Matt,
I realize I'm looking at the 2006 edition of the IFC, but I found this
paragraph, which seems to address what you're discussing:
2304.1 General. High-piled storage areas, and portions of high-piled
storage areas intended for storage of a different commodity class than
adjacent areas, shall be designed and specifically designated to contain
Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV or high-hazard commodities. The
designation of a high-piled combustible storage area, or portion thereof
intended for storage of a different commodity class, shall be based on
the highest hazard commodity class stored except as provided in Section
2304.2
2304.2 Designation based on engineering analysis. The designation of a
high-piled combustible storage area, or portion thereof, is allowed to
be based on a lower hazard class than that
of the highest class of commodity stored when a limited quantity of the
higher hazard commodity has been demonstrated by engineering analysis to
be adequately protected by the automatic sprinkler system provided. The
engineering analysis shall consider the ability of the sprinkler system
to deliver the higher density required by the higher hazard commodity. The
higher density shall be based on the actual storage height of the pile
or rack and the minimum allowable design area for sprinkler operation as
set forth in the density/area figures provided
in NFPA 13. The contiguous area occupied by the higher hazard commodity
shall not exceed 120 square feet (111 m2) and additional areas of higher
hazard commodity shall be separated from other such areas by 25 feet
(7620 mm) or more. The sprinkler system shall be capable of delivering
the higher density over a minimum area of 900 square feet (84 m2) for
wet pipe systems and 1,200 square feet (11 m2) for dry pipe systems. The
shape of the design area shall be in accordance with Section 903.
Seems to me this addresses your issue directly.
--
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 9:32 AM, Matt Grise wrote:
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)
