• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ESFR Tech. ????

FM William Burns

FM William Burns

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,901
Location
The Mitten State
Proposal to install 286 degree ESFR over IIB paint line. I reviewed FM 2.0, UL 1767 and Guide and find nothing indicating it can't be done since it would meet density. The ceiling heights and distance below ceiling and trusses are no issue. I have a headache
 
Do you have the manufacture's sheet for the head??

Is it listed for the use, they are trying to use it for??????
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is one sheet , not sure which head you are looking at but says

N/A for FM flammable liquid storage
 
Waiting on them to submit an alternative design request with rationale and substantiation from a FPE or equal. I got tired of reading through research. I am mainly concerned with any potential for opening too many heads but then again with the gpm available, compliant existing 1500 gpm pump and potential denisities available even with more than 4 heads open....... I'll see what they counter with. I would have thought initially they would have proposed a control mode scheme for operational area.
 
FM,

Sorry I am late on this, been on vacation.

ESFR is NOT permitted by NFPA 13 for an extra hazard occupancy which a class 3 B paint line would be. Also the max temperature of an ESFR head is 212 or intermediate rating.
 
Thanks InsEng. I learned some additional information last week and they are trying to classify the process as Ordinary and state the paint process is a water-based operation. The MSDS (obtained after OP) of the material classifies it as Class II combustible. Been out of office and latest email wants me to evaluate the process to the Ordinary class since being a water-based paint operation. I need more data and plan to stand on their needing to have a DP opinion or documentation that the paint process is water-based.
 
And if they change to a solvent based paint, they will let you know they have changed the hazard and the sprinkler system will be upgraded?
 
Can you define "paint line""

Are they actualy painting

If so is it out in the open or on a semi closed conveyor system

Are they filling paint buckets or something

Or some other process

Closed or open process
 
FM,

If the MSDS indicated a class 2 combustible liquid then the ESFR is no good for the storage areas either. So that will solve the problem:) concerning ESFR. Also class 2 liquid as per NFPA 30 will need drainage and or containment in the storage areas plus AFFF. Let us know how this tuns out.
 
InsEng, ;) Will do! Many emails today from both sprinkler firm and GC but back to work Wednesday and will get back at it.

Cda, Paint Line = 3 automated robotic operations in a closed delivery system in semi-closed booth with paint delivered from the enclosed rated and contained control area from IBC's from what I can gather so far.

Fireguy, Ya sure :)
 
Not sure why they would want to use esfr in that set up, outside of the spray area should be some normal less hazardous area

Seems like they would want some high class protection for the actual spraying area
 
InsEng, Thanks for the additional research resource. Still waiting for some additional detail on the IBC's and totally agree on their degradation potential if plastic. Well I'll be thick into it again tomorrow to Friday with all the players.
 
Update:

Spoke to facility, GC and sprinkler firm and re-reviewed the MSDS with the sprinkler designer. Class II combustible as defined in NFPA 30. The IBC's are metal and it looks like the proposed submittal will be increased pipe sizing for future use of ESFR if necessary for (future change in use) in the production area with a plan to use standard heads with a higher K and temperature rating for a Ord II or EH I scheme depending on preliminary calculation data. Waiting for additional detail on described water-based application and draft curtain scheme to separate the production area from the warehouse planned for ESFR. There will not be any allowance for liquid storage in the planned warehouse and the control areas and storage rooms will be designed for containment and applicable sprinkler densities for container schemes.
 
Great! looks like everyone is on the same page, thanks for the update.

If what they plan for liquid storage NFPA 30 has no protection criteria look at FM Data Sheet 7-29 it is more up to date on sprinkler protection and may offer protection info where NFPA 30 does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top