On February 18, 2010, Richard Gallagher of Zurich presented the keynote presentation at the Fire Protection Research Foundation’s SUPDET 2010 event where he summarized the presentations of the previous day. Seven leading engineering firms presented their ideas on how best to protect a high challenge warehouse from fire.

1. rechter Rand right margin marge droite margine destra High challenge warehouse case study – Summary February 19, 2010 Richard Gallagher Michael Gollner Zurich Services Corporation

2. Objectives Review the results of the high challenge warehouse workshop Recognize participants Explain the project background Review case Given information Question Summarize the eight presentations Recap the overall findings

3. Case study participants Schirmer Engineering Dan O’Connor, Garner Palenske Rolf Jensen and Associates Richard Bukowski FPI Consortium Warde Comeaux Telgian Tracy Bellamy Summit Fire Protection Sean Merkel, Ryan Bierwerth Hughes Associates Jerry Back, Joe Scheffey, Dan Gottuk UCSD Michael Gollner WPI Ali Rangawala Creative FPE Solutions Jonathan Perricone XL GAPS John Frank

4. Background NFPA 13 basis: Automatic sprinklers control or suppression a fire Final fire extinguishment by the fire service Today’s warehouses High challenges to both sprinklers and fire service Recent fire experience Not always reasonable to expect manual intervention Foundation Addressing research to support potential changes to NFPA standards.

5. Workshop approach Basis for workshop Theoretical Case Study Presentations Six leading FPE companies share innovative design concepts One presentation on novel approach to manual fire suppression One presentation addressing need to step back further and understand commodities and storage Format 20 minute presentations Panel Q&A

6. Case Study Warehouse 6 2/4/2010 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study

7. 2/4/2010 7 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study General conditions Who - XYZ Company What - New warehouse Where - Rural region of US

8. 2/4/2010 8 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Facility parameters Two attached buildings Low Bay 100’ x 150’ x 35’ tall High Bay 55’ x 150’ x 65’ tall

9. 2/4/2010 9 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Facility construction Roof –Noncombustible steel deck on steel bar joist High bay rack supported roof Exterior walls – Insulated metal panel Interior walls Between Low Bay and High Bay 150’ long Reinforced concrete block Up to Low Bay roof Floors – Reinforced concrete

10. 2/4/2010 10 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Public protection Public fire service Volunteer department XYZ Company is first storage facility in district Public water Extending main 3 miles to site Limited flow 60 psi static / 20 psi residual / 800 gpm flowing

11. 2/4/2010 11 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Private protection Water supply Two fire pumps – one electric, one diesel Ground water suction tank Detached fire pump house 300 feet from building

12. 2/4/2010 12 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Storage commodity Group A plastics Unexpanded In cartons Nonencapsulated Conventional wood pallets Pallet loads 4’ x 4’ x 4’

13. 2/4/2010 13 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Storage configuration Workshop focus The High Bay warehouse High bay Multiple row rack (4 pallets deep) flanked by double row racks Racks are separated aisles 5 ft wide Array 23 pallets long & 13 pallets high Nominal 6” flues around each pallet load Tiers 5’ tall Elevation View

14. 2/4/2010 14 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study Stock handling Low Bay Industrial trucks High Bay Automatic storage and retrieval system (ASRS) Two ASRS systems Operate in 5 ft wide aisles Photo source: FEMA

15. 2/4/2010 15 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study The challenge Local fire chief has made it clear that in the event of a fire - Will enter building to save people Will not enter building to save property Question: As the fire protection engineer of record, what fire protection design will be proposed to achieve final fire extinguishment without fire service intervention? Photo source: FEMA

16. Summary of case study presentations

17. Summary format Ignition - Sources of ignition Agent - Extinguishing media Detection/ Release - Method of detection and release ASRS - Uses for ASRS Failure - Noted failure concerns for method Comments - Additional comments Where no data provided – marked “NA” and grayed-out

18. Schirmer Engineering Ignition - Arson, electrical, etc. Agent - Water - ESFR high zone at intersection of flues & over aisles ESFR low zone at intersection of flues One level in-racks in each zone 1600 gpm either zone Horizontal barrier between high and low zones CO2 - Low zone for redundancy (higher exposure area) Local application, can pipe long distances, can handle flammable liquids and electrical fires, no pumps, Use a 30-60 second discharge Divide low zone into sections (CO2 volume calculations) Detection/ Release - Sprinkler fusible element, In-rack linear/spot heat detection ASRS - NA Failure - NA Comments - Test ESFR configuration, locate in flues, avoid water ricochet Test low zone detection concept Develop CO2 nozzle Technology proven and can implement today

19. Rolf Jensen and Associates Ignition - NA Agent - Water mist Zoned vertically (vertical risers) Spray either side of pallet and one side of adjacent pallet High velocity exhaust fans on outside walls - Produce airflow perpendicular to aisles to distribute water mist - Maintain visibility Detection/ Release - In-rack linear heat detection to locate fire ASRS - Use self-contained foam skid IR camera guided nozzle Not for primary suppression due to response time Failure - NA Comments - Low bay is typical for ESFR Critical to maintain longitudinal and transverse flues High bay ceiling sprinklers to protect building

20. FPI Consortium Ignition - ASRS (lights not usually in use) electrical rails top and bottom, fires involve ASRS unit and spreads to storage Agent - High expansion foam – submerge in 4 min 13 foam generators 30 minute duration 100,000 gallons water for 30 minutes Detection/ - Heat detection - ceiling & in-rack spot heat detection Release Ceiling 15’ x 15’, in-rack 10’ vertical & 8’ horizontal ASRS - Not used, returned to home base and shutdown Failure - Doors and openings must close False release of foam (cross-zone possible) Comments - Sprinklers not considered due to environment impact

21. Telgian Ignition - ASRS or lighting at elevated location Agent - Water Design an in-rack sprinklers, quick response Need horizontal barriers above in-racks, perhaps each tier Use waterflow to locate fire vertically Detection/ Release - Fusible sprinkler elements ASRS - Locate fire using thermal imaging Relocate stock to safe area Handle wet and damaged loads (enclosed unit) Failure - NA Comments - Need in-rack sprinkler design guidance - In-rack response time - In-rack water distribution

22. Summit Fire Protection Ignition - NA Agent - Water Develop suppression mode in-racks Increased clearance for larger orifice in-rack sprinklers Fire barriers to provide fire confinement 300,000 gallons – 2 hour duration Detection/ Release - Fusible sprinklers elements ASRS - Under fire conditions, ASRS not available Failure - NA Comments - Introduce ESRF into racks Evaluate all changes over time (personnel turnover, commodities, maintenance, etc.

23. Hughes Associates Ignition - NA Agent - High expansion foam Zoned system, 4 quadrants, barriers wire mesh/noncombustible fabric Curtains strips to allow ASRS passage Safety factors of 2+ compared to NFPA requirements 20,000 gallons water – 30 minute duration Detection/ - In-rack linear heat detection Release Flame detection for open spaces ASRS - Apply skid mounted fire suppression system Remove pallets of stock around fire Evaluate extinguishment – video monitoring Remove pallets of damaged stock Failure - Fire at zone interface, Openings between zones, Collateral damage to stock remote from fire Comments - Goals include low complexity, reasonable cost, rapid control, extinguishment, minimum fire damage, and minimum collateral damage

24. WPI, UCSD, Creative FPE Solutions Ignition - NA Agent - NA Detection Release - NA ASRS - NA Failure - NA Comments - Must start at a more fundamental level Develop method to quantify warehouse fire control, suppression, or extinguishment Limits to “modeling” and “small scale testing” Need new intermediate-scale test - Determine water application rate for suppression - Will discuss further in a few slides

25. XL GAPS Ignition - NA Agent - Water Mobilize remote special fire fighting team Need 12 hours (remote response, size-up, extinguish, overhaul) Sprinklers controlling fire during this time Need 900,000 gallons water Detection/ Release - Fusible sprinkler elements ASRS - Fire fighter access to upper tiers Failure - NA Comments - Interim solution until an engineered solution available Specialized fire team responding from central location Similar to private emergency services such as urban search and rescue, oil wells, oil tanks Skills to verify building stability, locate fire, work vertically, apply agent

26. Summary of work Ignition scenarios Proposed solutions Design challenges Gaps Manual intervention

27. Identified ignition scenarios ASRS equipment Power rails top and bottom Power on stacker crane Can introduce ignition source at any level Lighting Ignition exposure at roof Arson Anticipate low level exposure 2/4/2010 27 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study

28. Solutions Manual fire suppression – an immediate solution XL Gaps Test & validate current sprinkler suppression practices WPI, UCSD, Edinburgh, and Creative FPE Solutions. Sprinklers – modify current designs – ESFR inracks Summit Fire Protection Telgian Sprinklers (2 levels ESFR) & CO2 Schirmer High expansion foam FPI Consortium Hughes Associates Water mist RJA 2/4/2010 28 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study

29. Design challenges Water sources Reliability / redundancy Volume / duration Cost of system due to rural location Environmental concerns Release of contaminated water Recycling of used water Hazard of commodity Defining the hazard of a commodity Commodities changing or introducing unknown commodities In-rack sprinkler placement and type (ESFR) highly specific to fuel type, configuration Avoiding complex designs Can collateral damage be limited to limit business impact 2/4/2010 29 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study

30. GapsTest methodologies There are no methods, currently, to quantify warehouse fire control, suppression or extinguishment. A test methodology is needed to ensure adequacy of current and new design concepts How much suppressant? Length of discharge? Limitations in full scale, small scale testing and modeling demand a new approach – small scale commodity classification verified by intermediate scale testing and large scale modeling/testing for validation

31. GapsDesign approach – WPI et al 2/4/2010 31 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study 2. SprinklerFlow Characterization Determine limits of current sprinkler protection systems Analyze the warehouse fire problem in pieces 1. Characterize sprinkler spray 2. Droplet losses from geometry, plume, radiation, etc. 3. Suppression/Extinction interaction between film/drops and fire Benefits: Design fixed system to provide suppression or extinction for any tested materials Utilize current sprinkler infrastructure and modify deficient systems if necessary Sprinkler Spray PLUME 1. Classification of Commodity FIRE

32. Gaps Design approach – WPI et al Engineering Approach to Warehouse Fire Protection Design 32

33. GapsTechnology In-rack sprinkler design No sprinkler designed to respond quickly in a rack No sprinkler designed to distribute water in a rack No suppression mode in-rack sprinkler Hardening of ASRS for use during fire event Carry self-contained extinguishing system skid Identify fire location within array Verify fire control/suppression progress Remove adjacent stock to isolate fire Remove wet or damaged stock

34. GapsManual intervention - the immediate solution Water supplies Are durations sufficient (2 hours vs. 12 hours) Thorough pre-emergency planning Safe work plan

35. Questions or comments? 2/4/2010 35 High Challenge Warehouse Case Study