Matt,
In looking at similar issues out here in California, I've run across a
couple of circumstances where an AHJ brought my attention to the figures
in chapter 17, such as 17.2.1.2.1(a) and (b), for storage of plastics in
racks. The figures, particularly the elevation views, suggest that the
storage height has no other storage over the top of it. A really bright
engineer, who knows more about protection of storage than I do, stated
very bluntly to me that when you store over the top of something, you
have to change the storage height for the original commodity, because
you simply can't predict when someone will reconfigure what's placed in
the racks.
I don't know if that provides any good information, just wanted to chime in.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com>website
On 11/3/2010 11:10 AM, Matt Grise wrote:
The idea was to segregate the warehouse with plastics on the bottom and paper
on the top as a procedural rule in the warehouse. The 10 pallet load issue is
out of the question since the plastic makes up over 50% of what they store.
Also, the plastic will not be stored randomly or spaced apart.
The idea was to protect at a lower density since the plastic would be stored lower (say max of
10'-0), and the paper (even at a higher stack 15'-0" max) would require less water than
the plastic. The thought being to choose the higher demand of [plastic to 10'-0"] or
[paper to 15'-0"].
I agree now; that is not a valid method for determining the protection level. I was
just hoping that it might have been due to the fact that 15'-0" tall rack
storage of expanded exposed group a plastics are going to need a lot of water.
Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
*Licensed in KS& MO
913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
913.927.0222 cell
www. AFPsprink.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: commodities in a warehouse rack
The problem with downgrading the protection scheme based on the lesser
commodity is that if you read 5.6.1.2 in NFPA 13, 2007, there are very specific
restrictions which probably will be met for about a day. Right off the bat,
you'll be under-designed. If it is a given that there will be plastics, then
design the area for plastics.
One problem with 5.6.1.2 is that it does not provide a definitive area. If I
have 10 pallet loads of the higher commodity in a 4000 sq. ft area instead of a
40,000 sq. ft. area it makes a big difference in fuel load.
So unless they are going to segregate the plastics to a specific rack or area
only, you can presume that the plastics will end up wherever there is an empty
spot on the rack.
Design for the plastics and be done with it.
Craig L. Prahl, CET
Fire Protection
CH2MHILL
Lockwood Greene
1500 International Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
Direct - 864.599.4102
Fax - 864.599.8439
CH2MHILL Extension 74102
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Grise
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:32 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: commodities in a warehouse rack
I have a scenario where a customer is looking to store pallet loads of products
in a rack. They have two typical types of product. One is an expanded, exposed
group A plastic, the other is a group 3 paper product. Racks are 3 levels high,
single row.
The idea came up to store the plastics only on the first and second levels with
only paper on the third level. The thought was that the protection level could
be selected to protect the plastics to the height of the second tier, but then
paper to the height of the third tier.
I am concerned that this may not result in a high enough protection level since
(I imagine) the protection level for storage of plastics to a certain level is
based on the sprinklers spraying directly onto the commodities and not being
obstructed by an additional level of product - even if that additional level is
a lower hazard.
Any thoughts?
Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
*Licensed in KS& MO
913.888.0647 ph
913.888.0618 f
913.927.0222 cell
www. AFPsprink.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
