1 / 36

Why In-Rack Sprinklers?

Why In-Rack Sprinklers?. Tom Multer Vice President, Product Technology The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc. As an industry, we have spent the last 30 years trying to eliminate in-rack sprinklers. Are they coming back?.

meena
Download Presentation

Why In-Rack Sprinklers?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why In-Rack Sprinklers? Tom Multer Vice President, Product Technology The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc.

  2. As an industry, we have spent the last 30 years trying to eliminate in-rack sprinklers. Are they coming back? • Higher buildings using automated storage and retrieval systems • More exposed plastic storage • Lower water demands by using horizontal in-rack barriers. • Using K- 360 ECs as in-rack sprinklers .

  3. Fire Protection Research Foundation: • Project for Rack Storage of Exposed Expanded Group A Plastics • Outside the scope of NFPA 13 • Ceiling sprinklers with vertical barriers @ 4.8 m intervals

  4. Testing carried out at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) • Standard fuel package for EEP tests using polystyrene meat trays.

  5. Rack Storage of Exposed Expanded Group A PlasticsCeiling Height = 12.2 mStorage Height = 10.7 m10 mm Plywood Horizontal Barrier at 6.1 mCeiling Sprinklers K-16.8 (240), 100°C ESFR @ 3.4 barIn-Rack Sprinklers K-25.2 (360)EC, 100°C Pendent @ 2.1 bar

  6. Reliable Model N252 EC Pendent K-360 UL Listed, FM approved as a ceiling application sprinkler 100°C version was used for all testing Patented The Model N252 EC Pendent Sprinkler is a component of the N-Rack-EC™ Fire Protection System – Patent Pending

  7. Minimum: 100mm clearance above commodity 50mm deflector distance below beam Target Array 1.2 m aisle width 4.2 m Spray Pattern @ 2.1 bar

  8. 10 mm plywood barrier at 6.1 m level

  9. N252 EC Sprinklers Centered in Longitudinal Flue and Centered Between Rack Uprights = 2.5 m on center.

  10. The horizontal barrier was left open at the rack uprights and no sprinklers are installed in the transverse flue or at the face of the racks.

  11. Results: Opened one (1) sprinkler at the ceiling @ 1 minute/2 seconds 3.4 bar and 830 L/pm Opened two (2) sprinklers in the rack @ 49 and 52 seconds 2.1 bar and 520 L/pm each or 1040 L/pm total

  12. Before

  13. After N-252 EC with Horizontal Barrier

  14. After K-25 ESFR with Vertical Barriers

  15. Proposed Design For comparison: Actual water demands will be higher based upon hydraulic calculations. The in-rack sprinkler demand would not be added to the ceiling demand because of the horizontal barrier. The system demand would be the ceiling demand at 5400+ L/pm

  16. Existing Ceiling Sprinkler Design (FM) for Exposed Expanded Plastics Stored in Open Racks with 12.2 m ceiling and 10.7 m of storage For comparison: Actual water demands will be higher based upon hydraulic calculations.

  17. Proposed Design (NFPA 13 -2016) for Exposed Expanded Plastics Stored in Open Racks using Vertical Barriers at 16’ Intervals 12.2 m ceiling and 10.7 m of storage For comparison: Actual water demands will be higher based upon hydraulic calculations.

  18. Second Phase of TestingCartoned Unexpanded, Group A Plastics Primary Goals: • To reduce the number of in-rack sprinklers when compared to standard in-rack schemes and to reduce water demands. • To have a significant reduction of water demand for buildings up to 14.6 m high that can currently be protected by ceiling-only sprinklers. • Protect buildings higher than 14.6 m with low water demands. • Retrofit existing facilities, where the storage commodities or methods of storage have changed, without changing the existing ceiling sprinklers and/or increasing water flows or pressures.

  19. To Date: Four Additional Fire Tests

  20. Test 2 with Cartoned Unexpanded Plastics Objective: By using a horizontal barrier at 9.1 m, the total water demand and pressure would be lower than existing ceiling-only sprinkler designs. Also to protect buildings higher than 14.6 m with one level of in-rack sprinklers.

  21. Proposed Design for Cartoned Unexpanded Plastics Stored in Racks up to and potentially over 14.6 m with Horizontal Barriers at the 9.1 m level For comparison: Actual water demands will be higher based upon hydraulic calculations. The in-rack sprinkler demand would not be added to the ceiling demand because of the horizontal barrier. The total system demand would be the ceiling demand at 3120+ L/pm

  22. The Future of Storage ProtectionTests 3, 4, & 5 24.4 m/36.4 m 18.3 m/27.3 m 12.2 m/18.2 m 6.1 m/9.1 m

  23. Test 3 with Cartoned Unexpanded Plastics Objective: By using multiple horizontal barriers at 6.1 m intervals, high bay buildings may be protected with fewer in-rack sprinklers. No face sprinklers and no sprinklers in transverse flues.

  24. Testing with a Continuous Barrier Across the Uprights Tests 1, 2, & 3 Tests 4 & 5

  25. Test 4 with Cartoned Unexpanded Plastics Objective: By using multiple continuous horizontal barriers at 6.1 intervals, high bay buildings may be protected with fewer in-rack sprinklers. No face sprinklers and no sprinklers in transverse flues. Fires may be contained between barriers with no horizontal spread.

  26. Test 5 with Cartoned Unexpanded Plastics Objective: By using multiple continuous horizontal barriers at 9.1 m intervals, high bay buildings may be protected with fewer in-rack sprinklers. No face sprinklers and no sprinklers in transverse flues. Fires may be contained between barriers with no horizontal spread.

  27. View at 9.1 m Level Horizontal Barrier

  28. In Conclusion: For storage of exposed expanded plastics in double row, open framed racks: By installing a horizontal barrier at the 6.1 m level with the Model N252 EC Pendent, used as in-rack sprinklers, buildings up to 12.2 m high will have lower water demands than using ceiling-only sprinkler protection.

  29. For storage of cartoned unexpanded plastics in double row, open framed racks: By installing a horizontal barrier at the 9.1 m level with the Model N252 EC Pendent, used as in-rack sprinklers, buildings up to 14.6 m high will have lower water demands than using ceiling-only sprinkler protection. Retrofit applications where storage commodities or methods of storage have changed, adding a horizontal barrier or barriers with the Model N252 EC Pendent, used as in-rack sprinklers, may eliminate changing ceiling sprinklers or water supplies.

  30. For storage of cartoned unexpanded plastics in double row, open framed racks: By installing continuous horizontal barriers at 6.1 m to 9.1 m levels with the Model N252 EC Pendent, used as in-rack sprinklers, buildings over 14.6 m high may be protected while reducing the number of sprinklers required by current in-rack schemes. Fires may be contained between barriers with no horizontal spread. Retrofit applications of high bay buildings where storage commodities or methods of storage have changed, adding continuous horizontal barriers with the Model N252 EC Pendent, used as in-rack sprinklers, may eliminate changing ceiling sprinklers or water supplies while greatly reducing the quantity of in-rack sprinklers.

  31. Thank You!

More Related