Why Does NFPA 13 Limit Ceiling Height for ESFR?

6/3/2022

Why does NFPA 13 limit the use of ESFR sprinklers in storage occupancies to 46 feet (14 meters)?

Looking for some next-level insight here.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

14 Comments

Pete H

6/3/2022 08:10:49 am

If I had to venture a guess:

Because unlike FM they haven't tested the ESFR in a higher ceiling with adequate storage to ensure the ESFR protection suppresses fire even at the lowest storage level going through all the storage in between. As running this test would take significant time and money. And no one with significant money is offering it to them for their time to run this test (as someone probably did for the 46 foot test).

What they haven't tested, they won't list as approved.

But it's a shot in the dark, take with a grain of salt.

Knee

6/8/2022 10:31:52 am

Agree NPFA testing is the limiting factor.

It is my understanding that the NFPA 13 equivalency clause (Section 1.5) allows the use of ESFR heads in a 46+ foot building. The protection needs to be approved by recognized laboratories (i.e. FM) or documentation provided by the manufacturers. TYCO ESFR K34 is listed for a 55 foot building.

Anthony

6/3/2022 08:18:40 am

TL;DR: Fire Testing.

The requirements of ESFR if I recall is generally to prevent aisle jumping, or having a fire go from one rack to the one across the drive or walking lane. The test fire is started on the bottom/ floor level rack as its the hardest for water to reach from the over head sprinkler system. I think there is also concern related to droplets being able to pierce the heat plume.

I bet a manufacturer can be more helpful.

Matt

6/3/2022 08:20:03 am

That is the highest they have performed full scale testing. Also, the highest roof deck / ceiling height I have seen in NFPA 13 is 45 ft.

For taller buildings, you can use the UL testing criteria at the end of certain sprinkler product data sheets to get to 48 ft. or utilize FMDS 8-9 to get to 50 ft.

Utilizing these design schemes will require approval from the AHJ. NFPA 13 provides allowance/guidance with 1.5 Equivalency & 1.7 New Technology.

Paul Pinigis

6/3/2022 08:20:39 am

It is simply because that was the height of the ceiling of the testing facility.

Glenn Berger

6/3/2022 08:22:03 am

For storage applications there are too many scenarios that ceiling level sprinklers would need to be tested and approved. Consult a specific manufacturer for limits on their specific sprinklers.

Dan Wilder

6/3/2022 08:27:18 am

Typically because no one has submitted inputs with revised or added language and testing backup to be considered/added to NFPA and this is likely due to the larger, accredited test facilities not being tall enough to test above that height.

Another thought is that the ceiling only suppression approach for most ESFR sprinklers fail above that height just due to the loss of effective wetting at the lower tiers to comply with control mode vs suppression requirements.

NFPA cannot create standards that specifically call out a manufacturer either, only to create a requirement to be met by manufacturers (think Antifreeze or Corrosion Inhibitors) by stating they must be listed or approved or need to comply with approved testing criteria (hanging components are something that pops into my head).

https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/codes-and-standards/regulations-directory-and-forms/Stds_Dev_Process_Booklet_2018.ashx?la=en

Franck

6/3/2022 09:31:29 am

Anthony, Paul & Dan gave the most important reasons : Ceiling height of the testing facility and droplet size/penetration.
Because it is not possible to interpolate with higher heights (thus the ceiling limit of the testing facility), it is not considered higher storage height and ceilings. And as there are options for higher rack storage occupancies with the provision of in-rack, this is not an unsolvable problem.
But the height has also a large impact on the final water distribution and droplet size that could cause problems to penetrate the heat plume at the liwe level.
This could be counterweigted with the new larger K-factor ESFR, but as it can’t be tested properly…

David Kendrick

6/3/2022 09:45:18 am

Manufacturers pay the cost of testing their particular products through independent testing labs.

NFPA cannot create a brand specific requirement. There are quite a few that are performance specific that are coincidently matching a specific manufacturer. Until of course someone comes along with a product and proof that their device meets that criteria.

There is a limit in height to the testing facilities.

If there is a product that performs at higher levels a larger higher testing facility would have to be sponsored and built. Fire scenario testing criteria established and then testing of the product. Then the product testing has to be financed. The outcome is not always successful.

Spending a LOT of dollars that is measured against the financial return of product sales.

Jesse

6/3/2022 09:57:36 am

It has everything to do with listing. And listing has everything to do with testing.

There are a lot of things in our world that we can use sound engineering judgement on. But, because of the nature of what we do, we design based on what we definitively know. And we gain that knowledge by test data. So even though we can all be pretty confident in the adequacy of ESFR at x-height, we can only design to what the test data supports.

Mark Harris

6/10/2022 11:58:30 am

Well said Jesse. I run into similar questions on watermist systems.

Raj Patel

2/5/2023 06:33:50 am

I have a hotel... and in the pool area the ceiling is 30 high...
concert wall, floor, and ceiling...the fire marshal said I need to sprinkler that area... will a fire in the pool area set the sprinklers off at that height.

Paul Pinigis

2/6/2023 07:57:56 am

It depends upon the fuel for the fire. Obviously, the pool will not burn, but materials around the pool will.

Don Black

11/26/2023 05:07:43 pm

Yes they will. Suggest you consider corrosion resistant sprinkler heads.

Leave a Reply.

Home
Our Cause

The Blog
The Forum

PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit
MeyerFire University

Pricing
Login
Support
Contact Us

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

MeyerFire, LLC is a NICET Recognized Training Provider and International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.
All text, images, and media Copyright © 2016-2024 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

Why Does NFPA 13 Limit Ceiling Height for ESFR?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES