Does a Clean Agent Room Count as Protected?

11/26/2018

There's many code contingencies that depend on a fully-sprinklered building. If a room within a fully-sprinklered building is protected with a clean agent system (per NFPA 2001) and sprinklers are omitted from that room, does the building still meet the criteria to be considered fully protected and qualify for the numerous code contingencies?

Posted anonymously by a member for discussion. Discuss this | Subscribe.

10 Comments

Adam Hicks

11/26/2018 10:23:31 am

Kendall Nightlinger link

11/26/2018 10:33:38 am

The building would not count as Completely sprinkled, therefore would not count for allowances during building area analysis, nor for increases in MAQ.

From a FPE standpoint, clean agent is a "1 and done" discharge and does not provide for any of the effects that a sprinkler system does, nor for the required protection durations for building protection.

Clean agent systems are typically only equipment event protection as they try to prevent catastrophic equipment damage.

Good suppression design will provide a double interlock precaution system in addition to the clean agent system. Or a traditional wet pipe system, if there are concerns about water damage when there is no event, specify sidewall heads of an intermediate temperature with head guards.

This design provides extra time and a safety cushion with the intermediate temperature ordinary response heads.

This should alleviate All concerns about unnecessary damage to equipment as if we've created enough heat to activate an intermediate temperature ordinary response head, the equipment is toast anyways.

Michigan

11/26/2018 10:35:15 am

We are an IFC location, under IFC, a system complaint with NPFA 2001 without a NPFA 13 system in the room does not meet the requirements of fully sprinklered building. This also means that any Building Code "give" for a sprinklered building would not be applicable. I can try to find the code section when I return if that is necessary.

Michigan

11/26/2018 10:37:25 am

IFC 2015 edition, 903.3.1.1

sean

11/26/2018 11:07:41 am

904.2.1 Restriction on using automatic sprinkler system
exceptions or reductions. Automatic fire-extinguishing
systems shall not be considered alternatives for the purposes
of exceptions or reductions allowed for automatic sprinkler
systems or by other requirements of this code.

Pari

11/26/2018 10:51:34 am

IFC ,Section 904.2.1 : Automatic fire - extinguishing system shall not be considered alternative for the purposes of exceptions or reductions allowed for automatic sprinkler system or by other requirements of this code.

So installation of fire sprinkler system required, even the room or space is protection with clean agent.

Jennifer Olson

11/26/2018 11:14:30 am

What if it is a small telecom closet that the clean agent system is protecting? Would the telecom equipment be considered "electrical equipment" in which if the room is 2 hour rated and only houses dry electrical equipment, it does not require sprinklers and the clean agent is above and beyond?

Peter

11/26/2018 11:35:42 am

Jennifer, I think it is a stretch of the imagination to define a telecom room, a data processing room or other a low voltage control room as an electrical room for purposes of exempting it from sprinkler coverage under NFPA 13, even with the 2-hr rating and the other 3 criteria in 8.15 being met. The important thing to consider is the reasons we want the "fully sprinklered" designation is to keep fire flow demand low, to keep standpipe demands low, and to lessen the requirements for detection and others under the IFC. A key point to remember is that an exemption for a small area can be approved by the AHJ. If the AHJ is completely unwavering in his application of the code, then we can add a double-interlock preaction system with dry-pendent sprinklers to the clean agent protected area, and still have a reasonable degree of certainty that the room will stay dry. Yes, it will be at an additional expense to the owner, and yes- it will be beyond our control.

Jennifer Olson

11/26/2018 04:09:29 pm

Peter, thank you for your reply-it does help a lot. Since I cannot find a location in NFPA that defines "electrical equipment", what are the reasons that telecom equipment wouldn't be considered "electrical equipment" for this purpose? Is it that there would be more cables that would be a different fire hazard than just electrical wiring and machines?

Peter

11/27/2018 08:25:08 am

Jennifer,
It's a good question. Electrical Equipment is not defined in Ch. 3, and there is no further discussion in Annex A. I am not an absolute definitive source, but my informal interpretation is that it can be reasonably inferred from the terminology that electrical equipment is that equipment that serves the electrical power distribution for the site, or that equipment listed in the matrix under the electrical discipline. It can be further inferred that the reason the exemption from sprinkler coverage was included was to mitigate the loss of power to life safety equipment, such as an electric fire pump, due to sprinkler discharge water causing short circuits in electrical equipment. Also, if you look at 8.15.11.2. (2), the term "dry-type" most likely refers to transformers with coils that aren't filled with oil insulation. You might be able to convince an AHJ that it refers to all electrically-operated equipment (like an electric water heater closet). Of course, if you think that section of the standard could be better worded, there is a process by which you can recommend changes for the next edition.

Does a Clean Agent Room Count as Protected?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES