U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Applied Economics 

Technology Administration Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 

Economic Analysis of Residential Fire 

Sprinkler Systems 

Hayden Brown

NISTIR 7277
The fire sprinkler images on the cover, clockwise from top left, courtesy of Noveon, Inc., 

Uponor Wirsbo, and the United States Fire Administration.
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Applied Economics 

Technology Administration Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 

Economic Analysis of Residential 

Fire Sprinkler Systems 

Hayden Brown 

Funded by: 

United States Fire Administration (USFA) 

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

December 2005 

Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Commerce

Michael Chertoff, Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

 Technology Administration

Dr. William A. Jeffrey, Acting Under Secretary

for Technology

U.S. Fire Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology

R. David Paulison, Administrator Dr. William A. Jeffrey, Director

NISTIR 7277

iii

Abstract

This report designs and applies a comparative life-cycle cost analysis to multipurpose network and 

stand-alone fire sprinkler systems designed in compliance with NFPA 13D. The life-cycle costs of 

the systems are studied in each of three NIST-designed prototypical house floorplans: a 3338 ft2

(310 m2

) two-story colonial with basement, a 2257 ft2 (210 m2) three-story townhouse, and a 1171 ft2

(109 m2

) single-story ranch. 

The economic analysis follows the standard method in ASTM E917-02, and includes those elements 

of life-cycle cost that are unique to each system, such as design, material, installation and inspection 

costs. System plans, a comprehensive list of required components, and material costs were obtained 

from manufacturers and sprinkler system installers. NIST economists obtained data on a 

multipurpose network design and three stand-alone designs from manufacturers and sprinkler system 

installers. To these material cost data were added estimates of installation cost and design cost. In 

addition to the economic analysis of the sprinkler system designs, this report documents the 

collection and development of the cost data. 

The comparative analysis is applied to the cost data to determine which of the proposed systems 

analyzed in this report has the lowest estimated life-cycle cost. Estimated cost results for all systems 

are within a close range, and are most sensitive to the decision to incorporate a backflow preventer. 

Both the cost data in this report and the cost-effectiveness analysis are intended to support a followon benefit-cost study by NIST on residential sprinkler systems. 

Key Words: building economics, cost analysis, cost-effective decision, economic analysis, fire 

sprinkler, life-cycle cost 

v

Preface

This study was conducted by the Office of Applied Economics in the Building and Fire Research 

Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The study compares life-cycle 

costs of multipurpose network and stand-alone residential fire sprinkler systems, using design and 

cost data presented in the report. The basic systems contained in this report are all assumed to meet 

the NFPA 13D standard, with no system encountering a higher failure rate or requiring more 

maintenance or service. 

Floorplans of prototypical houses, shown in Appendix A, were developed to form a physical basis for 

cost estimations. The sprinkler system designs reproduced in Appendix B and C are courtesy of the 

designer noted and should not be construed as endorsed or recommended by NIST. 

This report was developed with funding from the U. S. Fire Administration (USFA). The USFA 

encourages the increased use of residential sprinkler systems as a means of reducing the loss of life 

and property in residential fires. 

Disclaimer: Certain trade names or company products are mentioned in the text to specify 

adequately the experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does such identification 

imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that the equipment is the best available for the purpose. 

Disclaimer Regarding Non-metric Units: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology is to use metric units in all its published materials. All of the sprinkler system design 

data such as room dimensions and pipe lengths were obtained in customary units. Because this 

report is intended for U.S. builders and contractors who use customary units, it is more practical and 

less confusing to use customary units rather than metric units within tables. Throughout the text of 

this report, measurement values stated in customary units are listed first, followed by the 

corresponding values in metric units within parentheses. 

vii

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Dan Madrzykowski and Doug Walton of the Fire Research Division of the 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory. Dan Madrzykowski initiated this project and facilitated the 

collection of cost data, and Doug Walton designed the house plans. Thanks are also given to Harold 

Marshall, Robert Chapman and Linde Fuller of the Office of Applied Economics for their many 

helpful comments and suggestions on the cost parameters and on the analysis methodology. Special 

appreciation is extended to OAE staff members Julie Wean for her research, Tessa Beavers for her 

work with tables of data, and Douglas Thomas for assistance with the cover photographs. 

Special thanks are given to Mr. Larry Maruskin of the U.S. Fire Administration for supporting this 

project; and Fred Benn, of Advanced Automatic Sprinkler, Inc.; Jonathan Bittenbender of REHAU 

Inc.; Phillip Brown, of the American Fire Sprinkler Association, Russ Fleming of the National Fire 

Sprinkler Association; Gary Johnson of Noveon, Inc.; Alan Larson, of Uponor Wirsbo, Inc.; Eric 

Price of Engineered Fire Systems, Inc.; Steve Rians, of Standard Automatic Fire Enterprises, Inc.; 

and Pete Schwab of Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinkler for technical assistance without which this 

report could not have been written. 

ix

Table of Contents

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................iii 

Preface............................................................................................................................................. v 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi 

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Approach........................................................................................... 1 

2. Comparison Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3 

2.1 Introduction to Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Method ................................................................... 3 

2.2 Sprinkler Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 5 

2.3 Cost Comparison................................................................................................................... 5 

3. Sprinkler Cost Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7 

3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 7 

3.2 Purchase and Installation Cost Estimates ............................................................................. 7 

3.3 Cost Data............................................................................................................................... 8 

3.4 Markup and Inspection Cost Information........................................................................... 29 

3.5 Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Summary.............................................................................. 31 

4. Summary and Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................... 33 

4.1 Summary............................................................................................................................. 33 

4.2 Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................................ 33 

References..................................................................................................................................... 35 

Appendix A: Prototypical Houses ............................................................................................... 37 

Appendix B: Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation Plan ......................................................... 43 

Appendix C: Multipurpose Network Sprinkler Installation Plan ................................................ 49 
x

List of Tables

Table 2-1. List of Cost Estimation Tables by Fire Sprinkler System and House Type................. 5 

Table 3-1. Cost Summary: Alternative A (Multipurpose Network System Using PEX) for a 

New 3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single Family Colonial House......................................................... 11 

Table 3-2. Cost Summary: Alternative A (Multipurpose Network System Using PEX) for a 

New 2257 ft2

 (210 m2) Single Family Townhouse............................................................... 12 

Table 3-3. Cost Summary: Alternative A (Multipurpose Network System Using PEX) for a 

New 1171 ft2 (109 m2) Single Family Ranch House ............................................................ 13 

Table 3-4. Cost Summary: Alternative B (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single Family Colonial House ................................................................. 14 

Table 3-5. Cost Summary: Alternative B (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

2257 ft2 (210 m2) Single Family Townhouse ....................................................................... 15 

Table 3-6. Cost Summary: Alternative B (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

1171 ft2 (109 m2) Single Family Ranch House..................................................................... 16 

Table 3-7. Cost Summary: Alternative C (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single Family Colonial House ................................................................. 17 

Table 3-8. Cost Summary: Alternative C (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

2257 ft2 (210 m2) Single Family Townhouse ....................................................................... 19 

Table 3-9. Cost Summary: Alternative C (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

1171 ft2

 (109 m2) Single Family Ranch House..................................................................... 21 

Table 3-10. Cost Summary: Alternative D (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single Family Colonial House ................................................................. 23 

Table 3-11. Cost Summary: Alternative D (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

2257 ft2 (210 m2) Single Family Townhouse ....................................................................... 25 

Table 3-12. Cost Summary: Alternative D (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 

1171 ft2

 (109 m2) Single Family Ranch House..................................................................... 27 

Table 3-13. Cost Estimate Summary Table, Before Markups and Inspection............................. 29 

Table 3-14. Cost Estimate Summary Table at 10 % Material Markup........................................ 30 

Table 3-15. Cost Estimate Summary Table at 20 % Material Markup........................................ 30 

Table 3-16. Cost Estimate Summary Table at 30 % Material Markup........................................ 30 
xi

Table 3-17. Cost Estimate Summary Table at 50 % Material Markup........................................ 30 

Table 3-18. Cost Estimate Summary Table at 100 % Material Markup...................................... 30 

Table 3-19. Present Value of $ 100 Inspection by Study Period and Discount Rate .................. 31 

Table 3-20. Present Value of $ 200 Inspection by Study Period and Discount Rate .................. 31 

Table 4-1. Least-Cost Sprinkler Alternatives by House type ...................................................... 33 

List of Figures

Figure A-1. Prototypical Colonial House: Basement Floorplan................................................. 37 

Figure A-2. Prototypical Colonial House: 1st Floor Floorplan .................................................. 38 

Figure A-3. Prototypical Colonial House: 2nd Floor Floorplan................................................ 39 

Figure A-4. Prototypical Townhouse Floorplans......................................................................... 40 

Figure A-5. Prototypical Ranch Floorplan................................................................................... 41 

Figure B-1. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House Basement..................... 43 

Figure B-2. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 1st Floor ...................... 44 

Figure B-3. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 2nd Floor..................... 45 

Figure B-4. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Townhouse Basement........................... 46 

Figure B-5. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Townhouse 1st & 2nd Floors................ 47 

Figure B-6. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Ranch .................................................... 48 

Figure C-1. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House Basement .... 49 

Figure C-2. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 1st Floor...... 50 

Figure C-3. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 2nd Floor .... 51 

Figure C-4. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Townhouse ........................... 52 

Figure C-5. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Ranch.................................... 53 

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background 

Since the 1975 introduction of the residential sprinkler standard 13D by the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), residential sprinkler systems have proven themselves as life safety systems. 

According to the Residential Fire Safety Institute, there are now at least 270 communities in the 

United States with regulations requiring residential sprinkler systems.1

 While there is growing 

recognition of the enhanced ability of residential sprinkler systems to protect life and property from 

fires, in the year 2003 less than 2 % of all existing one and two family homes included a sprinkler 

system.2

 

According to the United States Fire Administration (USFA), in 2004 there were a total of 410 500 

residential fires3

 and a total of 117 firefighter deaths4 with an average of 41 % of all firefighter deaths 

resulting from residential fires.5 In 2004, residential fires caused 3 225 deaths, accounting for 83 % 

of all fire deaths.6

 Residential fires also were responsible for 14 175 injuries and $ 5.9 billion in 

direct property losses in 2004 according to the NFPA. 

A study based on 15 years of data from Scottsdale, Arizona categorized fire damage in two types of 

homes—those with fire sprinkler systems and those without fire sprinkler systems. Property loss due 

to a fire in a residential home with a sprinkler system was $ 2 166 compared to $ 45 019 in the homes 

without a sprinkler system.7

 A study based on 12 years of data from Prince George’s County, 

Maryland reported fire damage in homes with sprinkler systems and estimated what the damage 

would have been in those same houses had there not been a fire sprinkler system. Fire damage in 

homes with sprinkler systems amounted to $ 3 429 per reported fire incident, compared to a potential 

loss of $ 326 752 per incident had the homes not been equipped with a sprinkler system.8

 A possible 

cause of the difference in damage is that the Prince George’s County houses with sprinkler systems 

were generally new, larger and so relatively more expensive to repair than the Arizona houses 

without sprinkler systems. 

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Approach 

This report designs and applies a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis consistent with the ASTM 

International standard method E917-02 to two basic types of sprinkler system designs allowed by 

NFPA 13D—a stand-alone residential sprinkler system and a multipurpose system using a network 

design. Life-cycle costs include design, installation in new construction, and maintenance costs. 

 

1

 www.firesafehome.org Note that these jurisdictions can encompass more than one city. 2

 www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nrfsi-03report.pdf 

3

 www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/national/residential.shtm 4

 www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/quickstats/ 5

 www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nrfsi-03report.pdf 

6

 www.nfpa.org 

7

 Data are based on fires from 1998 to 2001. The 15-year data do not separate residential fire damage from all 

structures with fires. Highlights from the 15-year study are online at www.homefiresprinkler.org/ FireService/ 

Scottsdale15.html 

8

 Siarnicki, Ronald Jon, Residential Sprinklers: One Community's Experience Twelve Years After Mandatory 

Implementation. Jan. 2001. Data are based on fires from 1992 to 2000. 
2

The life-cycle costs of three stand-alone sprinkler systems and one multipurpose network system are 

compared in each of three house designs. The stand-alone design uses a dedicated water supply and 

piping in which water only flows when the sprinkler system is activated. The multipurpose network 

design connects to the regular water supply and piping of the house, so water is continually 

circulated. The stand-alone installers used chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe. The 

multipurpose network system installers used crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) tubing. Throughout 

this report, the term “pipe” will be used to refer to both the CPVC pipe and the PEX tubing. 

Chapter 2 describes the economic model, links it to the LCC method found in ASTM E917-02, and 

develops the cost categories needed to perform the economic analysis in this report. 

Chapter 3 introduces the two sprinkler system types (multipurpose network and stand-alone) and 

develops estimates for the life-cycle costs of each type, for each prototypical house design. Chapter 

3 applies the methodology developed in Chapter 2 to the cost data and identifies the least-cost fire 

sprinkler alternative for each of the three house styles. 

Chapter 4 summarizes the economic analysis and recommends future research for analyzing the 

benefits of fire sprinklers. 

Appendix A depicts floorplans of three prototypical houses designed by the Building and Fire 

Research Laboratory (BFRL). Appendix B depicts the design of a stand-alone fire sprinkler system. 

Appendix C depicts the design of a multipurpose network fire sprinkler system. 
3

2. Comparison Methodology

This chapter is organized as follows: Section 2.1 introduces Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) and applies it to 

residential fire sprinkler systems. Section 2.2 describes the alternatives and house types. Section 2.3 

explains how the cost estimations will be constructed using the data in this report. 

2.1 Introduction to Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Method 

The first costs of fire sprinkler systems are the material purchase costs and the design and installation 

labor costs. Even though these costs are of major importance, there are also future costs associated 

with ownership and operation that should be considered in an economic analysis. The life-cycle cost 

method is uniquely suited to evaluating not only first costs but all costs of acquiring, owning and 

disposing of a building or a building system over a given time period. It entails computing the LCCs 

for alternative systems, serving the same purpose, and then comparing them to determine which has 

the lowest LCC. 

To be able to add and compare time-distributed costs, they have to be measured at the same point in 

time. To make future costs time-equivalent, that is, to take the time value of money into account, 

they have to be discounted to present value. The time period over which future costs are discounted 

is the analysis study period. For a homeowner, the study period may be the time from purchase to 

the sale of the house. If the time at which the analysis is performed and the costs are evaluated is the 

time of purchase and installation of the system, first costs do not need to be discounted. 

The above approach has been standardized in the ASTM International standard practice E917-02, 

“Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems.” According 

to this standard, LCC computes “the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning and operating a 

building or building system over a specified time period.” Included are costs of “designing, 

purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and 

disposing.” 

The LCC to the homeowner of sprinkler alternative “X” may be represented as follows: 
4

0 ( )

LCC First cost

O&M Repair Replacement Disposal , 1

X X

T

Xt Xt Xt Xt

t

t= d

= +

⎡ ⎤ ++ + ⎢ ⎥

+ ⎣ ⎦

∑

(Equation 2-1)

where X = sprinkler alternative X, 

 LCCX = life-cycle cost of sprinkler alternative X

 First Cost X = purchase, design and installation labor cost of alternative X

incurred during the initial period (see Equation 2-2). 

 O&MXt = operation and maintenance cost, including inspection cost, of 

alternative X during period t 

 RepairXt = cost to repair alternative X during period t. 

 ReplacementXt = cost to replace components of alternative X during period t. 

 DisposalXt = cost to dispose of alternative X during period t. 

d = discount rate, a value between 0 and 1 that is the rate at which the 

homeowner discounts each dollar from one time period to the next. 

T =study period for homeowner, indexed by the subscript t. 

First cost is calculated as shown in equation 2-2. 

First cost Purchase cost Design cost Installation cost . X XX X = ++ (Equation 2-2)

Sprinkler system alternatives are compared using Equation 2-3. 

LCC LCC LCC , Δ=− YX X Y (Equation 2-3)

where LCC Δ YX is the present value of the net difference of the LCC of sprinkler alternative Y over 

alternative X for the homeowner. Sprinkler alternative Y is more cost-effective than alternative X if 

ΔLCCYX is positive. Sprinkler alternative X is more cost-effective than alternative Y if ΔLCCYX is 

negative. 

Costs that occur in both sprinkler alternatives X and Y will be subtracted from each other, as 

indicated by equation 2-3. If these costs are identical, they do not contribute to differentiation 

between the two alternatives. This report estimates all explicit life-cycle costs that contribute to cost 

differences and does not include life-cycle costs that are considered identical between alternatives. 

Additionally, major system components, except sprinkler heads, might function for as long as 100 

years.9

 Therefore, it is not necessary to build into the cost estimate an expected repair or replacement 

cost for those components if the study period is less than 100 years. 

Some intangible factors could not be quantified and therefore are not represented in Equation 2-1. 

The ease of building an addition is one such factor. Homeowners who build additional rooms could 

find it difficult to connect more fire sprinklers to a multipurpose network system, because the 

multipurpose network system is installed as a system with many loops and returns combined with the 

plumbing. 

 

9

 The assumed maximum product life is based on information from product manufacturers and installers. 
5

2.2 Sprinkler Alternatives 

Cost estimations were based on data obtained from sprinkler system manufacturers and installers. 

The basic systems contained in this report are all assumed to meet the NFPA 13D standard, with no 

system encountering a higher failure rate or requiring more maintenance or service. 

One sprinkler alternative (Alternative A) is a multipurpose network sprinkler design that uses 

crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) pipe, and three sprinkler alternatives (Alternatives B, C and D) are 

stand-alone sprinkler designs that use chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe. There are three 

stand-alone alternatives in this report because three installers each returned detailed cost estimates for 

stand-alone systems. These systems differed in the layout of the pipe; the placement, coverage, and 

number of sprinkler heads; and required hours to design and install the system.10 

The stand-alone designs use a dedicated water supply and piping in which water only flows when the 

sprinkler systems are activated. The multipurpose network design connects to the regular domestic 

plumbing system of the house, so water is continually circulated. 

Alternatives C and D have additional cost data that provides for the inclusion of a backflow preventer 

(BFP), a device that ensures that water in the fire sprinkler piping does not flow back into the rest of 

the domestic water system. Accordingly, cost estimates have been prepared for eight Alternatives— 

A, B, C without BFP, C with BFP, D without BFP and D with BFP. The LCC of each sprinkler 

alternative are estimated for a set of three NIST-designed prototypical houses (colonial, townhouse 

and ranch). 

Table 2-1 shows the organization of the cost estimates by sprinkler alternative and house type, and 

the corresponding list of tables as they appear in Chapter 3. 

Table 2-1: List of Cost Estimation Tables by Fire Sprinkler System and House Type 

House Type 

Fire Sprinkler System Colonial Townhouse Ranch 

A Multipurpose Network Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 

B: Stand-alone #1 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 

C: Stand-alone #2 (with and without BFP)1 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Table 3-9 

D: Stand-alone #3 (with and without BFP)1 Table 3-10 Table 3-11 Table 3-12 

1 These systems’ costs can be estimated both with and without a backflow preventer (BFP). The 

specified tables identify costs that must be added when a BFP is included in the system. 

2.3 Cost Comparison 

The next chapter estimates the cost of each alternative for each house type, and then compares the 

estimated cost of each alternative in the same type of house. For each house type, there are a total of 

six cost estimations. When backflow preventers are not required, all six cost estimates can be 

compared to find the least-cost system. When local regulations require backflow preventers in stand-

 

10 The system designers chose the starting point of the connections. 
6

alone systems, Alternatives B, C (without BFP) and D (without BFP) cannot be included in the cost 

comparisons. 

The cost of Alternatives C and D with backflow preventers depends on additional analysis 

parameters. These parameters are (1) the annual inspection cost of the backflow preventer; (2) the 

study period and (3) the discount rate. The study period and discount rate parameters are required 

only if the backflow preventer is included. 

Backflow preventers are not required by NFPA 13D. NFPA 13D (2002) Section A.6.2 states that 

“the connection to city mains for fire protection is often subject to local regulation of metering and 

backflow prevention requirements.” Such a regulation could require the inclusion of a backflow 

preventer. This report estimates the cost of purchasing and installing a backflow preventer in 

Alternatives C and D. A generally recommended regimen would require a yearly inspection of the 

backflow preventer by a professional.11

The presence of a backflow preventer in a fire sprinkler system results in future inspection costs that 

would not be present in a multipurpose network system. These future costs are included in the LCC 

calculation (Equation 2-1). The second term on the right-hand side of Equation 2-1 converts the 

future costs to present value. The present value of the inspections depends upon the length of the 

study period and the discount rate. 

Equation 2-4 shows the second term on the right-hand side of Equation 2-1 when only annual 

inspection costs are included. 

0 ( )

Annual Inspection Cost Present Value of Inspection Costs= .

1

T

t

t= d

⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ + ⎥ ⎣ ⎦

∑

(Equation 2-4)

The formula for calculating the present value of a series of uniform amounts is as follows: 

( )

( )

1 1

Present Value of Inspection Costs =Annual Inspection Cost ,

1+

T

T

d

d d

⎡ + − ⎤ ⋅⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⋅ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦

(Equation 2-5)

where Annual Inspection Cost is the estimated cost for a professional inspector to verify proper 

operation of the backflow preventer, d is the annual discount rate, and T is the length of the study 

period in years. 

The next chapter develops cost data and compares them based on the analysis presented in this 

chapter. 

 

11 The backflow preventer is not required by NFPA 13D. The inspection regimen is also not required by NFPA 13D 

or by local regulation. A manufacturer or installer, on the other hand, might require an inspection regimen in order 

to retain warranty coverage, for example. 
7

3. Sprinkler Cost Analysis 

3.1 Introduction 

Cost estimations were developed based on data obtained from sprinkler system manufacturers and 

installers. One sprinkler alternative (Alternative A) is a multipurpose network sprinkler design that 

uses crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) pipe. The other sprinkler alternatives (Alternatives B, C and D) 

are stand-alone sprinkler designs that use chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe. The cost of 

each sprinkler alternative is estimated for a set of three NIST-designed prototypical houses (colonial, 

townhouse and ranch). The stand-alone design uses a dedicated water supply and piping in which 

water only flows when the sprinkler system is activated. The multipurpose network design connects 

to the regular domestic water supply and piping of the house, so water is continually circulated. 

NIST researchers requested details from installers regarding design costs, material purchase costs, 

installation hours as well as operation, maintenance, repair, and inspection costs. Installation plans, a 

comprehensive list of required components, and material cost data obtained from manufacturers and 

sprinkler system installers are presented in tables later in this chapter. 

The combination of different house sizes and layouts, plus the use of different piping materials and 

sprinkler installation methods, produces a range of cost estimates. System configuration differed 

according to the house layout: a 3338 ft2

 (310 m2) two-story colonial with basement, a 2257 ft2

(210 m2

) three-story townhouse, and a 1171 ft2 (109 m2) 1-story ranch.12 These NIST-designed 

prototypical houses are represented in Appendix A. A stand-alone system is reproduced in Appendix 

B; and an integrated network design in Appendix C. 

3.2 Purchase and Installation Cost Estimates 

The cost estimations in this chapter are based largely on designs and costs provided by experts in 

sprinkler system design and installation. Each expert itemized the components necessary for the 

system and provided bare material costs. Design costs were estimated in either dollar terms or in 

hours. The installation cost was estimated from the labor hours necessary to install the sprinkler 

systems. 

The experts who provided these tables were asked to identify all items that should be included in a 

system that meets NFPA 13D. Costs that are specifically excluded as superfluous to the core design 

are: service entrance materials from the water main to the distribution manifold, domestic hot and 

cold water plumbing system piping and material, final connections to plumbing fixtures and hose 

bibs. 

Certain situations require additional costs. For example a small number of jurisdictions might 

require a separate water system to the curb, perhaps even including a water meter. Rural 

developments might be unable to meet requirements without installing a tank, pump, and backup 

electric generator. While these situations could arise, in this analysis they were not considered 

typical and therefore costs related to these scenarios were not estimated. 

 

12 The colonial square footage does not include the garage. 
8

The level of protection is based on the minimum standard required by NFPA 13D. Certain 

bathrooms and closets, for example, are not required to be covered. Experts used different types of 

pipe layouts and different numbers and types of sprinkler heads to achieve the NFPA 13D standard. 

Therefore, there is variation over the designs in the number of sprinkler heads and the length and 

type of pipe required. 

Extraneous costs—costs for items not required by NFPA 13D—were not included in the analysis. 

For example, the cost of extra sprinkler heads was removed from all cost estimates that had originally 

provided them. 

In this report, operation and maintenance costs are considered identical between alternative sprinkler 

systems, except when a backflow preventer is used. According to NFPA 25 (Inspection, Testing and 

Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems), control valves without electronic supervision 

should be checked on a weekly basis, just to make sure that they are in the open position. The most 

rigorous maintenance recommendation requires a full sprinkler system inspection performed four 

times during the year. This inspection is accomplished by the homeowner and is not included in the 

life-cycle cost estimate. 

Backflow preventers might reasonably be inspected every year by a professional at an estimated cost 

of $ 100 to $ 200.13 This inspection cost is a significant operation and maintenance cost included 

with Alternatives C (with BFP) and D (with BFP). 

3.3 Cost Data 

The following 12 tables, organized as shown in Table 2-1, present the sprinkler alternatives in three 

house types. The multipurpose network alternative appears first, followed by the three stand-alone 

alternatives. Each alternative contains three sprinkler designs, encompassing a residential fire 

sprinkler system in a colonial, townhouse and ranch house. Each table itemizes the material and 

labor costs for a single cost estimation— specifically, a single alternative fire sprinkler system in a 

single house. 

Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 detail the estimated cost of installing the multipurpose network system using 

PEX (Alternative A) in a colonial house, townhouse and ranch house. This system was designed 

using a 65 2

lb

in (448 kPa) static water supply, but is valid to as low as 45 2 in

lb (310 kPa). The 

multipurpose network layout is installed as a system and includes the cold-water piping for the 

houses. Therefore, a correction has been applied to remove the costs related to the domestic cold 

water system. 

The estimated cost of Alternative B, a stand-alone system without a backflow preventer, is shown in 

Tables 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6. The cost estimate tables are arranged with the colonial house first, next the 

townhouse, and finally the ranch house. The estimated cost of Alternative C is presented in Tables 

3-7, 3-8 and 3-9; and Alternative D in 3-10, 3-11, and 3-12. Stand-alone systems in this report do not 

include the materials and labor necessary for the cold-water system. 

 

13 This covers the range in prices quoted for a service call and inspection of the backflow preventer, obtained from 

fire sprinkler system installers including those contributing to this study. 
9

Each table lists two cost categories: Material and Labor. The Material category includes the 

subcategories of Fire Sprinklers, Pipe and Fittings, Accessories and Miscellaneous, Valves, and 

optional Backflow Preventers (when specified). Labor includes Design and Installation Labor. The 

total Material and Labor cost estimate is shown at the bottom right of the table. 

In Table 3-1, underneath the heading “Sprinkler System Cost Component” in the first column, the 

word “Material” is bolded and centered. Listed directly underneath are all the materials required for 

the sprinkler system, organized into three subgroupings. Each subgroup is bolded and aligned on the 

left margin. 

In Table 3-1, The first material subgroup is “Fire Sprinklers.” Under this heading, the fire sprinkler 

pendant assemblies are listed. Because this is a material component, quantity and cost data are 

shown to the right. Column 2, “quantity,” indicates that 24 pendant assemblies are required. 

Column 3, “units,” indicates that pendant assembly cost is given per unit, or “each.” Column 4, 

“bare material cost per unit,” shows that each pendant assembly unit costs $ 25.03 without any 

markup. Column 5, “total bare material cost,” multiplies the quantity of pendant assemblies by the 

bare material cost per assembly unit. As there are no more entries under the subgroup “Fire 

Sprinklers,” the material list proceeds to the second subgroup, “Pipe and Fittings,” again bolded and 

aligned on the left margin. The details and costs of the six listed materials follow the same 

convention as that for the sprinkler pendant assemblies. Lastly, the subgroup “Accessories” is 

shown, for which there is one entry for hangers. 

All the individual items’ total bare material costs are now added together. The “Total Bare Material 

Cost” amount is shown in column 5. In Table 3-1, this amount is $ 1 024.78. 

The next section identifying labor cost is identified by the word “Labor” bolded and centered in the 

first column. Under this section are lines for two types of labor cost—design and installation—

followed by a line for the total. The column 1 description for design includes the number of hours 

and rate used in the calculation, if available. The dollar amount is shown in column 6, “labor cost.” 

The next line is for the installation cost, again described in column 1 with the number of hours and 

the rate used in the calculation. The dollar amount is again shown in column 6. These two numbers 

are totaled and given in the next line, “Total Labor Cost,” shown in column 6. In Table 3-1, this 

amount is $ 576.00. 

The final lines of the table report the total bare material and labor cost. This part of the table is 

identified by the word “Totals” bolded and centered in the first column. The line directly underneath 

in column 1, “Total Material and Labor Cost” indicates the sum of the total bare material cost and 

labor cost. The amount is found in column 7, “combined material and labor cost.” In Table 3-1, this 

amount is $ 1 600.78. 

Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 require that the cost of the residential cold-water system be deducted from 

this total. For the estimate without the residential cold-water system, one-third of the combined pipe 

and 2 hours of installation labor were subtracted. This correction is shown in the last line of the 

affected tables, identified as “Total Material and Labor Cost without cold water system” in column 1. 

Column 5, “total bare material cost,” shows the reduction in material cost; and column 6, “labor 

cost,” shows the reduction in labor cost. These reductions are formatted as dollar amounts inside 

parenthesis, indicating negative dollar amounts. These negative adjustments reduce the previous cost 

estimates. Column 7, “combined material and labor cost” contains the corrected total. In Table 3-1, 

this amount is $ 1 419.78. 
10

Tables 3-7 through 3-12 contain a “backflow preventer” material cost subgroup. This group appears 

after the “Accessories” subgroup. Materials listed under this group would be required if a backflow 

preventer were to be included as part of the fire sprinkler system. Tables 3-7 through 3-12 contain 

extra lines to facilitate calculations both with and without the backflow preventer (BFP) and 

associated material and labor. The “Total Bare Material Costs” are now given on two lines. The first 

line is labeled “Total Bare Material Costs without BFP” in column 1. The dollar value is given in 

column 5. In Table 3-7, this amount is $ 463.60, identifying the total bare cost of materials for a 

colonial house system of Alternative C, without including the backflow preventer. The line 

underneath, labeled “Total Bare Material Costs with BFP” in column 1, identifies in column 5 the 

total bare cost of materials when a backflow preventer is included. In Table 3-7, this amount is 

$ 851.27. 

Similarly, there are two lines to identify the two installation costs in the “Labor” section. Under this 

section are now two lines for installation cost. (Design costs are not affected.) The description in 

column 1 includes the number of hours and the rate used in the calculation. The dollar amount is 

shown in column 6. To accommodate the two installation costs, two labor totals are reported. Total 

Labor Cost is given on two lines, first without the backflow preventer and then with the backflow 

preventer. In Table 3-7, the first amount is $ 966.00 and the second is $ 1 030.00. 

The table concludes with two lines in the “Total” section. The first line adds the bare material cost 

and labor cost when backflow preventers are not installed, and the second line adds the bare material 

cost and labor cost when backflow preventers are installed. The dollar amounts are given in column 

7. In Table 3-7, the first amount is $ 1 429.60 and the second is $ 1 881.27. 
11

Table 3-1. Cost Summary: Alternative A (Multipurpose Network System Using PEX) for a New 3338 ft2 (310 m2) S

House 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers F1/Res 49 (155 °F) Recessed Pendent Assembly, White 24 each $ 25.03 $ 600.60 Pipe and Fittings 1/2 in PEX - white, 1000 ft coil 1 1000 ft 270.00 270.00 1/2 in PEX - white, 300 ft coil 1 300 ft 81.00 81.00 1 in Copper Branch Manifold, 10 outlets 1 each 26.63 26.63 PEX Ring 1/2 in (blue print) 150 each 0.06 8.25 PEX Brass Tee, 1/2 in PEX x 1/2 in PEX 10 each 1.45 14.50 Accessories Hangers (1/2 in, 5/8 in, 3/4 in PEX) 4 each 5.95 23.80 Total Bare Material Cost 1 024.78 

Labor 

Design Cost (4 hours at $ 40.00 per hour) $ 160.0Installation Cost (13 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 416.0Total Labor Cost 576.0

Totals 

Total Material and Labor Cost Total Material and Labor Cost without cold water system ( 117.00 ) ( 64.00 Where possible, generic product descriptions have been substituted for product trade names. Material prices do not include any markup to cover overh

based on manufacturer’s estimation that it would take a 2-person crew 13 hours total to install the system. The sprinkler fitter and plumber trades are 

(2005 National Construction Estimator, accessed at www.get-a-quote.net). Design cost of $ 40 per hour is provided by manufacturer. Extra sprinkler 

the minimum requirements of NFPA 13D were removed from original estimate. For the estimate without the cold water system, one-third of the comb

installation labor are subtracted. 
12

Table 3-2. Cost Summary: Alternative A (Multipurpose Network System Using PEX) for a New 2257 ft2 (210 

Townhouse 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers F1/Res 49 (155 °F) Recessed Pendent Assembly 22 each $ 25.03 $ 550.55 Pipe and Fittings 1/2 in PEX - white, 1000 ft coil 1 1000 ft 270.00 270.00 1/2 in PEX - white, 100 ft coil 1 100 ft 27.00 27.00 1 in Copper Branch Manifold, 12 outlets 1 each 32.23 32.23 PEX Ring 1/2 in (blue print) 150 each 0.06 8.25 PEX Brass Tees, 1/2 in PEX x 1/2 in PEX 10 each 1.45 14.50 Accessories Hangers (1/2 in, 5/8 in, 3/4 in PEX) 3 each 5.95 17.85 Total Bare Material Cost 920.38 

Labor 

Design Cost (4 hours at $ 40.00 per hour) $ 160.0Installation Cost (12 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 384.0Total Labor Cost 544.0

Totals 

Total Material and Labor Cost Total Material and Labor Cost without cold water system ( 99.00 ) ( 64.00 Where possible, generic product descriptions have been substituted for product trade names. Material prices do not include any markup to cover overh

based on manufacturer’s estimation that it would take a 2-person crew 12 hours total to install the system. The sprinkler fitter and plumber trades are 

(2005 National Construction Estimator, accessed at www.get-a-quote.net). Design cost of $ 40 per hour is provided by manufacturer. Extra sprinkler 

the minimum requirements of NFPA 13D were removed from original estimate. For the estimates without the cold water system, one-third of the com

installation labor are subtracted. 
13

Table 3-3. Cost Summary: Alternative A (Multipurpose Network System Using PEX) for a New 1171 ft2 (109 m2) 

House 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers F1/Res 49 (155 °F) Recessed Pendent Assembly, White 9 each $ 25.03 $ 225.23 Pipe and Fittings 1/2 in PEX plus - white, 300 ft coil 1 300 ft 81.00 81.00 1/2 in PEX plus - white, 100 ft coil 1 100 ft 27.00 27.00 1 in Copper Branch Manifold, 8 outlets 1 each 21.98 21.98 PEX Ring 1/2 in (blue print) 100 each 0.06 5.50 PEX Brass Tees, 1/2 in PEX x 1/2 in PEX 10 each 1.45 14.50 Accessories Hangers (1/2 in, 5/8 in, 3/4 in PEX) 1 each 5.95 5.95 Total Bare Material Cost 381.16 

Labor 

Design Cost (4 hours at $ 40.00 per hour) $ 160.0Installation Cost (5 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 160.0Total Labor Cost 320.0

Totals

Total Material and Labor Cost Total Material and Labor Cost w/o cold water system ( 36.00 ) ( 64.00 Where possible, generic product descriptions have been substituted for product trade names. Material prices do not include any markup to cover overh

based on manufacturer’s estimation that it would take a 2-person crew 5 hours total to install the system. The sprinkler fitter and plumber trades are es

(2005 National Construction Estimator, accessed at www.get-a-quote.net). Design cost of $ 40 per hour is provided by manufacturer. Extra sprinkler 

the minimum requirements of NFPA 13D were removed from original estimate. For the estimates without the cold water system, one-third of the com

installation labor are subtracted. 
14

Table 3-4. Cost Summary: Alternative B (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single F

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers Residential Domed Heads 19 $ 6.96 $ 132.24 Standard Sprinklers 4 4.42 17.68 Head Adapter 23 0.90 20.70 Pipe and Fittings Tee 27 0.61 16.47 90 Ell 18 0.44 7.92 Coupling 2 0.44 0.88 Pipe 250 0.32 80.00 Straps 50 0.24 12.00 Riser 1 116.25 116.25 Miscellaneous Glue/Primer 1 5.35 5.35 Misc. Expenses 33.50 33.50 Total Bare Material Cost 442.99 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 400.0Installation Cost (21 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 672.0Total Labor Cost 1 072.0

Totals

Total Material and Labor Cost The riser component includes a single check valve to control backflow, and also includes a flow switch, pressure gauge and ball valve for draining the not include any markup to cover overhead and profit. 
15

Table 3-5. Cost Summary: Alternative B (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 2257 ft2 (210 m2) Single 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers Residential Domed Heads 19 $ 6.96 $ 132.24 Standard Sprinklers 4 4.42 17.68 Pipe and Fittings Head Adapter 23 0.90 20.70 Tee 27 0.61 16.47 90 Ell 19 0.44 8.36 Coupling 2 0.44 0.88 Pipe 250 0.32 80.00 Straps 50 0.24 12.00 Riser 1 38.79 38.79 MiscellaneousGlue/Primer 2 5.35 10.70 Misc Expenses 33.78 33.78 Total Bare Material Cost 371.60 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 400.0Installation Cost (19 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 608.0Total Labor Cost 1 008.0

Totals

Total Material and Labor Cost The riser component includes a single check valve to control backflow, and also includes a flow switch, pressure gauge and ball valve for draining the not include any markup to cover overhead and profit. 
16

Table 3-6. Cost Summary: Alternative B (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 1171 ft2 (109 m2) Single F

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers Residential Domed Heads 7 $ 6.96 $ 48.72 Standard Sprinklers 1 4.42 4.42 Pipe and Fittings Head Adapter 8 0.90 7.20 Tee 9 0.61 5.49 90 Ell 6 0.44 2.64 Coupling 2 0.44 0.88 Pipe 100 0.32 32.00 Straps 20 0.24 4.80 Riser 1 38.79 38.79 Miscellaneous Glue/Primer 1 5.35 5.35 Misc Expenses 15.03 15.03 Total Bare Material Cost 165.32 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 267.0Installation Cost (11 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 352.0Total Labor Cost 619.0

Totals

Total Material and Labor Cost The riser component includes a single check valve to control backflow, and also includes a flow switch, pressure gauge and ball valve for draining the not include any markup to cover overhead and profit. 
17

Table 3-7. Cost Summary: Alternative C (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single F

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material

Fire SprinklersLFII 155 °F White Pendant 24 each $ 4.30 $ 103.20 1⁄2 White Esc LFII 24 each 0.70 16.80 Pipe and Fittings 3⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 245 linear ft 0.37 90.82 1 in CPVC Pipe 35 linear ft 0.87 30.56 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 35 linear ft 0.90 31.33 1 1⁄4 in GALV 40 10 each 1.57 15.70 Galvanized Nipples 1 each 5.25 5.25 3⁄4 in CPVC Fitting Tee 14 each 0.69 9.66 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Fittings Tee 1 each 2.18 2.18 1 in CPVC Red Tee 6 each 1.18 7.08 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Red Tee 2 each 2.17 4.34 3⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell 30 each 0.51 15.30 1 in CPVC 90 Ell 2 each 1.12 2.24 1 1⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell 4 each 1.44 5.76 1 in CPVC Cross 2 each 1.35 2.70 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Cross 1 each 1.89 1.89 3⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 4 each 0.50 1.98 1 in CPVC Coupling 2 each 0.63 1.26 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 2 each 0.95 1.90 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Female Adapter (SL x TH) 2 each 5.31 10.62 3⁄4 in CPVC Caps 3 each 0.30 0.90 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Reduced Bushings 1 each 0.39 0.39 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Reduced Bushings 5 each 0.60 3.01 3⁄4 x 1⁄2 in CPVC Female Sprinkler Head Adapter (SLIP x FIPT) 26 each 1.17 30.42 Galv Fitting Riser 1 each 11.09 11.09 Valves 3⁄4 in Globe Valve 1 each 5.36 5.36 1 1⁄4 in Swing Check Valve 1 each 14.12 14.12 Hose Adapter 1 each 3.12 3.12 
18

Table 3-7 (continued) 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labor 

cos

Accessories & Miscellaneous1 1⁄4 in Rings 2 each $ 0.33 $ 0.66 3/8 in Top Beam ATR 2 each 0.35 0.70 3/8 in Hole Huggers 2 each 0.31 0.62 Cement 1 each 11.37 11.37 1 1⁄4 in Tolcos 2 each 0.37 0.74 3⁄4 in Tolcos 55 each 0.33 18.15 1 in Tolcos 7 each 0.34 2.38 Backflow Preventer (BFP)Flow Switch Tee 1 each 3.43 3.43 Flow Switch 1 each 62.46 62.46 Alarm Bell 1 each 29.85 29.85 PIVS Tamper 2 each 68.03 136.06 Water Gauge (optional) 1 each 9.87 9.87 Backflow Preventer Unit 1 each 146.00 146.00 Total Bare Material Cost without BFP 463.60 Total Bare Material Cost with BFP 851.27 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 326.0Installation Cost without BFP (20 hours at $ 32 per hour) 640.0Installation Cost with BFP (22 hours at $ 32 per hour) 704.0Total Labor Cost without BFP 966.0Total Labor Cost with BFP 1 030.0

Totals 

Total Materials and Labor Quote without BFP Total Materials and Labor Quote with BFP 
19

Table 3-8. Cost Summary: Alternative C (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 2257 ft2 (210 m2) Single 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers LFII 155 °F White Pendant 22 each $ 4.30 $ 94.60 1⁄2 White Esc LFII 22 each 0.70 15.40 Pipe & Fittings 3⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 180 linear ft 0.37 66.73 1 in CPVC Pipe 25 linear ft 0.57 14.33 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 38 linear ft 0.90 34.01 1 1⁄4 in GALV 40 10 linear ft 1.57 15.70 Galvanized Nipples 1 each 5.25 5.25 3⁄4 in CPVC Fitting Tee 11 each 0.69 7.59 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Fittings Tee 1 each 2.18 2.18 1 in CPVC Red Tee 6 each 1.18 7.08 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Red Tee 1 each 2.17 2.17 3⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell 30 each 0.51 15.30 1 1⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell 3 each 1.44 4.32 1 in CPVC Cross 4 each 1.35 5.40 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Cross 1 each 1.89 1.89 3⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 5 each 0.50 2.48 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 3 each 0.95 2.85 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Female Adapter (SL x TH) 2 each 5.31 10.62 3⁄4 in CPVC Caps 3 each 0.30 0.90 1 in CPVC Reduced Bushings 4 each 0.39 1.54 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Reduced Bushings 7 each 0.60 4.21 3⁄4 x 1⁄2 in CPVC Female Sprinkler Head Adapter (SLIP x FIPT) 24 each 1.17 28.08 Galv Fitting Riser 1 each 11.09 11.09 Valves 3⁄4 in Globe Valve 1 each 5.36 5.36 1 1⁄4 in Swing Check Valve 1 each 14.12 14.12 Hose Adapter 1 each 3.12 3.12 
20

Table 3-8 (continued) 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labor 

cos

Accessories & Misc. 1 1⁄4 in Rings 2 each $ 0.33 $ 0.66 3/8 in Top Beam ATR 2 each 0.35 0.70 3/8 in Hole Huggers 2 each 0.31 0.62 Cement 1 each 11.37 11.37 1 1⁄4 in Tolcos 3 each 0.37 1.11 3⁄4 in Tolcos 43 each 0.33 14.19 1 in Tolcos 4 each 0.34 1.36 Backflow Preventer (BFP)Flow Switch Tee 1 each 3.43 3.43 Flow Switch 1 each 62.46 62.46 Alarm Bell 1 each 29.85 29.85 PIVS Tamper 2 each 68.03 136.06 Water Gauge (optional) 1 each 9.87 9.87 Backflow Preventer Unit 1 each 146.00 146.00 Total Bare Material Cost without BFP 406.33 Total Bare Material Cost with BFP 794.00 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 332.0Installation Cost without BFP (20 hours at $ 32 per hour) 640.0Installation Cost with BFP (22 hours at $ 32 per hour) 704.0Total Labor Cost without BFP 972.0Total Labor Cost with BFP 1 036.0

Totals

Total Materials and Labor Quote without BFP Total Materials and Labor Quote with BFP 
21

Table 3-9. Cost Summary: Alternative C (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 1171 ft2 (109 m2) Single F

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers LFII 155 °F White Pendant 9 each $ 4.30 $ 38.70 1⁄2 White Esc LFII 9 each 0.70 6.30 Pipe & Fittings 3⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 95 linear ft 0.37 35.22 1 in CPVC Pipe 8 linear ft 0.57 4.58 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 5 linear ft 0.90 4.48 1 1⁄4 in GALV 40 10 each 1.57 15.70 Galvanized Nipples 1 each 5.25 5.25 3⁄4 in CPVC Fitting Tee 5 each 0.69 3.45 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Fittings Tee 1 each 2.18 2.18 1 in CPVC Red Tee 3 each 1.18 3.54 3⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell 11 each 0.51 5.61 1 1⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell 2 each 1.44 2.88 3⁄4 in CPVC Cross 1 each 1.08 1.08 3⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 5 each 0.51 2.55 1 in CPVC Coupling 1 each 1.12 1.12 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 2 each 1.44 2.88 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Female Adapter (SL x TH) 2 each 5.31 10.62 3⁄4 in CPVC Caps 3 each 0.30 0.90 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Reduced Bushings 3 each 0.60 1.80 3⁄4 x 1⁄2 in CPVC Female Sprinkler Head Adapter (SLIP x FIPT) 11 each 1.17 12.87 Galv Fitting Riser 1 each 11.09 11.09 Valves3⁄4 in Globe Valve 1 each 5.36 5.36 1 1⁄4 in Swing Check Valve 1 each 14.12 14.12 Hose Adapter 1 each 3.12 3.12 
22

Table 3-9 (continued) 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labor 

cos

Accessories & Misc. 1 1⁄4 in Rings 2 each $ 0.33 $ 0.66 3/8 in Top Beam ATR 2 each 0.35 0.70 3/8 in Hole Huggers 2 each 0.31 0.62 Cement 1 each 11.37 11.37 1 1⁄4 in Tolcos 1 each 0.37 0.37 3⁄4 in Tolcos 20 each 0.33 6.60 1 in Tolcos 1 each 0.34 0.34 Backflow Preventer (BFP)Flow Switch Tee 1 each 3.43 3.43 Flow Switch 1 each 62.46 62.46 Alarm Bell 1 each 29.85 29.85 PIVS Tamper 2 each 68.03 136.06 Water Gauge (optional) 1 each 18.22 18.22 Backflow Preventer Unit 1 each 146.00 146.00 Total Bare Material Cost without BFP 216.06 Total Bare Material Cost with BFP 612.08 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 235.0Installation Cost without BFP (11 hours at $ 32 per hour) 352.0Installation Cost with BFP (13 hours at $ 32 per hour) 416.0Total Labor Cost without BFP 587.0Total Labor Cost with BFP 822.0

Totals

Total Materials and Labor Quote without BFP Total Materials and Labor Quote with BFP 
23

Table 3-10. Alternative D (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 3338 ft2 (310 m2) Single Family C

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers 16 ft x 16 ft QR Residential 24 each 6.00 $ 144.00 Pipe and Fittings Riser Material 1 each $ 27.00 27.00 3⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 270 linear ft 0.37 99.90 1 in CPVC Pipe 60 linear ft 0.58 34.80 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 40 linear ft 0.90 36.00 3⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 10 each 0.53 5.30 1 in CPVC Coupling 5 each 0.68 3.40 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 2 each 1.02 2.04 1 in x 3⁄4 in CPVC Red Bushing 10 each 0.41 4.10 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Red Bushing 2 each 0.65 1.30 1 in to 3⁄4 in CPVC No Block Hangers/Screws 24 each 0.37 8.88 3⁄4 in to 2 in Double Strap Hangers/Screws 48 each 0.28 13.44 CPVC Head-Set Brackets/Screws 24 each 0.77 18.48 Daubers 10 each 0.44 4.40 1 1⁄4 in Grooved Cpl. Adapt. 1 each 7.45 7.45 3⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 23 each 0.54 12.42 1 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 4 each 1.21 4.84 1 1⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 2 each 1.51 3.02 3⁄4 in CPVC Tee SLXSLXSL 13 each 0.74 9.62 1 in CPVC Tee SLXLSXSL 6 each 1.49 8.94 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Tee SLXSLXSL 3 each 2.35 7.05 1 in x 1 in x 3⁄4 in x 3⁄4 in CPVC Red Cross 1 each 1.57 1.57 3⁄4 in x 1⁄2 in SLX Fipt Head Adapt. 24 each 1.26 30.24 CSC One Step Cement Pint 3 each 6.01 18.03 Misc. Pipe Materials 1 each 50.00 50.00 Thread-Tape per head 24 each 0.32 7.68 Valves 1 1⁄4 in Riser Manifold Residential Central 1 each 164.53 164.53 
24

Table 3-10 (continued) 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labor 

cos

Backflow Preventer (BFP) 1 1⁄4 in Backflow Preventer Unit w/Ball Valves 1 each $ 158.76 $ 158.76 Total Bare Material Cost without BFP 701.43 Total Bare Material Cost with BFP 860.19 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 400.0Installation Cost without BFP (30 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 960.0Installation Cost with BFP (32 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 1 024.0Total Labor Cost without BFP 1 360.0Total Labor Cost with BFP 1 424.0

Totals

Total Materials and Labor Quote without BFP Total Materials and Labor Quote with BFP Material prices do not include any markup to cover overhead and profit. Three fire sprinklers provided as extras for replacement purposes were remov

estimate. A fire department connection option was removed from the analysis. 
25

Table 3-11. Cost Summary: Alternative D (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 2257 ft2 (210 m2) Single 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers 16 ft x 16 ft QR Residential 23 each $ 6.00 $ 138.00 Pipe and Fittings Riser Material 1 each 27.00 27.00 3⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 240 linear ft 0.37 88.80 1 in CPVC Pipe 30 linear ft 0.58 17.40 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 40 linear ft 0.90 36.00 3⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 8 each 0.53 4.24 1 in CPVC Coupling 3 each 0.68 2.04 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 2 each 1.02 2.04 1 in x 3⁄4 in CPVC Red Bushing 6 each 0.41 2.46 1 1⁄4 in x 1 in CPVC Red Bushing 2 each 0.65 1.30 1 in to 3⁄4 in CPVC No Block Hangers/Screws 23 each 0.37 8.51 3⁄4 in to 2 in Double Strap Hangers/Screws 51 each 0.28 14.28 CPVC Head-Set Brackets/Screws 23 each 0.77 17.71 Daubers 10 each 0.44 4.40 1 1⁄4 in Grooved Cpl. Adapt. 1 each 7.45 7.45 3⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 24 each 0.54 12.96 1 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 4 each 1.21 4.84 1 1⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 4 each 1.51 6.04 3⁄4 in CPVC Tee SLXSLXSL 7 each 0.74 5.18 1 in CPVC Tee SLXLSXSL 8 each 1.49 11.92 1 1⁄4 in CPVC Tee SLXSLXSL 8 each 2.35 18.80 3⁄4 in x 1⁄2 in SLX Fipt Head Adapt. 23 each 1.26 28.98 CSC One Step Cement Pint 3 each 6.01 18.03 Misc. Pipe Materials 1 each 35.00 35.00 Thread-Tape per head 23 each 0.32 7.36 Valves 1 1⁄4 in Riser Manifold Residential Central 1 each 164.53 164.53 
26

Table 3-11 (continued)

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labor 

cos

Backflow Preventer (BFP) 1 1⁄4 in Backflow Preventer Unit w/Ball Valves 1 each $ 158.76 $ 158.76 Total Bare Material Cost without BFP 685.27 Total Bare Material Cost with BFP 844.03 

Labor 

Design Cost $ 290.0Installation Cost without BFP (23.7 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 685.2Installation Cost with BFP (25.7 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 844.0Total Labor Cost without BFP 1 048.4Total Labor Cost with BFP 1 112.4

Totals

Total Materials and Labor Quote without BFP Total Materials and Labor Quote with BFP Three fire sprinklers provided as extras for replacement purposes were removed from the original cost estimate. Material prices do not include any ma

profit. A fire department connection option was removed from the analysis. 
27

Table 3-12. Cost Summary: Alternative D (Stand-Alone System Using CPVC) for a New 1171 ft2 (109 m2) Single 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Material 

Fire Sprinklers 16 ft x 16 ft QR Residential 10 each $ 6.00 $ 60.00 Pipe and Fittings Riser Material 1 each 27.00 27.00 3⁄4 in CPVC Pipe 120 each 0.37 44.40 1 in CPVC Pipe 15 each 0.58 8.70 3⁄4 in CPVC Coupling 4 each 0.53 2.12 1 in CPVC Coupling 1 each 0.68 0.68 1 in x 3⁄4 in CPVC Red Bushing 2 each 0.41 0.82 1 in Female SL x TH Female Adapter 1 each 3.22 3.22 1 in to 3⁄4 in CPVC No Block Hangers/Screws 10 each 0.37 3.70 3⁄4 in to 2 in Double Strap Hangers/Screws 19 each 0.28 5.32 CPVC Head-Set Brackets/Screws 10 each 0.77 7.70 Daubers 2 each 0.44 0.88 3⁄4 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 9 each 0.54 4.86 1 in CPVC 90 Ell SLXSL 1 each 1.21 1.21 3⁄4 in CPVC Tee SLXSLXSL 5 each 0.74 3.70 1 in CPVC Tee SLXLSXSL 1 each 1.49 1.49 3⁄4 in x 1⁄2 in SLX Fipt Head Adapt. 10 each 1.26 12.60 CSC One Step Cement Pint 2 each 6.01 12.02 Misc. Pipe Materials 1 each 25.00 25.00 Thread-Tape per head 10 each 0.32 3.20 Valves 1 in Riser Manifold Residential Central 1 each 135.00 135.00 Backflow Preventer (BFP)s1 in Backflow Preventer Unit w/Ball Valves 1 each 125.00 125.00 Total Bare Material Cost without BFP 363.62 Total Bare Material Cost with BFP 488.62 
28

Table 3-12 (continued) 

Sprinkler System 

Cost Component quantity units

bare material 

cost per unit

total bare 

material cost

labo

cos

Labor 

Design Cost $ 179.0Installation Cost without BFP (13 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 416.0Installation Cost with BFP (15 hours at $ 32.00 per hour) 480.0Total Labor Cost without BFP 595.0Total Labor Cost with BFP 659.0

Totals

Total Materials and Labor Quote without BFP Total Materials and Labor Quote with BFP Three fire sprinklers provided as extras for replacement purposes were removed from the original cost estimate. Material prices do not include any ma

profit. A fire department connection option was removed from the analysis. 
29

3.4 Markup and Inspection Cost Information 

Table 3-13 summarizes the results of the previous section, by sprinkler alternative and house type. 

The table shows the bare material cost, before markups and inspection, combined with the estimated 

design and installation cost. 

Table 3-13: Cost Estimate Summary Table, Before Markups and Inspection 

House Sprinkler Alternative 

Type A B C no BFP C w/ BFP D no BFP D w/ BFP 

Colonial $ 1 419.78 $ 1 515.00 $ 1 429.60 $ 1 881.27 $ 2 061.43 $ 2 284.19

Townhouse 1 301.38 1 380.00 1 378.33 1 830.00 1 733.67 1 956.43

Ranch 601.16 784.00 803.06 1 434.08 958.62 1 147.62

Table 3-13 does not report the total sprinkler system cost to the homeowner because the dollar 

amounts do not include a markup on materials or—for Alternatives C and D with BFP—the present 

value of inspection costs. Subsequent tables present costs with material markups and inspection 

costs. Material markup was not standardized in Tables 3-1 through 3-12 due to the fact that material 

markup can vary across alternatives—in other words, Alternative A might have a higher material 

markup than Alternative B. Choosing different material markups affects the cost-effectiveness of the 

alternatives, and the effect is magnified in alternatives where the cost of material makes up a large 

portion of total costs. Tables 3-14 through 3-18 provide cost estimations assuming markups of 10 %, 

20 %, 30 %, 50 % and 100 %.14

 

14 These percentages are based on markup data obtained from fire sprinkler system manufacturers and installers 

including those contributing to this study. 
30

Table 3-14: Cost Estimate Summary Table at 10 % Material Markup 

House Alternative 

Type A B C no BFP C w/ BFP D no BFP D w/ BFP 

Colonial $ 1 510.56 $ 1 559.29 $ 1 475.96 $ 1 966.40 $ 2 131.57 $ 2 370.21

Townhouse 1 383.52 1 416.76 1 418.96 1 909.40 1 802.20 2 040.83

Ranch 635.68 800.85 824.67 1 495.29 994.98 1 196.48

Table 3-15: Cost Estimate Summary Table at 20 % Material Markup 

House Alternative 

Type A B C no BFP C w/ BFP D no BFP D w/ BFP 

Colonial $ 1 601.34 $ 1 603.59 $ 1 522.32 $ 2 051.52 $ 2 201.72 $ 2 456.23

Townhouse 1 465.66 1 453.92 1 459.60 1 988.80 1 870.72 2 125.24

Ranch 670.19 817.38 846.27 1 556.50 1 031.34 1 245.34

Table 3-16: Cost Estimate Summary Table at 30 % Material Markup 

House Alternative 

Type A B C no BFP C w/ BFP D no BFP D w/ BFP 

Colonial $ 1 692.11 $ 1 647.89 $ 1 568.68 $ 2 136.65 $ 2 271.86 $ 2 542.25

Townhouse 1 547.79 1 491.08 1 500.23 2 068.20 1 939.25 2 209.64

Ranch 704.71 833.92 867.88 1 617.70 1 067.71 1 294.21

Table 3-17: Cost Estimate Summary Table at 50 % Material Markup 

House Alternative 

Type A B C no BFP C w/ BFP D no BFP D w/ BFP 

Colonial $ 1 873.67 $ 1 736.49 $ 1 661.40 $ 2 306.91 $ 2 412.15 $ 2 714.29

Townhouse 1 712.07 1 565.40 1 581.50 2 227.00 2 076.31 2 378.45

Ranch 773.74 866.98 911.09 1 740.12 1 140.43 1 391.93

Table 3-18: Cost Estimate Summary Table at 100 % Material Markup 

House Alternative 

Type A B C no BFP C w/ BFP D no BFP D w/ BFP 

Colonial $ 2 327.56 $ 1 957.98 $ 1 893.20 $ 2 732.54 $ 2 762.86 $ 3 144.38

Townhouse 2 122.76 1 751.20 1 784.66 2 624.00 2 418.94 2 800.46

Ranch 946.32 949.64 1 019.12 2 046.16 1 322.24 1 636.24
31

In addition to material markup, the present value of annual inspection costs should be added to 

Alternatives C and D when they include the optional backflow preventer. The present value 

calculation is made according to Equation 2-5, a Uniform Present-Value (UPV) Equation which 

discounts a series of payments to the equivalent present value. 

Inspection costs are provided to comply with the maintenance recommended by backflow prevention 

device manufacturers. For example, the owner’s manuals for a major manufacturer of backflow 

prevention devices recommend annual inspections to check that seals are holding against flow. The 

test procedure requires specific tools and instruments and cannot be performed by the typical 

homeowner. 

In order to calculate present value, the study period and discount rate must be specified. The 2003 

American Housing Survey reports the median tenure of homeowners is 9 years, and is used in this 

report. The real, after-tax annual rate of return in large-cap stocks over the period 1925 to 2005, 

obtained from Ibbotson Associates (2005), is 4.8 %, and the average yield rate for municipal bonds 

over the period 1919 to 2004 is 1.3 %. These rates of return are used as lower and upper bounds 

discount rates in this report. 

Tables 3-19 and 3-20 present a range of present value costs for $ 100 and $ 200 annual inspection 

fees. 

Table 3-19: Present Value of $ 100 Inspection by Study Period and Discount Rate 

Study period 

Rate 

1 5 

(median 

tenure) 

9 10 15 30 

1.3 % $ 98.72 $ 481.08 $ 844.18 $ 932.07 $ 1 354.85 $ 2 471.07

4.8 % 95.42 435.35 717.16 779.73 1 052.14 1 572.92

Table 3-20: Present Value of $ 200 Inspection by Study Period and Discount Rate 

Study period 

Rate 

1 5 

(median 

tenure) 

9 10 15 30 

1.3 % $ 197.43 $ 962.15 $ 1 688.37 $ 1 864.13 $ 2 709.70 $ 4 942.14

4.8 % 190.84 870.70 1 434.31 1 559.46 2 104.28 3 145.84

These inspection cost estimates are added to the cost of Alternative C and D with backflow 

preventers. 

3.5 Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Summary 

The comparative analysis is applied to the cost data to determine which of the proposed sprinkler 

systems has the lowest estimated life-cycle cost in each house type. Estimated cost results for all 

systems are within a close range. Their cost-effectiveness is dependent upon the decision to 

incorporate a backflow preventer in a stand-alone system and the markup on materials. 

When material markups are constrained to the same value across all Alternatives, and BFP are not 

required: Alternative C is least cost for the Colonial for all markups; Alternative A is least cost for 
32

the Townhouse at a 10 % markup, while Alternative B is least cost for the Townhouse at higher 

markups; and Alternative A is least cost for the Ranch for all markups.15

When different markups are applied to materials, results can shift. For example, if Alternative A has 

a 100 % markup, and all the other Alternatives have 20 % markups, then the least-cost choice for the 

Ranch is Alternative B.16 

Alternatives B and C without BFP have lower LCC than Alternative D without BFP. The higher 

price of Alternative D is due to a higher number of installation hours and more materials costs. For 

example, Alternative D (without BFP) installed in a Colonial house required an estimated 30 hours of 

installation labor, whereas Alternatives B and C (without BFP) installed in a Colonial house required 

an estimated 20 and 21 hours. The higher installation cost accounts for roughly half of the cost 

difference between Alternative D (without BFP) and Alternatives B and C (without BFP), before 

material markups are added. 

When material markups are constrained to the same value across all Alternatives, and BFP are 

required in stand-alone systems, Alternative A is least cost for all house types. This result is due to 

the recurring expense of having the BFP professionally inspected every year. In this report, 

Alternative A does not have any distinct, quantifiable recurring expenses.17

In the Colonial and Townhouse, Alternative C with BFP can be least-cost when compared to 

Alternative A under certain conditions. In the Colonial, when Alternative A is marked up 100 % and 

Alternative C with BFP is marked up 50 % or less, Alternative C with BFP is least-cost, when the 

cost of an annual inspection is not included. In the Colonial, when a $ 100 annual inspection is 

included, Alternative C with BFP is least-cost when it is marked up 10 % or less, homeowner tenure 

is significantly less than 5 years, and the discount rate is significantly higher than 4.8 %. 

In the Townhouse, when Alternative A is marked up 100 % and Alternative C with BFP is marked up 

30 % or less, Alternative C with BFP is least-cost, when the cost of an annual inspection is not 

included. In the Townhouse, when a $ 100 annual inspection is included, Alternative C with BFP is 

least-cost when it is marked up 10 % or less, homeowner tenure is significantly less than 5 years, and 

the discount rate is significantly higher than 4.8 %. 

 

15 These conclusions are drawn from the results shown in Tables 3-14 through 3-18. 

16 The cost of Alternative A ($946.32, from Table 3-18) was compared with the cost of Alternative B ($817.38, from 

Table 3-15). This example assumes that the homeowner would pay a different markup depending on Alternative. 

17 This conclusion is drawn from combining the results shown in Tables 3-14 through 3-18 with a chosen present 

value selected from Table 3-19 or 3-20. When BFP are required, only Alternatives A, C (with BFP) and D (with 

BFP) may be compared. The present value of the cost of inspection must be added to the cost of Alternative C (with 

BFP) and D (with BFP). 
33

4. Summary and Suggestions for Future Research 

4.1 Summary 

This report has developed a life-cycle cost model consistent with ASTM E917-02 and applied it to 

data developed by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) to select the least-cost 

residential sprinkler system in each of three house types, using cost estimates provided by 

manufacturers and installers of residential sprinkler systems. Data are developed and presented in 

this report to support the cost comparison methodology. 

The comparative analysis is applied to the cost data to determine which of the proposed systems has 

the lowest estimated life-cycle cost in each house type. Estimated cost results for all systems are 

within a close range, and are dependent upon the decision to incorporate a backflow preventer in a 

stand-alone system and the material markup. 

Table 4-1 summarizes the results found in Chapter 3. 

Table 4-1. Least-Cost Sprinkler Alternatives by House type 

Least-Cost Installation House Type without backflow preventer with backflow preventer 

Colonial C A or C2

Townhouse B1 A or C2

Ranch A A 

1

 A is least-cost when markups are uniform across all Alternatives and set below 20 %. 

2

 Section 3.5 explains the circumstances under which Alternative C is least-cost. 

Table 4-1 indicates that stand-alone sprinkler designs (C and B) are least-cost in the Colonial and 

Townhouse, when backflow preventers are not included. When backflow preventers are included in 

the Colonial and Townhouse, a stand alone system (C) can be least-cost when annual backflow 

inspection costs are low, homeowner tenure is short, and discount rates are high. When annual 

inspection costs are higher, homeowner tenure is longer, or discount rates are low, then the 

multipurpose network system (A) is least-cost. The multipurpose network system (A) is least-cost in 

the Ranch whether backflow preventers are included or not. 

4.2 Suggestions for Future Research 

The least-cost sprinkler systems identified in this report will form the basis for a follow-on benefitcost study. That study will develop estimates of all benefits and will expand the cost data to include 

an estimate of operating cost. Operating costs include water cost and water damage cost, incurred 

only if the system activates accidentally when there is no fire. The follow-on report will estimate the 

cost effectiveness of sprinkler systems. 

35

References 

ASTM International. “Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building 

Systems,” E 917-02, Annual book of ASTM Standards: 2002. West Conshohoken, PA, 

ASTM International. 

NFPA International, “Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two Family 

Dwellings and Manufactured Homes 2002 Edition,” NFPA 13D, National Fire Protection 

Association, 2002. 

NFPA International, “Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire 

Protection Systems, 2002 edition,” NFPA 25, National Fire Protection Association, 2002. 

Siarnicki, Ronald Jon, Residential Sprinklers: One Community's Experience Twelve Years After 

Mandatory Implementation. Jan. 2001. 

Ibbotson Associates, “Stocks, Bonds, and Bills after Taxes and Inflation: Year-end 1925-2004,” 

PM006 (2005). 

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/03, American Housing Survey for the 

United States: 2003. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

37

Appendix A 

Prototypical Houses 

The NIST-designed prototypical houses were developed to form a physical basis for cost estimations. 

They do not represent a recommended sprinkler system design. 

Figure A-1. Prototypical Colonial House: Basement Floorplan 
38

Figure A-2. Prototypical Colonial House: 1st Floor Floorplan 
39

Figure A-3. Prototypical Colonial House: 2nd Floor Floorplan 
40

Figure A-4. Prototypical Townhouse Floorplans
41

Figure A-5. Prototypical Ranch Floorplan

43

Appendix B 

Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation Plan 

The sprinkler system systems shown in this Appendix come from Pete Schwab of Wayne Automatic 

Fire Sprinkler. The floorplans are presented in customary units and are reproduced as they were 

received.

Figure B-1. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House Basement
44

Figure B-2. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 1st Floor
45

Figure B-3. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 2nd Floor
46

Figure B-4. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Townhouse Basement
47

Figure B-5. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Townhouse 1st & 2nd Floors
48

Figure B-6. Stand-Alone Fire Sprinkler Installation in Ranch
49

Appendix C 

Multipurpose Network Sprinkler Installation Plan 

The sprinkler system systems shown in this Appendix come from Alan Larson of Uponor Wirsbo. 

The floorplans are presented in customary units and are reproduced as they were received. 

Figure C-1. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House Basement
50

Figure C-2. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 1st Floor
51

Figure C-3. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Colonial House 2nd Floor
52

Figure C-4. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Townhouse
53

Figure C-5. Multipurpose Network Fire Sprinkler Installation in Ranch