appeared the following
:-
"Automatic Sprinklers are not intended to take the place of
ordinary fire appliances, but are to be regarded as an
additional protection, and their introduction must not be
considered a reason for the displacement of other forms of fire
apparatus, for which separate and liberal discounts are
conceded.
Insurers are, therefore, requested to give the same
supervision to their ordinary appliances as if there were no
Sprinklers on the premises".
It was also due to Mr Lane that Automatic Sprinklers were
first applied to the protection of non-manufacturing properties
in this country. Recognizing that 25 or 30 per cent discount
would afford no inducement to insurers to protect their
low-rated risks, he issued a circular in 1886 notifying that his
company would be willing to allow a discount of 50 per cent for
Sprinklers in risks rated at 6s. per cent or under, a bold step,
but one that showed the immense confidence he had in this new
form of fire protection.
Between 1885 and 1888 I published four revised and enlarged
editions of these Sprinkler rules, embodying the experience
gradually gained from an intimate knowledge of every Sprinkler
Installation that had previously been erected within the United
Kingdom. For example: the protection of Corn Mills was first
legislated for in the 4th edition of the Rules, issued in March
1888. Up to that time there had been considerable doubt as to
whether it was really practicable to give any adequate Sprinkler
Protection to Corn Mills, but some exhaustive tests made in 1886
and 1887 set at rest all doubts on the matter. The first Corn
Mill in England to be protected with Sprinklers was Barrow Flour
Mill, belonging to Messers Walmsley & Smith.
I superintended the designing of this equipment, and laid
down the rule, that in the protection of Flour Mills there must
be at least one Sprinkler for every 64 superficial feet of floor
area, instead of the usual 100 feet, and that in addition there
must be a Sprinkler fitted inside the box of every elevator
head, placed in such a position as to discharge water down both
legs. The experience of Insurance Companies in writing protected
Flour Mill risks has been unexpectedly favorable.
In this 4th Edition of the Sprinkler Rules ( of which
unfortunately only one or two copies survive ) is to be found
some interesting information. We find it stated in the preamble
that since their introduction to this country in 1883 Sprinklers
had operated in 15 fires, in every instance with marked success.
There is also given a classified list of installations
completed, or in course of completion, within the United Kingdom
up to 1 January 1888, as follows:-