Ron: If a fire catches at the bottom of the bag, it will be so quickly consumed that it effectively will offer no obstruction to the rising plume, and probably no obstruction to the falling sprinkler water. Uninvolved bags could pose obstructions to spray reaching secondary targets further afield. Tighter spacing of sprinklers may address this second concern, depending on the geometry of the bag layouts.
Depending on bag spacing (if the bags are spaced far enough apart) ignition in one non-combustible bag would not ignite other neighboring bags. If the bags are combusitble, then the spacing would have to be subtantial; if the bags are noncombustible (Pb < 20% for non-comb bags) then it is possible the entire contents of one bag would burn away before igniting a secondary bag. But, combustible bags... yikes! I suggest you burn one, stand back, and then afterwards decide if we really could protect this. Near to the time when the first sprinkler activates, I perceive the bag will probably be consumed. > > Scot Deal > Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM, <rfletc...@aerofire.com> wrote: > Anyone have experience with a place where the make the peanuts, this one > is about 30k sqft.. Storage areas are petty cut & dry design wise but in > the production area they have these big bags hanging from the ceiling with > the peanuts in them. The bags are about 10'X10' at the top and square for > the first 15' or so down then they tapper to a discharge nozzle. The top of > the bag is only a couple feet below the roof (28'+/-). I am wondering if > there is any need to protect under the bags. There is really no place to > collect heat and no structure to support pipe. > Ron F _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
