Sure. We are all on the edge of our seats waiting their findings. If they get the guy from San Diego to work on this they will probably determine that if you install the fans you shouldnt need the sprinklers. Why spend the extra money?
You got me going with that one George. Have a great weekend! Cliff Whitfield, SET Fire Design, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: High Volume Ceiling Fans & Warehousing Scott- You actually agreed with me if you re-read what I wrote. " There was a seminar at NFPA on this; nothing definitive, but in production areas, quite an impact- and this is where they are often installed above the worker bees." What I thought I wrote above agrees with what you wrote. My follow-up to that, and maybe I should have started a new para, was the small impact ON ESFR but you and my initial part, where there was "quite an impact" was misc storage/production with control mode. Naturally we're on the verge of finding out more as Schirmer moves forward. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott A. Futrell Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 5:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: High Volume Ceiling Fans & Warehousing Sorry George, I respectfully disagree. They ran a baseline 20' foot high Class II test without the fan operating that opened 21 sprinklers at 120 square feet per sprinkler (2,520 sq. ft. and that is a larger area than NFPA currently requires for the minimum design area in miscellaneous storage - they said they were testing production areas with miscellaneous storage). The same test with the fan operating at half speed opened, if I remember correctly, 26 sprinklers and that at 120 square feet is over 3,120 square feet. In both cases, the baseline without the fan and the test with the fan of the Class II commodity opened far more sprinklers then we would ever design for 20' high Class II. Marty said they would be going to NFPA with those results. Scott Futrell (763) 425-1001 Office (612) 759-5556 Cell -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: High Volume Ceiling Fans & Warehousing Kathleen mentioned Schirmer's been hired to run the project, it is moving forward. There was a seminar at NFPA on this; nothing definitive, but in production areas, quite an impact- and this is where they are often installed above the worker bees. Surprisingly, there was little difference in the activation time in an ESFR test, although the obstruction remains- maybe mount them with fusible chains- well, just on one side so they spin 90* and not all the way atop someone's head. Seriously, way more data and field experience needed. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: High Volume Ceiling Fans & Warehousing SFPE Research foundation is doing research on this. You can contact Kathleen Almand at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more information on the issue and test. As I recall there is justifiable concern but not definitive. As an AHJ you don't have a strong leg to say no as it's not addresses in Code specifically. However, you can work off IFC 102.8 and 102.7 to require testing or a standard that shows this is compliant, which doesn't exist. The other angle with ESFR is the obstructions. You can't meet the rules because of the fan blades never mind the blowing air problem. >From the testing by GE Gap Services: Test 1 was conducted on 15 ft (4.6 m) high palletized storage of a Group A plastic commodity (see Figure 1) positioned so that the iginition was located between four ceiling sprinklers with the movable ceiling located 25 ft (7.6 m) above the floor (see Figures 2 and 3). The sprinklers were 286°F (141°C) rated, K-11.2 with a standard response operating link, on a 8 ft x 10 ft (2.44 m x 3.05 m) spacing. The sprinklers were arranged to operate at a flowing pressure of 18.4 psi upon activation creating a density of 0.60 gpm/ft² (24.42 L/min/m²). Ignition was accomplished while the fan was moving air in the downward direction at the fifty percent (50%) power setting. The first sprinkler operated at three minutes twenty-six seconds (3:26) after ignition and the fan power was shut off and the fan was allowed to coast to as stop. A total of seventy-three (73) ceiling sprinkler operated between 3:26 and 7:35 (see Figure 4). The test was terminated eight minutes after ignition. The posttest observation and analysis of the test array indicates that the fire spread to the extremities of the test array (see Figure 5). The second and third tests were conducted on 12 ft (3.7 m) high palletized storage of a Class II commodity (see Figure 1) positioned so that the iginition was located between four ceiling sprinklers with the movable ceiling located 22 ft (6.7 m) above the floor (see Figures 6 and 7). The sprinklers were 155°F (68°C) rating, K-5.6 with a standard response operating link, on a 10 ft x 12 ft (3.05 m x 3.7 m) spacing. The sprinklers were arranged to operate at a flowing pressure of 18.4 psi upon activation creating a density of 0.20 gpm/ft² (8.14 L/min/m²). Test No. 2 was a baseline test and the fan was not used. Ignition was accomplished and the first sprinkler operated at one minute fourteen seconds (1:14) after ignition. A total of twenty-one (21) ceiling sprinkler operated between 1:14 and 3:40 (see Figure 8). The test was terminated thirty minutes after ignition. The posttest observation and analysis of the test array indicates that the fire did not spread to the extremities of the test array (see Figure 9). Test No. 3 had the fan in operation. Ignition was accomplished while the fan was moving air in the downward direction at the fifty percent (50%) power setting. The first sprinkler operated at one minute fifty-seven seconds (1:57) after ignition and the fan power was secured at that time. A total of twenty-six (26) ceiling sprinkler operated between 1:57 and 3:51 (see Figure 10). The test was terminated thirty minutes after ignition. The post test observation and analysis of the test array indicates that the fire spread to the extremities of the test array (see Figure 11). High Volume/Low Speed Fans and Sprinkler Discharge Based on some exploratory testing by GE Gap Services, the Foundation has been asked to develop a project to explore the effects of these fans, common in industrial occupancies, on sprinkler discharge. A planning meeting is scheduled for January 15 at the Foundation's headquarters in Quincy. For more information on the outcome of this meeting and project plans, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: High Volume Ceiling Fans & Warehousing Dave: Here are some links. I think it unlikely that you are the "only guy..." That cliche is used so often it is a dog that just won't hunt. http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/Research_Plan.PDF Here is one you mentioned: http://www.nfpa.org/publicJournalDetail.asp?categoryID=1584&itemID=38656&src =NFPAJournal Yours, Bruce V. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Dave Phelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Good evening all, > > Im looking for some field experiences or even fire losses / saves where > sprinkler protected warehousing also contains ceiling fans known as HV/LS or > high-volume / low speed. These fans can span 24 feet in diameter and > produce downdrafts of +300,000 cubic feet / minute. > > I was inspecting an ESFR system in a high pile warehouse and noticed the > fans and took an interest in them for their potential impact on sprinkler > operation or performance. I've done some phone calls back and forth with > the manufacturer and sales people, even an engineer or two. So far there is > just two sides of the story: > > I see this large downward airflow as being a potential delay or impairment > to initial head operation and therefore an AHJ problem. The other side sees > this as not a problem because they have mustered an NFPA 'approval' since > they allegedly do not violate the obstruction rules. There also is an > article in this months NFPA journal on these fans and some preliminary > testing. > > Naturally the manufacturer is quick to point out these fans are installed > 'everywhere' and Im the only guy raising his concerns .... so since they are > everywhere I'd like to hear about other people's experiences with them. > > Thanks group. > > Dave P. > An AHJ in NJ > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
