Roland, Yes we had to provide a 6 inch separation between the shelf units, in the GSA testing there was one series of testing with solid vertical barriers, the test data did indicate that the solid vertical barriers did slow the fire down and prevented the fire from running the shielded shelf levels. However, I agree that the 250 sq ft units are different from what my clients were using.
I am just trying to prevent the contractor from becoming a participant in the loss settlement. Have a fire safe day! Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rolling medical file storage I wasn't referring to the general classification of the building but to the Compact Storage itself being light hazard (as per 20.6.1) - again that is limited to 250 sf. As such, still sounds to me like we are talking about apples and oranges. For your arrangement I agree with you but would suggest the interior metal barriers play a bigger role than the higher density (though not saying light hazard) due to the slow activation of sprinklers typical produced by metal enclosed records. Does this situation have the automatic separation creating that small gap identified in the early studies? It doesn't sound like a modified 20.7 with a reduced height, thus the protection should be defined by the EOR (by their appropriate subs) verses a big X with sprinkler per 13 and leaving it up to the contractor. Roland On Jan 20, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Jim Davidson wrote: > Roland, > > Most of the rolling aisle file storage areas that I have reviewed > are approximately 8,000 sq. ft. in area, usually on the first floor > on in a basement area. The racks are approximately 8 ft tall and > approximately 20 to 30 ft in length without solid steel transverse > barriers. This type of storage is not considered as a "light hazard" > occupancy based on fuel load. It is usually considered as an Ord > Group II or Extra hazard area within a light hazard occupancy. This > type of storage should be protected based on the fuel load present > not the general hazard class of the facility. > > You need to remember that when this type of file storage burns > someone is going to pay for the loss of the files and the resulting > loss of income for the institution. And the contractor referring to > NFPA 13 with the referenced testing done by the GSA available and > not refuted by NFPA 13 could leave the sprinkler contractor hanging, > especially if the contractor does not look at the details of the > shelving units being used, and the configuration of the storage > modules. > > Regards > > > > Jim Davidson _______________________________________________ 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)
