Home Depot System Design

[rrewis]

Has anyone had any experience with the design of a sprinkler system in a Home Depot? Specifically the wood racks area. NFPA13 2007 shys away from any suggestions. Annex C leaves one to believe that water systems, even with in-rack sprinklers, cannot control a fire.

Thanks,
rrewis

 

[LCREP]

Can you say in-rack sprinklers?? They will not like to hear it but it is the only option with cantilever racks with the lumber. Then again if they cut the lumber to 4' lengths that will work too.

Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too

Not ALL Sprinkler Systems Are Created Equal! An Inadequate Sprinkler Design Is JUST As Bad As A Nonsprinklered Building!! When Occupancies Change So Should The Sprinkler System. See NFPA 25, 2002, Edition, Section 4.1.5, 4.1.6 & 4.1.6.1.

 

[firepe]

Russell,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way...

It still sounds like you were taking on the practice of engineering. You by admission are not an engineer, nor is your company.

Justify your involvement however you want, but simply because you are the sprinkler contractor and you may generally know more than the local AHJ, does not diminish that fact.

Also, NICET certification is not engineering licensure, and is not intended to take it's place, even though a few states have circumvented this original intention. It's true you may indeed know more than the AHJ, and the engineer you propose to use, but it is folly not to include an engineer on a design build project.

You may want to re-think your future involvement in this type of project. You may think you are insured, but if, god forbid, something were to happen, say a fire, maybe even loss of life, any good loss investigator will catch on pretty quick that you were practicing engineering, without a license, and I'll bet your policy has an out for the insurance company if you do that. That would be a pretty tough pill to swallow if you were left holding all of the liability, when you thought you were covered.

 

[rrewis]

firepe, I take no offense to your comments. I understand what you are saying. You are correct, I am taking on engineering; however, the state I am in does not require an engineer. I am not trying to justify our position but rather stating how it is. Taking on this responsibiliy is quite common among all sprinkler contractors in this area. We do not take on any project that we cannot go to all the involved codes/standards and put our finger on that portion of those codes/standards that can back up our design data. This is the reason that I started this thread. The project was out of the scope of NFPA13 so I was checking with you guys to tell me if I had overlooked it. From all the response I received it is evident that I have not overlooked anything and now the time has come to back away and put the responsibilty on an engineer.
Our insurance cannot have an exception clause for lack of engineer. The certificate I was referring to is not a Nicet certificate but rather a certificate of competency issued by the state along with the contractor license. Being an engineer soley does not qualify one for this certificate. He/she must meet the same requirements as the contractor.

Just as a follow-up to this thread, I found the engineer who designed the Home Depot in my town. It was designed with a ceiling density of .60 over 2000 sq. ft. without in-rack sprinklers.

Thanks for your input,
Russell

 

[stookeyfpe]

A Home Depot is a unique animal, as is a Lowe's. It's not just ceiling sprinkler density and design area. It's the flammable liquids, the oxidizers in the swimming pool chemical area and the Group A plastics mixed in with the general merchandise.

I should have changed my handle for all of these postings as I will probably be asked about it in court one day.

If "they" are building this store without in-rack sprinklers for the protection of the previously mentioned high challenge commodities and adding aerosols (they are), then run like a screaming scared child because the design is totally wrong.

These and other Mercantile occupancies are the new challenge facing the FPE communtiy. All designs are based on specific fire tests that can be changed in 30 minutes by 10 store employees based on the number of SKUs (standard kitting units) flying (or not flying) off the shelf. We have got to include this in the engineering design. InspLCRep confirms this in every one of his posts.

And ESFR is not our Lord's blessing for solving all of these problems.

By the way - this has been one of the more honest and educational posts. Thank you for asking the tough question.

Russell, whatever I can do, I will help. But this retail environment is ripe for big large loss fires given the dynamics of retailers and their intense understanding of moving product without even considering the fire protection system design, or hazmats or the other variables like pallet types.

I really hope we don't hurt or kill some firefighters along the way.

 

[LCREP]

"And ESFR is not our Lord's blessing for solving all of these problems."

Amen!

I think the entire ESFR thing is totally out of control. It is scene as a cure all for ALL warehousing problems and it is far from it. Too many spec buildings have them installed and advertised as come rent my building and store anything you want we have EFSR the greatest thing since sliced bread! What do they have, K 25 heads since they have a lower head pressure and sometimes no fire pump required. Great you have Class 1-4 commodity or non-expanded plastics inside of a cardboard box you are good to go. BUT you have anything else, exposed plastics, expanded plastics, combustible or flammable liquids, etc they are the wrong choice. How many building owners review what the tenant plans to store in the building and will the ESFR prtotect it AND makes sure it does not change? My experience NOT many! How many fire departments and Code Officials ask these questions???

Sometimes I wish FM never came up with this option. ALL it was ever met to be was an option to do away with in-rack sprinklers. Even through in-racks are the most efficient way of controlling and extinguishing a fire. Take a look at all the test data, in-racks do one hell of a job. Look at all the 3B liquid testing and protection data, what do you see, barriers and in-racks at each level of storage. They work very well since they are so close to the fire.

Do not get me wrong ESFR are great and have a place in the fire protection menu of options. However they should not always be the ONLY option everyone things of.

ESFR are great when 1. They are installed correctly regarding obstructions and 2. NOTHING changes in the storage configuration regarding the type of commodity stored, new ceiling obstructions, blockage of transfer and longitudinal flue space,etc. Now how many warehouses have you been in that NOTHING changes?

I still can not believe I have to have meetings with HVAC, steel, lighting contractors, etc. to tell them the sprinkler system can NOT move, you have to move your obstruction. After the meeting where everyone agrees with me I visit the job site after the install and find obstructions!

Hell we are going on 20 years ESFR have been around when will they get it??

Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too

Not ALL Sprinkler Systems Are Created Equal! An Inadequate Sprinkler Design Is JUST As Bad As A Nonsprinklered Building!! When Occupancies Change So Should The Sprinkler System. See NFPA 25, 2002, Edition, Section 4.1.5, 4.1.6 & 4.1.6.1.

 

[GrandmarkFP]

Hi Stookeyfpe, so what if I smoke crack. Oh, just for the record I'm not an engineer at all. I'm just a dumb old pipe fitter.

Now, Let ME help You. Read NFPA 13, Section 12.3.2.5.1., 2002 edition. If YOU can figure out that this section is the section of 13 that references "Special Design for Rack Storage of Class I-IV up to 25'"

The section I think you meant to give me.
Just a minute I need another hit off this crack pipe. ....... there we go thats better.

NFPA-13, 2002 & 2007 EDETION
Chapter 12.3.2.3 or 16.2.3 covers ESFR sprinklers for rack Storage of class-I through IV commodity up to 25'.
"12.3.2.3.1.1 or 16.2.3.2 ESFR Protection as defined shall not apply to the following."
"(1) Rack Storage involving solid shelves"

NFPA-13, 2002 & 2007 EDETION
3.10 or 3.9.3 Rack Storage Definitions
3.10.10 or 3.9.3.8 Solid Shelving This describes a particular type and arrangement of “Shelf” and is illustrated in both handbooks via a photograph. It does not directly address a solid unit load situation that may be present in a cantilever rack type arrangement. Cantilever rack storage is illustrated in A3.10.8(j) in the 2002 handbook and in A3.9.3.7(j) in the 07. this IMO is nit the same.

The only reference to a solid unit load is located in 3.9.18 (02) and 3.9.2.7 (07). This definition refers to nonexpanded plastic.

If the lack of air pockets in a solid unit load of plastics retards the ignition and combustion process. Would the same not hold true for a solid unit load of a class II commodity such as banded plywood, and other construction lumber?

I am of the opinion that ignition and combustion would indeed be inhibited by the lack of open space and air pockets. I interpret the meaning of 12.3.2.3.1.1 in the 2002 edition and 16.2.3.2 in the 2007 as referencing loosely stacked storage in “solid shelf rack” situations only. I do not believe that solid unit loads of class I and II commodities have been adequately addressed by NFPA, nor have any adequate burn test been conducted for this storage arrangement. I do however have the opinion as do many FPEs. that ESFR sprinklers providing close to 100gpm each or 1200gpm over the remote area (properly installed with no obstructions, and I do know that this is the tricky part.) will and are more than adequate to protect this type of class II commodity obstructed or not. The overhead ESFR protection of a lumber storage area will also allow for future rearrangement of product (within applicable guidelines).

Back to the Rock.

 

[ChrisConley]

I'll admit I'm just:

Another mechanical engineer playing the role of fire protection engineer.

But my interpretation was very similar to GrandmarkFP's.

Maybe rather than crack references we could all benefit from why ESFR is the incorrect application. I continue to benefit from the code interpretations in this forum.

The question that keeps not getting answered for me is: if rack sprinklers are the required and only method of fire protection for this style of storage... why doesn't 'Home Depot' or any similar store use them?

 

[firepe]

I agree that the name calling could have been omitted.

As for ESFR protection in general, I, myself, believe that many knowledgable FPE's are concerned that ESFR gets taken for granted, and treated as the magic pill to solve all of your storage problems.

Let's remember that this is SUPPRESSION mode protection, not CONTROL mode. Let's also remember that this was developed as a means of avoiding in-racks, and is extremely dependent upon maintaining proper flue spaces, no solid shelves, no open top containers, etc., not to mention how sensitive it is to obstructions.

So, does this specific example lend itself to ESFR??? There are those of you that wish to take the approach or attitude that "it doesn't say I can't" or use some other similar means to justify your decision.

What ever happened to finding out what the intent actually is with something?? The standard is POORLY worded in many areas, still, to this day. You cannot simply rely upon, "it says this", or because there is no comma here, "I think it says that".

I think what you are seeing here are some very good fire protection engineers being doubted by some non-fire protection engineers (or non-engineers period) because what the fire protection engineers are saying is NOT convenient to your cause.

What is the intent?? That's the question. Has it been tested, can you justify it's use? I think sometimes we need to dig a little deeper than just superficially what does it say, especially with ESFR. This is too touchy of a protection scheme to be speculating on what the standard says or doesn't say in black and white, or how it's punctuated. It should ALWAYS be a matter of erring on the side of caution.

In this specific case, lumber, whether you feel it is a solid unit load or not, placed onto racks in such a way that has the net effect of a SOLID shelf, I think you should listen to what some of these knowledgeable, qualified, fire protection engineers (me included, lol) are trying to tell you. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck..........

 

[firepe]

To follow up on my previous post....Digging a little deeper....

It's a duck!!


NFPA 13, 2002 3.10.10 defines Solid Shelving as follows:

"solid shelving is fixed in place, slatted, wire mesh or other type of shelves located within racks. The area of a solid shelf is defined by perimeter aisle or flue space on all four sides (of a typical pallet load). Solid shelves having an area equal to or less than 20-sq.ft. shall be defined as open racks. Shelves of wire mesh, slates, or other materials more than 50% open and where the flue spaces are maintained (around a typical pallet load) shall be defined as open racks."


NFPA 13, 2002, 12.3.2.5.1.2 lists conditions that MUST be met if ESFR is to be used in a "SLATTED" shelving configuration (not SOLID, but rather SLATTED, but still lends some evidence at to intent).

Requirement (5) states that "transverse flue spaces at least 3-in. wide shall be provided at least every 10 ft horizontally.

Requirement (10) states that "solid plywood or similar materials shall not be placed on the slatted shelves so that they block the 2-in.(minimum) spaces btween slats, nor shall they be placed on the wire mesh shelves."


NFPA 13, 2002, 12.3.1.9 Solid Shelves, the commentary discusses "the limit of 20-sq.ft. is established as representing the amount of blockage typically presented by a standard pallet load, which is considered acceptable based on traditional testing". (Again, intent. 20-sq.ft. is derived from a pallet load, which implies that there shopuld be spaces between pallet loads).


All of these excerpts help to define a clearer picture of the intent.

While it may be possible to maintain adequate longitudinal flue spaces in this situation, it does not seem likely that adequate transverse flue spaces are possible (every 4-5-ft.), which would exclude the use of ESFR.

 

[GrandmarkFP]

Hi ChrisConley: This is a great question. here is a theory.

Quote from ChrisConley’s earlier post:

"if rack sprinklers are the required and only method of fire protection for this style of storage... why doesn't 'Home Depot' or any similar store use them?"
This is a hypothetical answer.

Maybe these are performance based designs. Maybe the companies that are commissioning them to be installed have spent a lot of money and time to conduct their own burn test to prove the installation of these type of systems with out the use of in-rack sprinklers. Until this information (if it exist) is codified by an official entity the information will most likely remain proprietary.

Thanks
GrandmarkFP