Rolling fire storage racks of the sort seen in hospitals 1

[SprinklerDesigner2]

A hospital I am doing has a new file storage room with rolling racks for storage of patient records.

Original ceiling height was to be 10'-0" but due to duct conflicts (hard to believe this would happen in a hospital) the ceiling had to be lowered to 9'4. Rack height is 8'-0". Clearance between sprinkler and top of rack is under 18"

Does anyone know of an alternative to having to lower the racks to maintain the required 18" clearance?

 

[FFP1]

The test report was very interesting. Thanks Stookey.

I am having a hard time figuring out why you guys are getting so concerned about this storage arrangement. The test results in each test show the fire was controlled in each instance with 0.10 density. The storage arrangement has a relatively slow fire propogation, the heat generation is slower than even most light hazard occupancies, room temperatures were not excessive and the number of operating sprinklers was acceptable. The tests were allow to burn free for 80-90 minutes with no manual fire fighting efforts. We are dealing with control mode sprinklers and each of these tests were a complete success during the early periods (you could even make a strong case they were a success for the entire 80-90 minute test period). In a real world fire incident, fire fighters would be able to extinguish the fire relatively quickly after arriving on the scene. Consider all of the above AND realize we are talking about a 0.10 density with no fire walls to hinder fire spread outside of the storage array!

In a 200 sq. ft. room with fire subdivision, sprinkler protection (maybe use a 0.25 gpm/sq. ft. density if you will sleep better), and smoke detection to ensure a prompt response, I would say we are golden.

What specifically am I missing??

 

[Cidona]

For myself, there were too many varibles in the tests to be able to apply. The flue spaces, barrier spacing, etc were all playing a critcal role. Some of the tests had much greater deflector to storage distance than is often available. My understanding was not all of the tests provided control. I've attached an extract paragraph will is what put me off trying to apply regular sprinkler layout.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Cidona

Your post implies that you want sprinklers to protect your client from all hazards. Fire does not follow that model. These storage systems are based on multiple permutations and it really requires either:

A - Major and detailed engineering analysis
B - Survey of the hazards and the application of economical and reliable engineering controls.

FFP1 has the same logic as mine: LH1 sprinklers appears to work. My response to my clients is smoke detection and some fire-resistive separation. What these reports don't consider is the value of the contents. If its the Federalist Papers on how the US constitution was written, those are historically important. If its Enron's shareholder plans, well I currently use those as toilet paper.

 

[Cidona]

'A - Major and detailed engineering analysis
B - Survey of the hazards and the application of economical and reliable engineering controls.'

I am not a PE and therefore don't concider myself qualified to do either one of these. I need to see it in the standard for me to apply and it seems to date the committee has not done so.

I am sprinkler only guy. Reading the report, I have an idea of some of the conciderations that should be taken into account and advise the client of some of the issues involved and why this requires proper concideration by a PE.

 

[FFP1]

Excellent point by Cidona!

A suitable protection scheme for this exact situation is not currently provided by NFPA 13; therefore, it would be prudent to involve a qualified FPE.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

FFP1

"A suitable protection scheme for this exact situation is not currently provided by NFPA 13; therefore, it would be prudent to involve a qualified FPE."

Absolutely.