Loading...
Report (730) FIRE utt San Diego SECURITY , ><:� Detroit , - j Atlanta LIFE SAFETY �� ,4 ate' /2ri New Jersey ,EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN TIGARD, OREGON DRAFT CURTAIN APPEAL On behalf of Eagle Hardware & Garden, we are requesting to delete the draft curtains required by Section 906.6 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and Section 8102.8 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code at the proposed store. This Alternative Materials And Methods request is based on the latitude given in Section 103.1.2 of the Fire.- , Code, and Sections 104.2.8 and 104.2.9 of the Building Code. The alternative being proposed by Eagle Hardware & Garden is to increase the smoke vent area to floor area ratio from 1:100 square feet to 1:75 square feet. A compilation of code history, scientific prediction, and full -scale tests on draft curtains is used as basis for this request. 0 CODE BACKGROUND The history of smoke/heat vents and curtain boards in buildings used for high -piled stock is somewhat ambiguous. The first use of these devices, although not documented, was reported to be in 1966 by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. This application was based upon judgment by the fire marshal. There was no fire testing to confirm this decision. Roof vents and curtain boards were originally used as an aid to fire fighting in unsprinklered buildings. In unsprinklered buildings, roof vents, augmented by curtain boards can sometimes relieve smoke accumulation by containing radial movement of smoke along the ceiling and by permitting the smoke to escape. Vents and curtain boards are of much less value for fires in sprinklered buildings. In the 1971 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, Article 35, High -Piled Combustible Stock was introduced. Requirements for smoke/heat vents and curtain boards were introduced in this edition. Smoke/heat vents and curtain boards were required in all buildings used for high -piled stock regardless of automatic fire protection. Section 35.107 stated "curtain boards shall be provided to limit the area of sprinkler operation and to aid the operation of roof vents." No .fire testing or research was done at that time to justify this position. Article 35 remained unchanged in the 1973 and 1976 Editions. A major revision of Article 35, which was later changed to Article 81, was undertaken for the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. Research conducted during this revision indicated that a mechanical smoke removal system was preferred and that smoke/heat vents and curtain boards were not required in buildings protected by an approved fire- extinguishing system [Section 81.107(a)]. Smoke/heat vents and curtain boards were also not required in fully sprinklered buildings in the 1982 Edition of the UFC. The 1985, 1988, and 1991 Editions of the Uniform Fire Code have again changed the smoke and heat vent and curtain boards requirements. These codes require smoke/heat vents and curtain boards in buildings used for _ high -piled stock storage regardless if the building is sprinklered or not. No new research or fire testing was done to support this change in position. • . 2820 CAMINO dEl Rio SouTIi • SUITE 200 • SAN DiEgo, CA 92108 • TEl (619) 296 -5666 • FAx (619) 296 -5656 _ r Eagle Hardware & Garden, Tigard, OR Draft Curtain Appeal Page 2of5 FULL -SCALE TESTS On February 17, 1994 large scale fire tests were conducted on Group A plastics commodities at, Factory Mutual test facility in West Gloucester, Rhode Island. The tests were designed to simulate • storage situations found in warehouse or warehouse -type display retail operations and involved rack storage arrangements of a Group. A plastic commodities located in a nominal 27 ft. high building: • Test No. Array Height (ft) • Ignition Location Curtain Maximum No. Sprinklers • (with respect to ceiling boards Ceiling Temp.' Opened sprinlders) Installed _ (oF) 1. 20 Between Two No 1107 4 6 20 Between Two Yes 1575 35 3 15 Under One No 965 7 • 7 • 15 Under One Yes - 1162 18 Two large -scale fire tests were performed with curtain boards during a series of tests for the Group A Plastics Committee. These tests were exact repeats of earlier tests from the test program. By changing only a single test variable (curtain boards), the tests permit the analysis of the effects of curtain boards within a building protected with fire sprinklers and rack storage: - Test No. 1 - Four sprinklers operated to 'controlled the fire. Test No. 1 was considered to be an overwhelming success. The fire was ignited at the bottom- center of a double -row rack (main array) which was . paralleled by two single -row racks on the either side (target racks). The fire intensified very quickly to a point where flames reached nearly the top of the rack. The first sprinklered: operated at 2 :03 minutes with the fourth and final sprinkler operating at 2:12 minutes. During this time, the fire was significantly reduced and confined by the four operating' sprinklers. Over the next few minutes, the fire was reduced to a smolder and only required mop - up operations for final extinguishment. Visibility was good in the test site up to approximately 12:00 minutes which then declined during the next 10:00 minutes. Test No. 6 - This test was a repeat of Test No. 1 in every aspect except the addition of curtain boards. Two intersecting 6 ft. deep curtain boards were installed. Test No. 6 was considered to be an overwhelming failure and the failure is contributed to the installation of curtain boards. A total of 35 sprinklers operated. The first sprinkler operated at 1:25 minutes with last sprinkler operating at 15:54 minutes. The fire burned to the south end test array and temperatures were significantly higher than in Test No. 1. The number of pallet loads consumed was 12 verses 3 for Test No. 1. The sprinklers operated in each of the for quadrants of the curtain boards as though there was four separate and distinct fires. The curtain boards acted as walls and channeled the smoke and heat within the . quadrant of the fire origin. The first eleven sprinklers operated within the northeast quadrant. However, -many of the sprinklers operated well beyond the fire area due to heat and -smoke being driven out and away from the fire area because of - the curtain boards. The curtain boards prevented pre- wetting Eagle Hardware & Garden, Tigard, OR Draft Curtain Appeal Page3of5 of the adjacent commodities and, therefore, a larger fire developed. The fire spread to the northwest quadrant where the fire again developed as it did in the first quadrant. Another eight sprinklers operated within the northwest quadrant with many of the operating sprinklers well beyond the fire area. The fire then moved to the southeast quadrant and then to the southwest quadrant. The curtain boards significantly effected the usually symmetrical smoke and heat movements along the ceiling. The smoke and heat was channeled along the curtain boards and then forced down and under curtain boards. Due to the larger fire and large number of sprinklers operating, smoke generation was significantly greater than in Test No. 1. The smoke layer was driven to 20 ft. below the ceiling at 3:00 minutes in several areas of the test site and to 27 ft. (floor level) by 5:30 minutes. By 7:30 minutes, all view of the fire was obscured. Test No. 3 - As predicted, the first sprinkler operated early during the test, at 1:12 minutes. The fire then grew and developed over the next 4:32 . minutes before the operation of the next sprinkler, at 5:44 minutes. The seventh and final sprinkler operated at 6:34 minutes. This delay in the operation between the first and second sprinkler permitted the development of a larger fire. Temperature were slightly higher in this test compared to Test No. 1 and the fire consumed 6 pallets loads of fuel. Though not as dramatic as Test No. 1, this test was controlled by seven sprinklers and was a success. Test No. 7 This test was identical to Test No. 3 in every aspect except that curtain boards were provided. Again, two intersecting 6 ft. deep curtain boards were installed. However, the curtain board running north -south was moved to the west directly over the west edge of the main test array. Test No. 7 was also considered to be an overwhelming failure and the failure is again contributed to the installation of curtain boards. A total of 18 sprinklers operated. The first sprinkler operated at 0:52 minutes with last sprinkler operating at 14:08 minutes. The fire burned to the north and south end of the test array and to the east and west sides of the test array. The fire also jumped the aisle and scorched the east target array and involved the west target array. It was obvious that the curtain boards were affecting the ceiling gas flow and obstructing the sprinkler water discharge due to the size and extent to which the fire was growing. This test included the three primary factors used to identify a test failure: 1) the fire burned to the ends of the main test array, 2) the fire jumped the aisle, and 3) a large number of sprinklers operated. Temperatures were significantly higher than in Test No. 3 due to the large fire size and the number of pallet loads consumed was 13 verses 6 for Test No. 3. All of the negative phenomena observed due to the installation of curtain boards in Test No. 6 also occurred in this test; the sprinklers operated in each of the for quadrants of the curtain boards as though there was four separate and distinct fires; the curtain boards acted as walls and channeled the smoke and heat within the quadrant of the fire origin; many of the sprinklers which operated in each quadrant were well beyond the fire area due to heat and smoke being driven out and away from the fire area because of the curtain boards; and the curtain boards prevented pre- wetting of the adjacent commodities and, therefore, a larger fire developed. Similar to Test No. 7, smoke was also channeled along the curtain boards and was driven down below the curtain boards. In summary, curtain boards changed two overwhelming successful tests into failures. It has been clearly demonstrated that curtain boards have severe adverse effects on the fire sprinkler system (the primary defense against fire), however, there is no testing, computer model, or engineering analysis to demonstrate any benefit to fire protection with the installation of curtain boards. In fact, the test data indicates that curtain boards should not be installed in sprinklered buildings. Eagle Hardware & Garden, Tigard, OR Draft Curtain Appeal Page 4 of 5 JUSTIFICATION Numerous concerns have been brought to light as a result of investigation into current information available on smoke venting and curtain boards in sprinklered buildings: (1) Curtain boards prevent pre- wetting of commodities by the sprinkler system. This would occur as a fire advances down a rack towards the curtain boards. The curtain board will keep the sprinkler heads • from operating beyond the fire area (see illustration). This in turn will prevent prewetting of commodities beyond the fire area. Full scale fire testing has demonstrated the importance of pre- wetting in controlling high -piled combustible stock fires. (2) Thickness of the Upper Smoke Layer. A major concern has developed with the thickness of the upper smoke layer at the ceiling over the fire. Tests have shown that smoke logging in the designated storage area can be caused by pulling the smoke layer down when the operating ceiling sprinklers go through the layer. This issue was brought to our attention by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST) Test Program called LAVENTS (Link Activated Vents and Sprinklers). It simply demonstrated that if the ceiling smoke layer above the fire gets to a certain depth or thickness, it can actually cause the smoke and heat to be drawn down by the cooling action created by the water from operating sprinkler heads going through the layer (see illustration). Although the • actual critical depth of 'that smoke layer is not specifically known, it is thought to be 3 ft. or. less. By adding 6 ft. or 4 ft. curtain boards,. the thickness of the smoke layer is increased where the sprinklers are operating. This thickened smoke layer will encourage smoke logging throughout the building. This phenomena was recently observed at a full scale fire test at .Underwriters Laboratories. This will hinder firefighters from getting to the seat of the fire which is a large component of high -piled stock fire protection. Often the complete extinguishment of these types of fires is dependent upon firefighters with hand hose lines. Ceiling .. Sprinklers, ;'•: ; ., ;;'•� �� n n n • ' 4 Draft Curtain • Smoke & Hea ' l • Layer • - • • • ..• • • • 41 , Heat A + nce Fire Advance D d Commodities Commodites In Racks Fire Origin In Racks • Eagle Hardware & Garden, Tigard, OR Draft Curtain A ppeal Page5of5 • 3) Skipping Sprinkler Heads. The activation of ' sprinklers are affected by many factors, including the ceiling temperature and ceiling jetstream or heat velocity. Computer modeling has shown that installing curtain boards will cause turbulence as the ceiling jetstream reaches the curtain board. This turbulence could effect the response of the sprinklers and cause skipping of adjacent sprinkler heads. As fire .advances on a curtain board, there is a concern that a downward draft of the heat column would be created by the curtain board which would prevent the operation of the sprinkler heads on the non -fire side. This concept is confirmed in NFPA 13, which requires smaller sprinkler head placement (130 sq ft maximum) for sprinklers located below panelized roof systems than sprinklers located below a smooth ceiling (200 sq ft maximum). It is thought that due to the irregularities in the surface . below the panelized roof system pocketing of heat and the above - mentioned :turbulence can cause skipping of " adjacent sprinklers. Thus sprinklers are placed within these pocket areas. It is also important to consider that the justification for the 'installation of smoke and heat vents within sprinklered buildings is highly theoretical. All of the large: scale fire testing conducted to develop the design criteria for Class I through V commodities are based upon smoke and heat vents and curtain boards not being used. This is detailed in Chapter 3 -3 of NFPA 231C. Also, NFPA 204M, Smoke and Heat Venting,, Chapter 6 also recognizes the fact that appropriate testing has not been conducted and a design standard with smoke venting in sprinklered buildings has not been developed. CONCLUSION The result of present testing and analysis of fire data clearly indicate that draft curtains provide no benefit in a sprinklered building. However, they could actually have a detrimental effect by increasing burning intensity and spread caused by lack of pre - wetting and skipping of the sprinkler heads. Smoke curtains can have a detrimental effect by actually increasing burning intensity and spread caused by lack of pre - wetting and skipping of the sprinkler heads. Furthermore, the entrainment of the upper smoke" layer (contained within the smoke curtain area) by the water from operating sprinkler heads can pose a serious danger to the lives of firefighters. - - We believe that, based on the history of smoke curtains and the above-mentioned test results, the elimination of the curtain boards, in conjunction with increased venting, will provide superior fire protection for this facility. • p: \eagle \cor \Tigrddca.doc ., V • •' • FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION FIRE TEST SUMMARY project: Group A Plastic Committee Large -Scale Fire Tests in Retail Operation Scenarios Test Commodity/Fuel: Cartoned Group A Plastic; FMRC Standard Plastic FMRC J.I. OX1RO.RR (Polystyrene) Test Commodity • • Storage Arrangement Double -Row Rack • • Test No. 1 6 3 7 Date of Test 08/20/93 02/17/94 9/2/93 02/25/94 T Type of Shelving Slatted Wood Slatted Wood Slatted Wood Slatted Wood E Other Conditions/Inclusions - Draft Curtains - Draft Curtains S Storage Height (ft-in.) 19 -11 19 -11 15-4 15-4 T No. of Tiers 6' 6* 5* 5* Clearance to Ceiling/Sprinklers (ft-in.) 6- 10/6 -3 6- 10/6 -3 11- 5/10 -10 11- 5/10 -10 P Longitudinal/Transverse Flues (in.) 6/6 to 7 -1/2 6/6 to 7 -1/2 6/6 to 7 -1/2 6/6 to 7 -1/2 A Aisle Width (ft) 7 -1/2 7 -1/2 7 -1/2 7 -1/2 R Ignition Centered below (No. of Sprinklers) 2 2 1 1 A Sprinkler Orifice Size (in.) 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 M Sprinkler Temperature Rating ( °F) 165 165 286 286 E Sprinkler RTI (ft- sec)' / 300 300 300 300 T Sprinkler Spacing (ft )(ft) 8 x 10 8 x 10 8 x 10 8 x 10 -E Sprinkler Identification ELO -231 ELO -231 ELO -231 ELO -231 R Constant Water Pressure (psi) 19 • 19 19 19 s Minimum Discharge Density (gpm/ft 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 T First Sprinkler Operation (min:s) 2:03 1:25 ' 1:12 0:52 E Last Sprinkler Operation (min:s) 2:12 15:54 6:34 14:08 S Total Sprinklers Opened 4 35 ' 7 18 T Total Sprinklers Discharge (gpm) 205 1651 363 945 Avg. Discharge per Sprinkler (gpm) 51 47 52 52 Peak/Max. One Min. Avg. Gas Temperature ( °F) 1107/566 1575/883 965/308 1162!767 E Peak/Max. One Min. Avq. Steel Temperature ( °F) 185/172 226/225 233/232 255/254 Peak/Max. One Min. Avg. Plume Velocity (ft/s) 27/15 26/23 18/15** 20/18** S Peak/Max One Min. Avq. Heat Flux (Btu /ft /s) 0.6/0.5 1.0/0.9 2.8/2.5 4.8/3.0 U Aisle Jump, East/West Target Ignition (min:s) None None 5:35/10:10 •'•/8:18 ' L Equivalent No. of Pallet Loads Consumed 3 12 6 13 T Test Duration (min) 30 30 30 30 S • Results Acceptable Yes No " Yes c " No Notes: • • *Main (Ignition) Racks divided into five or six tiers; three bottom tiers each about 2 ft high and upper tiers each about 5 ft high. Wood shelving below commodity at second through fifth tiers; wire mesh shelving below commodity at sixth tier or above fifth (top) tier commodity in Tests 3 and 7. * *Instrumentation located 5 ft North of Ignition. ** *Minor surface damage to cartons. ** **High water demand. * * ** *Excessive fire spread; marginally high water demand. ii , FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION Atent FIRE TEST SUMMARY PROJECT Retail Plastics Storage ` J • 1- Large —Scale Fire Tests OXIRO.RR Test No. 1 - NOTES: • Date of Test *Slatted Wood Shelving installed 8/20/93 at second through fifth tiers in Group A center three bays of Main Array; Commodity p steel grating below commodity or Type of Fuel Plastic at sixth (top) tier. Arrangement Double —Row or Storage Method R * *Main (Ignition) Racks divided into six tiers; three bottom Array Size Large— tiers each about 2 ft high and or No. of Pallet Loads Scale three upper tiers about 5 ft high. Target Racks divided 2 Stack Height (ft 19 -11 into four tiers. See Figure 1. w = ca No. of Tiers 6 ** V ¢ N . Clearance to Ceiling (ft -in.) 6 -10 ' w a Clearance to Sprinklers (ft-in.) 6 -3 x a < Aisle Width (ft) 7i a . y Ignition Centered below (No. of Sprinklers) 2 y FW- Sprinkler Orifice Size (in.) 0.64 - j - Sprinkler Temperature Rating ( ° F) 165 . Sprinkler RTI (English Units) (ft — s) i 300 • >- Sprinkler Spacing (ft x ft) 8 x 10 • V Sprinkler Identification ELO -231 Constant Water Pressure (psi) 19 o Minimum Discharge Density (gpm /ft 0.60 43 a First Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 2:03 Co o Last Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 2 :12 T y iii Total Sprinklers Opened 4 a Total Sprinklers Discharge (gpm) 205 0 o -. Avg. Discharge per Sprinkler (gpm) 51 2 N i Peak Gas Temperature ( °F) 1107 f- 5 Max. One Min. Avg. Gas Temp. (°F) 566 • co ¢ Peak Steel Temperature ( ° F) 185 . 1— ' Lt., Max One Min Avg. Steel Temp ( 172 Peak Plume Velocity (ft/sec) 27.2 KEY: DNA - Does Not Apply NR • Not Recorded or Max. One Min. Avg. Plume Vel. (ft/sec) 15.1 Not Measured Time of Ais! Jump (min:sec) No Jura_ s -_' -.. _. -. L.o:d, Cc.- Isun - ied ; �` i = - -- ---- aced (min) I — 3C 2206 (11 -83I MRC PRINTED IN USA . 1 1 k42 fi 42" C eiling / o N 1 ma. 3 - _ _ a■ ■ 111111 MI --ir WINN 71/2" ■ C ail ■■ ■■� 1 41.9" Ml ■■ 1 PP ■■ 11111 ■■ Illa IIIII) mil, T ■■ , _ „ 111111111 111111 -4 4 ■■ ■■ �41� U�� _, ■M III ■■ Pl 2 ■ ■ ■ S �� I ilill I ■� g ■■1.■ Test Site 3� -3" n • ■. Plastic Floor o . Ma III ■ Side Elevation View o Class II x v ■ • (Main Array) * = Ignition Location at Floor Level. Plan View �. = Overall Extent of Note: Slatted wood shelving below Fire Damage. commodity in center three bays of Main Array, except at floor and at top tier • where wire mesh shelving FIGURE 8. TEST 1 - RACK STORAGE ARRAY was installed. WITH FIRE DAMAGE OUTLINE. FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OXIRO.RR • N d4 - _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — Operating Time Sequence (min:s) O I � -O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10' 11- 1 2:03 2 2:05 O b -- Zs' 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 3 2:09 4 2:12 • 2 ;4 O 0 p O 0 • O 0 O o 0 0 O O 13 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O O O O O O O Test Array O O o O O O 0 0 Outline of Platform 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 Site 30 Plan View 0 = Installed Sprinklers, 165 ELO (8 -ft x 10 -ft Spacing) . ®= Operated Sprinklers — Total of 4. (Nos. correspond to Operating Sequence.) = Ignition Location at Floor Level. FIGURE 9. SPRINKLER OPERATONS - TEST 1. • • 1600 l i i t 1 1400 - - GAS THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION _ GAS THERMOCOUPLE 6 FT WEST OF IGNITION - STEEL THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION . • •- 1200 - a 0 1000 - - K - _ 800 - 0 - - x E i 0. cc - - w 600= , o a. - u W - 1-- - - 400 - - z • 200 - /-1'.:. : _ __' —. - 0 , • • • • I , ' ' ' 0 5 10 15 20 TIME ( MINUTES ) rli s • FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OX1RORR N 104 0 15 1 11 1 0 . . T Platform 0 Z09 r— — — �` _— — --1 I Test Array I 2 0 10 I 211 ` 138 156 161 I O O 0 1� 9 209 I I 1 29 331 1107 _® 459 335 259 I 168 154 10' T 1 1010 ( O .}_. 257 0 151 208 203 1 237 1149 161 1 O I :- io' " 1 6 t.i 4' . 151 14 1203 11 1 Site 30 116 • O Plan View o= Thermocouple Location 61" below Ceiling with Maximum Recorded Temperature ( ° F). O = Thermocouple Over Ignition. • FIGURE 12. MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES NEAR CEILING LEVEL - TEST 1 0 • " RIAPtml FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION FIRE TEST SUMMARY PROJECT Retail Plastics Storage J.I. Large —Scale Fire Tests OXIRO.RR • Test No. 6* NOTES: Date of Test 2/17/94 *This test was a duplicate of • Test 1, except that two 6 —ft Commodity Group A deep by 65—ft long draft or Type of Fuel Plastic curtains were installed. Arrangement - Double —Row * *Slatted Wood Shelving was or Storage Method R ** installed at second through ' fifth tiers in center three Array Size Large— bays of Main Array; steel or No. of Pallet Loads Scale grating was installed below the commodity at the sixth tier. LIJ Stack Height (ft -in.) 19 -11 ** *Main (Ignition) Racks divided v y No. of Tiers 6 * ** into six tiers; three bottom Q ,, w • tiers were each about 2 ft high c Clearance to Ceiling (ft-in.) 6 -10 • ur and three upper tiers were about Clearance to Sprinklers (ft-in.) 6 -3 5 ft high. Target Racks were x Q Aisle Width (ft) 7} divided into four tiers. a Z See Figure 1. H Ignition Centered below (No. of Sprinklers) 2 Sprinkler Orifice Size (in.) 0.64 j Sprinkler Temperature Rating ( 165 Sprinkler RTI (English Units) (ft — 1 300 ›• Sprinkler Spacing (ft x ft) 8 x 10 cc V ' Sprinkler Identification ELO -231 , Constant Water Pressure (psi) • 19 E Minimum Discharge Density (gpm /ft 0.60 a N First Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 1:25 C13 Last Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 15:54 y Total Sprinklers Opened 35 a c Total Sprinklers Discharge (gpm) 1651 c. 0 Avg. Discharge per Sprinkler (gpm) 47 y Peak Gas Temperature ( °F) 1575 1- Max. One Min. Avg. Gas Temp. ( ° F) 883 v) • I ct Peak Steel Temperature ( °F) 226 i- u Max. One Min. Avg. Steel Temp. (° F) . 225 Peak Plume Velocity (ft/sec) 25.5 Max. One Min. Avg. Plume Vel. (ft /sec) 23.0 This Data Summary and the four accompanying figures should be Time of Ai sle Ju mp ( m in:sec) I Rio Jumps considered as Preliminary; ' Equivalent No. of Pallet Load.. -.:..ur„ ad j � _ = _ ... y c _ 5 e j _ _ t ■ 0 1 Test Terminated (min) ! -= i 2206 111.831FMRC PRINTFn IN 1ICA 71/2 —. , - - 6 "-,I 14214 .. ., • --- Ceiling /' • 11111 1 • 1111 IIIII 0_ -. �. 3' -11" ■ C ...• ■ f _t—rt—t n , ■l Imo■ UM I MIN � 4/-9" _ ,--t= .ter- -r --4 3 . ■■ I 11111 gm I T ■■ MN � 41' INN E , g I c' Ma 4 a% w I■■ ■.I ■■ . 7 ' x o. I ■■ ■ I ■ ■■ - . I 1 1 1 I o I.. Im� i .� Platform �� s , 171 m N 101 ■ ■W .. 1111 NW Plastic ■ Floors 3�y3� • 8 I .. . l I (Ignition Rack) 1111111 NMI ■ Side Elevation View a—z- jiiii Class II z v ■ (Main Array) * a Ignition Location at Floor Level. Plan View note: Slatted wood shelving was — — — .. Overall Extent of installed below commodity Fire Damage. in center three bays of • • Main Array, except at floor and at top tier where .wire mesh . shelving was installed. FIGURE 33. TEST 6 - RACK STORAGE ARRAY See Figures 34 & 39 for WITH FIRE DAMAGE OUTLINE. draft curtain locations. 1 0'. s, FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OX1RO.RR • N A- Operating Time 0 0 Sequence (min:s) 1 1:25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 :27 3 1:28 Draft Curtain 4 1:32 O 0 0\ o 0 O 0 0 5 1:41 r------- - - - --, 6 1:48 7 1:51 0 T O ® O 0 0 0 O 1 0 8 1:58 • 1 10' is-8' 1 8' - I 9 2:03 • 0 b ra - 1® i g 1® 2 0 0 ( O 10 2:07 I 11 2:22 12 2:27 23 24 122 20 13 '; 1 3 4 5 10 I 13 3:26 0 0 I 0 0 0 ;0 0 0 0 ® O 0 I 14 3:28 21 19 X18 17 6 9 11 15 3:38 16 4:15 0 0 'I0® 0 C 2 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 17 4:17 Draft /18 4:40 0 ®5 33 12 29 28 0 O I O 19 5:06 Curtain ( I 20 5:21 21 5:23 0 L a O ! ® 27 25 0 O ( 0 22 5:50 Test Array I 23 5:50 30 3 2 — — 24 6:06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 6:30 Outline of Platform 26 6:43 27 6:50 O 0 0 0 0 0 ' 28 6:56 . 29 7:06 0 0 30 7:38 31 8:23 Site 30 Plan View 32 9:42 33.. 10:47 0= Installed Sprinklers, 165 ° F, ELO • 34 15:42 (8-ft x 10 -ft Spacing). 35 15:54 0= Operated Sprinklers - Total of 35. (Nos. correspond to Operating Sequence.) = Ignition Location at Floor Level. (D= Skipped Sprinkler (See Text). FIGURE 34. SPRINKLER"OPERATIONS - TEST 6. (Repeat of Test 1 with Draft Curtains) 62 1600 , , 1 1 1 y 1400 — GAS THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION _ GAS THERMOCOUPLE 4 FT EAST OF IGNITION - GAS THERMOCOUPLE 6 FT WEST OF IGNITION ' - STEEL THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION - 1200 — — - a 1000 — • .e c. t.i. y w 800 — _ x Ch = - 0 pi p I-- - In - cc 600 — / e r �) 8 c - 1 } � 0 , \'1 - 400 - 1 �,� _ z ° N. 2 00 y ` : • • : •� t « ,, �%%ON 6. •- 0 , 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 - 0 5 • 10 15 20 TIME ( MINUTES ) FIGURE 35. PEAK NEAR- CEILING GAS AND STEEL TEMPERATURES - TEST 6. FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OX1RO.RR • N 178 O • 20 �� 1773 9 0 2 41 172 219 T O 0 0 Platform • Z0 . _ _ _Draft Curtain 'Test Array — -� i 210 2 1 8 275 308 317 0 p 0 0 I 302 ! 471 217 255 391 70 1162 690 481 328 O O i '' • O p p Draft Curtain 10 1 91❑4 •06 1 306 .621 208 0 1 251 2283 219 186 I 0 0 0 0 I l' 6'•1414- 88 0 223 189 174 0 0 0 170 Site 30 O Plan View 0 = Thermocouple Location 61" below Ceiling with Maximum Recorded Temperature ( ° F). ■= Thermocouple Over Ignition. Another Thermocouple 2' West of Ignition (Over Center of Rack) Recorded 1561 ° F. ❑ = Dual Thermocouples Installed 6" from Draft Curtain. • FIGURE 39. MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES•NEAR CEILING LEVEL - TEST 6. 67 • .1 . �, FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 511 FIRE TEST SUMMARY - PROJECT Retail Plastics Storage J.I. Large —Scale Fire Tests OX1RO.RR Test No. _ 3 NOTES: Date of Test 9/2/93 *Slatted Wood Shelving installed at second through Commodity • Group A fifth tiers; steel grating or Type of Fuel Plastic above fifth (top) tier commodity. Arrangement Double —Row or Storage Method Rack* * *Main (Ignition) Racks divided into five tiers; three bottom tiers each about 2 ft high Array Size Large— • and two upper tiers about 5 ft or No. of Pallet Loads Scale high. Target Racks divided •' Stack Height (ft-in.) 15 -4 into three tiers . w v ¢ No. of Tiers 5 ** See Figure 1. o Clearance to Ceiling (ft-in.) 11 -5 ** *East /West Targets . Ignition Lu a of West Target was momentary. 2.1 Q Clearance to Sprinklers (ft-in.) 10 -10 x Aisle Width (ft) 7} * ** *Probes located 5 ft North of a y W Ignition Centered below (No. of Sprinklers) 1 Ignition. t— Sprinkler Orifice Size (in.) 0.64 Sprinkler Temperature Rating OF) 286 l U I` Sprinkler RTI (English Units) (ft 300 >• Sprinkler Spacing (ft x ft) 8 x 10 O� Sprinkler Identification ELO -231 ci i L Constant Water Pressure (psi) 19 _ ti Minimum Discharge Density (gpm /ft 0.60 • b N • -° First Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 1:12 CIJ 'S Last Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 6:34 y ' Total Sprinklers Opened 7 a` a Total Sprinklers Discharge (gpm) 363 0 I. Avg. Discharge per Sprinkler (gpm) 52 o , F Peak Gas Temperature ( °F) 965 j Max. One Min. Avg. Gas Temp. ( 308 v) cc Peak Steel Temperature ( 233 1— w Max. One Min. Avg. Steel Temp. ( 232 i 1— - -. . Peak Plume Velocity (ft/sec) * * ** 17.7 KEY: DNA- Does Not Apply NR - Not Recorded or Max. One Min. Avg. Plume Vel. (ft/sec) 14.8 Not Measured Time of Aisle Jump (min:sec) *** 5:35/10:10' : . equivalent No. of Pallet Loads Consumed 6 1_ 30 { - -- ��J�. 1C1. [I :. LiG LCC `1 111�� i — 2206 (11- 83)FMF.c PAINTED IN USA '� . . . ........... -- ________________ ._.. . .. ,:: _._ 1 4___ 7,, . 6 "-, ,,42„ } •. •• 7F- 42" Ceiling Imm t .—.... N n NM , Eel ■■ ■■ �� 7" Wire Mesh :� In — , 1 - " ► �� 7 �„�. Shelving 6 „ - Or ■ ■■ immIri . � somi � om -i R■ _ 1 it 1 _ ji liUiI -f-- „ ■■ ■■ w ■■ ■■ fn �a 4 , 4, i 11111 Ell �■ ■� iN ■�i . o p ri e �� _ oo ■ .. Platform 24” ui ■■ ■�:� n Tes Site �- �� x ■ 1111111111111 Plastic Floor 3 �3 on MN '■•.. i ce . .■ i 11 (Ignition Rack) " o ■ PM M , . Side Elevation View � ' ' ' Class II ° x v M■ MI (Main Array) * = Ignition Location at Floor Level. Plan View ----- = Overall Extent of r:pLe: Slatted wood shelving Fire Damage. below commodity in • Main Array, except at floor. . .FIGURE 18. TEST 3 - RACK STORAGE ARRAY WITH FIRE DAMAGE OUTLINE. 1 1 1 FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OXIRO.RR N - _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Operating ' Time Sequence (min:s) • 0 I -�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10' k 8'-11 1 1:12 2 5:44 O � -0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:44 4 5:46 5 6:11 0 0 0 0 7 o 0 0 0 0 6 6:28 7 6:34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • O I O ® 4 ® O O O 0 b O O O 0 O O O L__ Test Array 0 O . 0 O\ O 0 0 0 Outline of Platform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site 30 Plan View 0 = Installed Sprinklers - 286 ° F, ELO (8 -ft x 10 -ft Spacing) . O = Operated Sprinklers - Total of 7. (Nos. correspond to Operating Sequence.) 0= Ignition Location at Floor Leval. FIGURE 19. SPRINKLER OPERATONS - TEST 3. 39 ..0 1600 ► ► ► ► 1 ► ► ► ► 1 ► ► ► • ► 1 ► ► r i 1400 - • GAS THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION , STEEL THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION _ 1200 - a 1000 - - 5 ._, . 1 o i_i_ ,, 1 800 - ,_1 0 cc - . E !E • Q w 600 - 8 - w _ g 400 - _ °x 200 - - 0 ► ► ► ► I ► ► , 1 1 ► 1 ► , ► 0 5 i0 15 20 TIME ( MINUTES ) a • FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OX1RO.RR N 177 0 20' 99 0 0 225 225 O 0 O Platform --- � 20' r _____ . im. Test Array 0 I 06 3008 290 246 0 421 5461 75 1 37 1 1 265 204 Q 0 10E2 10' 3 95 9651 435 39 i 6673 0 3401 20 I 409 322 2997 I 215 I o I 1:-- 10' 6'4141. 246 2808 2001 237 03 0 . Site 30 175 O Plan View 0 = Thermocouple Location 6}" below Ceiling with Maximum Recorded Temperature ( ° F). 4.= Thermocouple Over Ignition. I I 1 j FIGURE 22. MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES NEAR CEILING LEVEL - TEST 3. 42 k • FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 4spent FIRE TEST SUMMARY . . PROJECT -4 Retail Plastics Storage J.L. Large -Scale Fire Tests OX1RO.RR Test No. 7* NOTES: Date of Test 2/25/94 *This test was a duplicate of Grou A Test 3, except that two 6 -ft Commodity p deep by 65 -ft long draft or Type of Fuel Plastic curtains were installed. Arrangement Double -Row * *Slatted Wood Shelving was or Storage Method Rack ** installed at second through fifth tiers throughout Main Array Size Large Array; . steel grating was or No. of Pallet Loads Scale installed above fifth (top) tier commodity. }` Stack Height (ft -in.) 15 -4 tu ** *Main (Ignition) Racks divided in No. of Tiers 5 * ** into five tiers; three bottom v ,., tu tiers were each about 2 ft high p.. Clearance to Ceiling (ft-in.) 11 - 5 u.: and two upper tiers were about 46.... 1 E Clearance to Sprinklers (ft - in.) 10 - 10 Q 5 ft high. Target Racks were Q Aisle Width (ft) • 71 divided into three tiers. a ti w Ignition Centered below (No. of Sprinklers) 1 See Figure 1. I— Sprinkler Orifice Size (in.) 0.64 Sprinkler Temperature Rating ( 286 1 Thermocouple located about 6 ft Sprinkler RTI (English Units) (f t -s) 1 300 northeast of ignition. N. Sprinkler Spacing (ft x ft) 8 x 10 2 Instrumentation located 5 ft v Sprinkler Identification . north of ignition. ELO - 231 Q 3 East /West Targets. Ignition Constant Water Pressure (psi) 19 time of east target is unknown; Minimum Discharge Density (gpm /ft 0.60 however, damage consisted of :0 burned cardboard surfaces on t several cartons. ° b First Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 0:52 • el V a Last Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 14:08 H Total Sprinklers Opened 18 a a Total Sprinklers Discharge (gpm) 945 0 F-. Avg. Discharge per Sprinkler (gpm) 52 0 y Peak Gas Temperature ( ° F) 1162 1 • I 5 Max. One Min. Avg. Gas Temp. ( 767 H t Peak Steel Temperature (°F) 255 2 1— y Max. One Min. Avg. Steel Temp. (°F) 254 u I ... 2 _ . _____ Peak Plume Velocity (ft/sec) 19.7 This Data Summary and the four Max. One Min. Avg. Plume Vel. (ft/sec) 17.5 accompanying figures should be I i 3 I considered as Preliminary; Time of Aisle Jump ( min:sec) '/8:18 whereby, such may be subject c No. o`;-..,_. ! � ., .__. ..._i_ - -. -.. � c_ , ,_. - - ,, ,_. - - , .7 o correct _: c1 _ .. 1 _est lerminaced (Sin) i .._, ,,r1r. 11 I.AiI Fl4Qr Q0I1J1 IN I ICA /I - "r 71/2,--> . 6" -A k42'+ .N /1 1 1 � i IA I Ceiling III■ ■� 1 A I I I I ;n 1 • . ■■ 1 71" ■ Wire Mesh .-' NMI ■ 7 i Shelving If--6" :MI iii 4' -g„ 1111 1111 y 1 an 1 INN MII I M■ iiii ■■ 1 I j uli T ■■ 9 � , . 1u■ on I 1■ .< 1 . I 41' 1 I mo o I 1111 ■■ PP! _ mil 5 0.211 1.• 11 1 0 �n NM I MN Platform 244 �� �� E 1 �� �� � ._-77.-1_, I I I • I1* �� I Plastic Floor 3 43" 0 1����I o Iiii ill: (Ignition Rack) 1111111 NMI a Side Elevation View d Class II x MIN It _. III NW • (Main Array) * a Ignition Location • at Floor Level. Plan View — — = Overall Extent of 1iot Slatted wood shelving Fire Damage. was installed below . commodity in Main Array, except at floor. See Figures 41 & 47 for draft curtain locations. FIGURE 40. TEST 7 - RACK STORAGE ARRAY r.TTN TTRR nAMAnr (1TTTT.TNE. 1 `' t • FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION • OX1RO.RR .N • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Draft Curtain O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O f — — — — — — — — ----1 Operating Time • O b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Sequence (mints) O / 10' II-8'-'1 I 1 0:52 2 2:38 0- o S 1 4; o O o I O 3 2:46 I I 4 2:57 o O 3 12 1© 2 ® I . O O I O O 6 9:13 9:14 1 7 9:18 o o ,o 7 o (_, ® • O o! O o 8 9:33 . I 9 9:54 10 10:06 Draft 0 t o 10 V1 1® • O O I o 11 10:13 Curtain I ( 12 10:18 O I9 0 0 • 18 0 0 0 1 O 13 .10:24 14 10:51 1 _ — — Test Array — 1 15 11:21 16 11:47 o O 0 O o 0 0 o 17 11:49 Outline of Platform 18 14:08 O 0 0 0 0 0 o O Site 30 Plan View 0 = Installed Sprinklers - 286 ° F, ELO (8-ft x 10-ft Spacing) . 0 = Operated Sprinklers - Total of 18. (Nos. correspond to Operating Sequence.) 0= Ignition Location at Floor Level. FIGURE 41. SPRINKLER OPERATIONS - TEST 7. (Repeat of Test 3 with Draft Curtains) 71 1600 r . , , 1 t t . . 1 1 1 1 r 1 i g 1400 GAS THERMOCOUPLE OVER IGNITION GAS THERMOCOUPLE 6 FT NE OF IGNITION GAS THERMOCOUPLE 6 FT NW OF IGNITION - STEEL THERMOCOUPLE 5 FT NORTH OF IGNITION - 1200 _ . �j� y 1000 1 ilh _ OLL ......... - w 800 i _ x d cc Eli 600 1 _ o 1 w 1 1 o ~• 1 i 1 I 400 fr _ • :.11 � N x i 411e ` x 200 :: ∎ ih "r 1 ►' ~~ 0 5 10 15 20 TIME ( MINUTES ) TT n•...•• 1 n .. ."... ••■• ... n.. +� +.... ... • ... ...... - ... _ r r � .•� i • • FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION OXIRO.RR N 248 O _ • T 273 266 291 243 244 0 • Platform 20• Draft Curtain 1 I 3502 1 3500 0 31 ( 284 0 I 1136 496 364 43 ( 7 82 I-517 0 0 5 � 703 44 ■ � 1162 419 I 303 265 so• 590 101 £7£ Draft Curtain ; 592 518 O 619 : 462 257 I • 522 6%1 3119 • I 28 I ; 669 /4-10' 6r14r 1:' Tes t Array . 265 296 346 • 330 281 • Site 30 246 0 Plan View . 0= Thermocouple Location 61" below Co. _i ;n•- with Maximum Recorded Temperature ( °F). 0----- Thermocouple Over Ignition. ❑ = Dual Thermocouples Installed 6" from Draft Curtains. FIGURE 47. MAXIMUM TEMPER�'r? p 1 ?? CEILING LEVEL - TEST 7.