Approaching this from a commodity perspective is inappropriate.
Commodity classification is based on storage "units" roughly 42 in. x
42in x 42 in. in size. 8' x 8' x 16' PODS where a fire can start within
a unit are in an entirely different league.
If you were to remove the sides of the pods, you would have solid shelf
multi-row racks, which cannot be protected without in-rack sprinklers.
. With the sides on, they are equivalent to a 3 story dormitory, which
can't be protected by sprinklers in the attic only. You can no more
reject sprinklers in the units than you can in-racks or sprinklers in
dwelling units just because it is considered inconvenient.
If protection within the units is not considered a viable alternative,
then protection of the contents is probably not viable, either.. If that
is acceptible, protection of the building structure may be possible, but
you would have be able to supply several thousand square feet of
sprinklers at a density sufficient to keep the structure cool while the
fire is manually extinguished or burns itself out.
Just as everything looks like a nail when the only tool you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a candidate for sprinklers when all you
have is NFPA 13. Neither, obviously, is true
In fire tests, high temperature rated sprinklers typically reduce the
operating area by, at most, one ring. If a shielded fire in a PODS unit
would overwhelm an ESFR system, it would at least whelm high temperature
sprinklers.
.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
