Rack Head Spacing

[spkreng]

Ima confused, say I have open racks, 10' wide, 30' deep with 6" flue space between (10' dim)them and at the wall...one really long row 220' the AISLE is the 60' from the other rack against the opposite wall. 80 sq ft spacing, so I place sprinklers in the flue spaces and work in for my layout?
See attached pictures of similar arrangement.

spkreng, CET

 

[LCREP]

Boat storage on racks is out of the scope of NFPA 13. So what design are you using? Did you have a FPE design the system??

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

 

[spkreng]

Why an FPE, NFPA 303 references NFPA 13, 2002 edition. NFPA #303 Chapter 6, 6.3.4.4 the design of automatic sprinkler systems shall comply with the provisions of NFPA 13, for Group A Plastics stored on solid shelves. my concern is the rack head layout. On an aside why would I need an FPE the code is clear as stated. The structure is existing

spkreng, CET

 

[LCREP]

Take a look at NFPA 13, 2010, table A5.6 it says boat storage is out of the scope of commodity classification.

Also NFPA Research Foundation link to a 77 page phase 1 research on boat storage

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/BoatStorage.pdf

On page 33 it says this.

NFPA 13 – Rack Storage Provisions
Prior to the 2003 edition of NFPA 303, Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards,

there was no specific sprinkler system design guidance specifically for rack storage of boats in NFPA 303 or NFPA 13 (Standard on the Installation of Sprinkler Systems). NFPA 303 technical committee members recognized
that this was an area where improvement was needed and as a result developed a requirement that now
appears in the 2003 and 2006 editions of NFPA 303. As quoted above, Section 6.3.4.4 now states that
automatic sprinkler systems shall be designed per Chapter 12 of NFPA 13 – 2002 Edition for Group A
Plastics stored on solid shelves.

This requirement represents a best effort judgment by the Committee to provide some guidance to the designers and developers of these facilities; however,

there is no current
large or full scale fire test data that substantiates if this criterion is adequate, or inadequate; and,NFPA 303 has, in their best judgment, attempted to cite specific criteria for rack storage of boats.


Recognizing two basic factors: (1) boats are made of resins that classify as Group A Plastics, and (2)
boats in rack storage array are solid obstructions similar to solid shelves in conventional rack storage
arrays. Although these comparisons are very general, the analogy provided a basis for the NFPA 303
Committee to reference the requirements of NFPA 13 for Group A Plastics stored on solid shelves.
Although NFPA 303 references the 2002 edition of NFPA 13, the following requirements for Group A
Plastics on solid shelves are taken from the 2007 edition of NFPA 13, given that the 2006 edition
represents the most current provision for this storage scenario correspondingly with too much or too little conservatism for indoor rack -style boat storage.

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

 

[spkreng]

So I should inform the owner that his property cannot be protected by a fire sprinkler system, because no one has accumulated data for his needs? If I had a tobacco farmer whom grows his plants on platforms 30' in the air with a 75' warehouse shell, I should tell him no tests have been done so do without fire sprinklers?
All I am stating is the man wants his facility equipped with a fire sprinkler system, the local codes mandate NFPA 303 2006 and that mandates NFPA 13, 2006 this is the design criteria set forth by local codes. Granted I would love more info, however to design a system in compliance with the local codes is not unreasonable, something is better than nothing.

spkreng, CET

 

[spkreng]

sorry 13, 2002. I have read the referenced report and also viewed FM Globals latest review on changing sprinkler classifications as well as their study that only pend. spkrs are really effective in high challenge fires, so I can only glean together an informed opinion as to the design basis from what was clearly code! I deal with jurisdictions all the time that only recognize nfpa 13, 1999....that's a world of dif from 2010

spkreng, CET

 

[FFP1]

LCREP is simply providing good advice and solid information to consider in response to your question.

Any fire risk outside of the scope of NFPA or any specific fire risk which falls in the undefined areas of the design criteria (i.e. when building structure and/or contents do not fit the given range) might warrant the assistance of a qualified FPE.

If the building burns to the ground......do you want be alone in court in a difficult (and potentially indefensible) situation or would you prefer to have a FPE there to verify that he/she developed the design criteria and confirmed the system was installed in accordance with the approved plans? There are significant liability issues involved when a sprinkler company decides to design and install automatic sprinklers in a boat storage warehouse without involving a qualified FPE.

 

[stookeyfpe]

I glanced hard at the paper. I think the NFPA 303 committee made some assumptions that are incorrect. I further suspect the NFPA 13 committee chose to avoid addressing the issue of classification and protection of boats. This data from the NFPA Research Foundation, and the fact that Tom Gardner's name is on it, confirms to me this a scary storage situation. Tom is one the most competent FPEs I know.

In a previous post you made an analogy to tobacco. This isn't tobacco and its not a Group A plastic. Its an elevated fuel package with serious fire behavior issues.

Without an engineer's seal, I wouldn't accept it. If I was a registered PE licensed in fire protection engineering, I would send my clients to the authors. I don't care if its in Canada or Canyon, TX.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Over on the coast there's tons of boat storage all over the place.

Four years ago I looked at one and the more I got into it the more scared I got. I won't touch any of it it's a good job for the competition.

I know, especially now, layout technicians are under a lot of pressure to "get jobs" but sometimes the hardest lesson to learn is to just walk away.

 

[firepe]

I have read and re-read this thread. I totally agree with this being outside the scope of NFPA 13 as currently written.

However, spkreng did state:

"the local codes mandate NFPA 303 2006 and that mandates NFPA 13, 2002 this is the design criteria set forth by local codes."

I am all for being conservative, but you also must have a "defendable" postion. If the local AHJ and local codes/ordinaces really do state to follow NFPA 303, then I would argue, as a licensed Professional Fire Protection Engineer, that spkreng has NO liability if the local ordinance/code is met, in this case NFPA 303.

So, if that is the case, then let's get back on topic to the original question.

 

[Arsnman4]

Little late in the game but to give an AHJ’s perspective; it is not beyond the scope or obligation of the AHJ to request and or require a 3rd party engineering evaluation in matters that go beyond the scope of the code and this example begs of it.

I have run into a few over the years and required it so hopefully when I’m sipping margarita’s on the beach in retirement and a loss occurs, I won’t have to testify too long on the stand in those subrogation hearings.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"