ESFR Design Proposal

[Arsnman4]

OK....any of you designers or DP's have any research links to the allowance of ESFR for the protection of an area used for IIIB paint process. There are no issues with ceiling or obstructions or supply. I have racked my brain in research of FM, 13 and UL and can't find any specific allowance beyond storage.

I have requested a submittal of an "alternative design" from the firm's RDP or Eng to include specific substantiation and rationale for further review and research but I recalled this site and just thought one of you may have been down the road before. Thanks!

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[Arsnman4]

Clarification: (i.e. specific allowance)

I should have said, use other than storage of challenging commodities. Sometimes the brain just gets stuck.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[DRWeig]

Arsnman4,

Pardon a simple question from a guy who's trying to learn...

What is a DP? An RDP?

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

 

[LCREP]

I do not have NFPA 13 with me BUT I recall a IIIB paint process is at least an Extra Hazard Grp 1 if not Grp 2 occupancy. NFPA 13 does not permit an EX Haz occupancy to be protected by ESFR. NFPA will only permit a light hazard or ordinary occupancy to be protected with ESFR. Also it is unlikely any sprinkler mfg has a listing for other than warehouse occupancy.

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too!

 

[Arsnman4]

DRWeig,

DP = Design Professional or looking for a NICET IV or better.
RDP + Registered Design Professional or looking for and Engineer or FPE (Fire Protection Engineer)

LCREP,

I hear ya and yes that is correct. I learned some additional detail regarding the process: (Closed System with a FP ? 101°F which in accordance with NFPA 30 is a Class II. The proposed lines x three will be a water-based application in booths and may or possibly be considered Ordinary Group 2 which could fall into the ESFR allowance.

The storage area of the Warehouse is proposed for ESFR with no issues there but the proponent wants to extend the scheme across the entire warehouse incorporating the production area.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[cdafd]

Do you have the specific head you want to use???

Is it listed for the use in this design?????

Fm design may not allow it , if you are designing to FM

 

[stookeyfpe]

Everything you are presenting is outside the scope of NFPA 13 and more important, the listing of ESFR sprinklers. You don't provide enough information to make a reasonable analysis and its Thursday.

I guess it's just not your day. Your asking a NFPA 30 (flammable & combustible liquid) question and asking if ESFR sprinklers work. I say no. Only under very controlled conditions do the two work together. You haven't provided enough data for any form of decision making.

2009 International Fire Code Section 105.4.3. It's up the permit applicant to provide you the design basis. You're the Code Official. Make the designer earn his/her wage.

That is all I can offer. Reject the design.

 

[LCREP]

Man4,

As an insurance AHJ I see many this approach many times trying to use ESFR for something outside of the scope of ESFR. I have made many "recommendations" to remove the ESFR heads and change to a system that will work. This is a problem for spec building where they do not know who the tenant will be and they install ESFR since they have high ceilings. The new tenant comes in and the operation is an extra hazard occupancy say injection molding. Now not only do you have to change out the heads and redesign but you also have to install a draft curtain between the ESFR and other system.
The way we handle it is to pull the sprinklered rate on the building so they pay more, OR do not write the account. BUT not ALL insurance companies do what we do.


****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too!

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Arsnman4,

"DP = Design Professional or looking for a NICET IV or better.
RDP + Registered Design Professional or looking for and Engineer or FPE (Fire Protection Engineer)"

As a NICET IV I wouldn't touch this one. Well beyond the ability of anyone but an FPE, or a PE with loads of experience, to make these kinds of evaluations.

 

[b1ueshift]

I think common sense dictates that ESFR sprinklers weren't designed with this application in mind and you were correct to ask for some kind of justification.

The flow rate from ESFR heads is so high, it seems to be way overdesigned for the application.

In order to comply with a building code such as NPFA 101 or the current IBC, you may need a sprinkler system designed to NFPA 13 for extra hazard occupancies. Trouble is if you go for much higher flow rates (ie ESFR sprinklers), how can you be sure that the fire suppression will be better? One ESFR head might just spread flammable liquid out faster. It will probably put the fire out faster - but without a test or a performance based analysis how can you be sure? Also you could get a lot more water damage using ESFR compared to a conventional system.

The designer seems to be being creative here, trying to use ESFR heads for something they weren't designed for. Trouble is when you are dealing with life safety and risk control, it's better not to get too creative.

If the designer wants to use ESFR, they seem to be acknowledging that they consider a standard NFPA 13 extra hazard system isn't adequate for the application. If that's the case then they should do some performance based analysis to determine what is required.

If a performance based solution is required, I would have thought that foam sprinklers would be a more appropriate approach than ESFR.

 

[TravisMack]

I just have to go on a small rant here. Way too many people see the ESFR sprinkler as the top of the food chain and default to it for challenging storage. ESFR is great for Class I-IV and Grp A plastics. It is not necessarily the best for anything else. ESFR is designed to suppress a quickly contained fire. However, if you have a spreading fire that is going to open more than 12 heads, your ESFR system is shot. The design area of some of these flammable liquids storage (and other similar) is often 5000 sq ft or more. ESFR is simply not compatible with this type of fire condition.

While ESFR offers a lot of options, it is not the best for all storage applications.

OK - end of rant!

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[firepe]

Arsnman4,

Firstly, I agree with Travis. Clearly ESFR does not work for very many flammable/combustible liquid design scenarios.

Secondly, you need to get an FPE involved and determine what level of protection you actually need besides the ESFR.

Thirdly, is this a situation where they want the ESFR system for the building future use when perhaps this current operation leaves? If that is the case, I would suggest designing the system piping network for ESFR, and make sure it works, but then re-purpose the system by installing standard spray heads instead of ESFR, and calculate it for whatever the appropriate design actually may be with standard spray heads (since it's designed for ESFR, it is already 100-sq.ft. per head). Then, in the future, if they want to, they simply change out the heads and they have an ESFR system.

Just a thought, if this situation applies.



Fire Sprinklers Save Lives.
Can You Live Without Them?

 

[Arsnman4]

Thanks guys, all great advice/insight!

SS, I hear you loud and clear about the scope thing and being an official as I mentioned to the firm in the first pre-construction meeting while questioning the listings just thought I was missing something since my obligation to our customer (foreign mfg.) and that of the sprinkler firm’s were so insistent and differing.

Thanks again all and much respect........be safe!


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[chillylulu]

FM has tested ESFR's for aerosols. They also allow them for use on expanded group A plastics, not compartmented. NFPA 13 just states "outside the scope of this standard," which didn't help with foam meat trays stored to 22' high on pallets in standard racks. FM's guidelines - revised in January of this year - did help.

I would require the design to meet NFPA requirements at a minimum, and allow use of other standards based on full scale testing - as long as the standards requirements are greater than or equal to any NFPA requirements. The only other option would be complete fire modeling by a PE experienced in fire protection that proves equivalency.