Tire facility allowable product above tires

[sixt1vette]

We are designing a tire distribution center that has ESFR sprinklers in the ceiling at approximately 35' clear height. NFPA code tells us that we can store tires in fixed racks to a height of 25'. Is it allowable to store a different class of product (non-tires) such as steel wheels above the 25' height and above the tires in the racks below without then having to install in-rack sprinklers? Our local building code department has not been able to answer this question.

 

[LCREP]

Most likely either they did not run a test for storage higher then 25' in a 35 ' or the tests they ran did not pass for storage higher then 25' in a 35' building.

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

 

[LCREP]

Sorry, reread your post. No you can not store any product above the tires. This is because this is the highest commodity class which drives the fire protection requirements. See NFPA 13, 02, sec 5.6.1.2.3, mixed commodities and the limit placed on higher commodities within the same warehouse/rack. 10 pallet loads in a 40K warehouse, is the maximum permitted, not very much. This gives you an idea of how a higher class commodity stored in a warehouse can result in inadequate protection.

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

 

[sixt1vette]

Darn. Thanks much for your responses LCREP.

 

[cdafd]

LCREP

Not sure if I follow your response

But yes you can mix class materials, otherwise you would have to seperate Class 1, from Class 2, from Class 3, from CLass 4, etc.

but if you look at 5.6.1.2.2 nfpa 13 2002 it aloow mixed commodities.

back to the original question you would have a few variables to consider, like type of sprinler head used, how the tires are stored, etc.

also depending on the fire code used, you get in to more "High Piled Stock" requirements. chapter 23 of the IFC

need to have a FPE look at it and tell you what you can and cannot do

 

[mx272]

I agree with LCREP. You are not allowed to store above the tires without the required protection of the combined height of the tires plus other storage. That height would need to be protected as if it was all tire storage.

 

[stookeyfpe]

No. We are not your FPE.

 

[sixt1vette]

Your opinions have been appreciated and, yes, I realize that you are not our FPE.
My concern is obviously about achieving adequate fire protection, but our indecision about the approach is coming because of two factors: our client customer has existing older distribution centers whose sprinklers are nowhere near that of the current NFPA13; and the fire permitting official with whom we're dealing has been somewhat casual and non-specific in his directives (even though he has overseen at least three other new tire distribution operations in the same industrial complex).
The one aspect of the 2007 code (if we understand it correctly) is a requirement for face sprinklers in in-rack storage at our storage height (which is 25' max). Those face sprinklers are going to get trashed by the lift operators guaranteed and we really want to avoid them. Foam protection is not an option due to its cost.

 

[LCREP]

six

Did u reach out to the insurance carrier for your client to see what they think/want? This may or may not be an option depending on who they are and if they have a Loss Control/Prevention engineering department, but may be worth looking into. I work for an insurance carrier and we get this type of request all the time. Much easier to get them on board at the beginning then after it is installed. Most times we do not charge for our services for our clients.

Tire storage is a tough product to protect so insurance coverage may be in the excess market or overseas company. If this is the case then Loss Control services may not be available.

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

 

[doitright06]

I have to weigh in with Stooky on this one. We are not your free FPE service.

I have been watching this post for a while now, and while you are very careful with your questions, you just finally hit me the wrong way.

In your previous post you said

"the fire permitting official with whom we're dealing has been somewhat casual and non-specific in his directives".

The AHJ is not your designer/FPE either. I don't blame him for not "directing" you. That is NOT his/her job.

Looking at your original post,

"Is it allowable to store a different class of product (non-tires) such as steel wheels above the 25' height and above the tires in the racks below without then having to install in-rack sprinklers? Our local building code department has not been able to answer this question."

Again, it is not the function of the Building Code authority to answer these questions and design your system. If I were them, I would have stopped you long ago and asked what your FPE thinks, and prove your case to me.

And as for COST. Well that's really the issue here isn't it? You are wanting us here on this forum to validate your plans/desires to do something contrary to NFPA 13 standards for you, and contrary to the norm, but don't want to pay more to PROPERLY protect it.

Maybe you should build this out in rural podunk without sprinklers or building codes, and watch it burn down.

Again, as Stooky said, WE ARE NOT YOUR FPE.

My suggestion, hire a qualified FPE and get it done right, and quit rying to stretch the rules, instead of expecting a free lunch from somewhere else.

 

[cdafd]

unforuantly, the ahj may not know what is right or wrong, and may not ask the right questions, and may not ask for help from a design professional.

Put if you put you name on it, and does not work, would not want to be on live at five

 

[sixt1vette]

Again, your comments and opinions are appreciated. Looking back at my posts I'm wondering where the impression came that I'm trying to implement this project on the cheap (not the case). Aside from my comment on the foam, I've not mentioned cost as a factor. I have worked tire prjects for past clients and not one of them has wanted to go with the foam and would do everything they could to come up with less expensive protection that met code. I have no objection whatsover to hiring an FPE, but the $ are not mine to spend -they are our clients.
My seeking your opinions here has been for the purpose of my clarifying what I've read in the NFPA so that I may better understand where the code authority in our area may be coming from.
Thanks again for your opinions.

 

[doitright06]

"My seeking your opinions here has been for the purpose of my clarifying what I've read in the NFPA so that I may better understand where the code authority in our area may be coming from."

Therein lies the problem. Have you represented yourself or your firm to your client as capable to solve or consult on this issue, when clearly, as you have implied, you are not an FPE??

As a code official myself, I think that you are still missing the point. The code official does NOT have to explain himself, and does not stipulate design criteria. The ENGINEER does, and then the engineer explains it to the code official if need be.

You are attempting to do this bass ackwards. Instead of determining what you can and cannot do for yourself, you are asking the code official to do this for you. It is not set up to work that way.

I know many code officials that REFUSE to offer advice or steer you in a certain direction due to liability and conflict of interest concerns.

Again, without a qualified FPE involved, you are grasping at straws trying to interpret NFPA 13 for yourself. You NEED someone that isn't just trying to interpret/understand or read literally, but rather KNOWS what the intent of the standard is. Quit the "armchair engineering", and get an expert.

 

[LCREP]

Take a deep breath, count to 10, relax, one more time......,

Fell better now??

Six1vette is just asking what we think based on our experience and knowledge of the code. Nothing more and we are reading the riot act to him as if he did something wrong. What makes you think he is going to take what we say as gospel? Does he know who we are, our credentials, our background, or even if we have ever been in a tire warehouse. This is the Internet is is looking for information that is about it.

NO wait a minute I am wrong....... he is going to his client and say Nope you can not store product above the tires in the racks. Client says WHY Not?, well the folks on the Internet at Eng-Tips Forum said you can not. I am sure that the client will say great those guys on that site really know the code and are always correct, yep can not do it, thanks for posting that questions for me.

Come on guys cut this guy a break.

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

 

[stookeyfpe]

I've been watching this post for a number of days. My previous post, while considered by some to be rude or curt, was accurate. The original posting never told me the sprinkler K factor, the arrangement of the tires, and the clearance between the tires and the sprinkler.

This again is another scenario where ESFR sprinklers are believed to be the panacea of all fire protection designs. Why? Look at Table 12.4.2 (d) of NFPA 13. When a Table contains a footnote for one design that states Where used in this application, ESFR protection is expected to control rather than suppress the fire. What the heck? That does not sound like the definition of fire suppression in Section 3.3.10. Footnotes like this don't inspire confidence in my mind.

Frankly, I believe this another instance where the NFPA 13 committee read one fire test report, said it worked, and plugged it into the code. I reviewed FM Data Sheet 8-3 and the options are far more limited. This, in my old school, fuddy duddy, old fart mind needs in-rack sprinklers to provide for a reliable, safe design. Yup, it sucks to specify in-rack sprinklers. But this is one of a few commodities I feel that we should be very conservative in our designs.

When FM states they have little experience I tend to tighten up the design, and they clearly state this in Data Sheet 8-3.

In the late 1980s-early 1990s the tire industry did research on waste tires because of the rash of tire fires before recycling regulations were enacted. One of the more interesting facts of that research was that a single tire released close to 2 pounds of heavy (i.e., large molecules of hydrocarbons) oil when consumed in a fire. Introducing a combustible liquid in a fire is very challenging - combine it with ESFR tells me that we have a real potential for losing the building if ESFR is used because the oil can be carried by the sprinkler water and cause a large number of sprinklers to operate. This research, at least in my mind, drives my decision as to the importance of in-rack sprinklers.

I hope my comments are not perceived as a rant and I apologize if anyone feels hurt by my comments. But as someone who started his career on the front end of 1 1/2 inch hose line fighting fires and responded to two incidents where firefighters died, I tend to take sprinkler design very, very seriously.

 

[sixt1vette]

Thanks LCREP for calling off the heat and recognizing the essence of my question to the forum here. I do not - nor does my company - represent ourselves to our clients as an FPE firm. Your opinions are valued by me because I can take them as independent opinions from people who have no horse in the race regarding costs, politics, etc. Considering your opinions gives me greater confidence when I counsel our client to be careful about an approach he may want to take in the absence of firm direction from the local code authority. Couple that with the client's perspective that their existing facilities do not have protection as extensive as the current NFPA and their insurer has not forced them to upgrade and it becomes difficult to persuade the client that they should invest in more costly fire protection systems that are going to be prone to more potential damage in day-to-day use.
I really did not think the question was going to generate the testy remarks, but the opinions have been appreciated none the less. I believe I've received all the input I need. Thanks again.