Right now I am leaning towards the FM guidelines they do have some options for getting it done without in-racks.
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 Chris Cahill Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: commodities in a warehouse rack While not in code perhaps think about a level of in-rack above the plastics and 10' class 3 at the ceiling. Doubt it saves anything $ wise but might achieve goal of mixed vertical. Just thinking out loud. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Matt Grise <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:10:28 To: '[email protected]'<[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: RE: commodities in a warehouse rack 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
