I am currently working with a few artists that want to build an installation in the lobby of a high-rise office building. Their design includes hanging acrylic bats independently hung from wires from the ceiling at varying heights to represent a bat swarm. What started as “a couple hundred bats, 6-8 inches in size, spaced evenly throughout the lobby” has turned into 1,300 bats, up to 12 inches wide, in a fairly dense swarm. The artists and interior designers submitted this design to the AHJ without providing a final design or correspondence and were rejected (no surprise.) The rejection was based on the swarm obstructed both by being within 2 feet of the head, and the density of the bats. Additionally they are worried about the flammability of the bats and want them tested per NFPA 289 to make sure the amount of acrylic has a heat release rate of less than 100 KW.
My questions here are two-fold: 1) How would one properly protect, or space these bats, so that sprinkler protection is not an issue? At what density would hanging items like these turn into an obstruction, and once they are considered an obstruction, would the only way to solve the issue be to sprinkler both above and below the swarm? 2) Has anyone ever worked with NFPA 289? I have been looking for information on heat release rate of acrylic or any plastic in general, who would test items to the NFPA 289 standard? Or is there any information on how to properly categorize this hazard and determine if the heat release rate is less than 100 KW? Looking forward to any thoughts. Thanks. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
18 Comments
Glenn Berger
3/27/2023 08:08:14 am
I have no experience with NFPA 289, but I have had a similar experience.
Reply
Schulman
3/27/2023 08:12:01 am
Sounds awesome.
Reply
Dan Wilder
3/27/2023 08:23:20 am
Independent testing is going to be time consuming and exspensive. Any option to place them on a link release for what I am assuming is the cable supports that support these units?
Reply
Jesse
3/27/2023 08:28:59 am
Well this one's a mess isn' it.
Reply
Casey Milhorn
3/27/2023 09:07:00 am
Is this going in the new Wayne Industries HQ? I think the original was blown up, so probably good idea to sprinkler it. I would go with an OH2 for the whole building, at the very least.
Reply
Anthony
3/28/2023 07:57:34 am
Came here to make this joke, great job.
Reply
M. Newell
3/27/2023 09:29:27 am
I have seen instances where they have protected areas like this as EH-2. They in theory said the application was comparable to a heavily shielded fire. It could be one option you look at offering to the AHJ/Design Team. Since it would cover high heat release fires, and shielding so two-birds one-stone method. IMHO.
Reply
Franck
3/27/2023 11:44:33 am
One practical question: is there something to burn underneath ?
Reply
Franck
3/27/2023 11:49:29 am
In addition to my above comments, one of my concerns in your situation, is not that the heat release will be tremendous (you have many bats, but this is not plastic storage in racks over 20 ft), but on the contrary that the bats will burn, but heat release will not be sufficient to operate the sprinklers, and the fire will gently spread throughout all your bats, without any sprinkler operating.
Reply
Shawn G.
3/27/2023 12:17:01 pm
FM has approaches that deal with grouped obstructions. These bats don't really fit nicely into that criteria, but it could provide some guidance to assist you in finding an answer to your first question.
Reply
Dave
3/27/2023 12:35:49 pm
What does the cauldron look like in plan / RCP view? Are they throughout the lobby?
Reply
Dave
3/27/2023 12:39:31 pm
...I guess what I'm wondering, is it roughly solid as the parameters of the two elevation views above indicate?
Reply
Jerry Clark
3/27/2023 12:40:00 pm
Just dealt with a similar issue involving acrylic spheres used as a center feature with lights powered by stationary bikes. Referred to Chapter 26 of the IBC which covers plastics. Most of the chapter deals specifically with plastic used as architectural features versus artwork. But Section 2606.4 is specific to self-ignition temps, smoke development ratings, with direct reference to testing standards:
Reply
Pete H
3/27/2023 01:25:57 pm
2) Nope. Never.
Reply
3/27/2023 03:53:39 pm
I have had scenarios such as this come up multiple times. Often the "architectural feature" is in an atrium and not only poses an obstruction to sprinklers getting to the fire but adversely affects the smoke control system activation. It is a domino effect. Delayed sprinkler activation and mechanical smoke ventilation increased temperatures that were not survivable at the upper floors. Dan Wilder gives good advice. Get a FPE for an AMM. Unfortunately liability drives most decisions. This is one of them.
Reply
Pete D.
3/27/2023 07:49:05 pm
I just wanted to quickly provide my in-depth professional assessment, that this seems like something an interior designer would submit to an AHJ.
Reply
Street
3/29/2023 09:55:08 am
Spot on
Reply
Sean
3/31/2023 11:27:10 am
I think that without further information or justification I would consider it an obstruction.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop March '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
May 2024
PE PREP SERIES |