EXISTING SPACE IS NFPA 13 compliant, has full NFPA 72, and room is not currently rated.
IBC 903.2 exception requires a one hour enclosure for similar spaces.
Found out today it is not a FM-200 but a ECARO-35 clean agent. Spoke to the building manager about the project and explained why leaving the NFPA 13 system (or changing to other such as preaction) in the space adds a durable fire protection [NFPA 13 Handbook - water continues to flow] specifically if the clean agent release doe not contain the fire.
I am not a fire inspector so I wonder from those of you who have experience in response to the agent release - Does the clean agent extinguish most or all of the fires?
The space is being proposed in a fairly large room and I have not yet seen the "proposed Data Center" proposal/layout. The person I was in contact with felt that it would not be a normally occupied type space. To make the space work they will have to do some sealing and deal with HVAC shutdown.
What I can't find is any wall or ceiling rating requirements (such as does exist for "electrical rooms" [IBC 903.1.1.1#3 and 4]). I do find the enclosure requirements mentioned by Insurance Engineer and the requirements to seal up the enclosure to allowable limits or adding agent to compensate for openings [NFPA 2001]. In the room proposed this could be easily accomplished. but a enclosure by rated assemblies would be costly and difficult.
Just finished reading NFPA 2001 - eyes are pretty droopy now.
Is there an ECARO-35? Is that a new version of ECARO-25? I know of the ECARO-25 but had not used it on a project. I did have to research it as an option.
I understand that the "25" refers to the number of minutes that is the dwell time for the gas so that's pretty impressive if they had increased it to 35 minutes.
Assuming ECARO-35 is just a newer version of ECARO-25, it puts out all the fire in the space and does so similarly to the FM-200 in that it removes heat from the "fire triangle" (heat, oxygen, fuel). It does so by absorbing the heat energy at the molecular level making combustion and re-ignition impossible.
It's also non-harmful to humans or the environment. Deployment is similar to sprinkler heads in a way as you know as you are familiar with FM-200.
Actually systems like these are superior to water if you look at the science as water extinguishes fire by absorbing the heat on a superficial level and not in the molecular level. And of course, water and electricity does not play well together and can cause wreak more havoc versus an agent that is inert against electricity. There's also the matter of water potentially leaching harmful byproducts of combustion onto the environment.
Frankly, I'm thinking that if it weren't cost prohibitive and most people are educated about these alternative systems, they may opt to use these for more than data centers.
For people who are unfamiliar to how these are deployed, I suggest looking at the technical literature available as well and they may find that concerns about misfirings or non-deployment are comparable or less so than your regular sprinkler system.
There are no fire rating requirements for the building elements when using the clean agent apart from what is dictated by Table 601 and 602 or any special provision.
What you said about Insurance Engineer recommendations and - also manufacturer's recommendations - are consistent with what I see with these systems.
Good luck.