Bob,
Recently, the City of Lewisville gave a certificate of occupancy to a company called National Indoor Storage which has the capacity to house 340+ large RV's. Prior to construction when I was Fire Marshal, the city requested an analysis to be performed as this application had not been addressed - professionally - in any industry. In checking with NFPA the Chair for the RV section was interested as well since there are many issues with fire load including L..P.G., Diesel and Gasoline in large quantities. The fire suppression system design and construction design took into consideration these factors. In our research of other parts of the country we discovered the possibility of extremely inadequate fire protection in like facilities. The facility approved in Lewisville provides control over ventilation and fire resistive natural lighting panels.
The author of the design has given us permission to share this with NFPA and Fire Officials. The NFPA committee may use the design to develop as criteria in the future. In the meantime, sharing this design with other fire officials may be of assistance in preventing a certificate of occupancy to an inadequately protected facility in other jurisdictions in Texas. When we made the selection we requested three design professional firms and chose RJA through the design professional section of the fire code 104.7.2 - Technical Assistance. Please keep in mind that this is information only and not to be used as design criteria or used to design a facility without permission from RJA until NFPA creates and adopts.
Sincerely,
Cleve Joiner
Building Official
City of Lewisville
The author of the design has given us permission to share this with NFPA and Fire Officials. The NFPA committee may use the design to develop as criteria in the future. In the meantime, sharing this design with other fire officials may be of assistance in preventing a certificate of occupancy to an inadequately protected facility in other jurisdictions in Texas. When we made the selection we requested three design professional firms and chose RJA through the design professional section of the fire code 104.7.2 - Technical Assistance. Please keep in mind that this is information only and not to be used as design criteria or used to design a facility without permission from RJA until NFPA creates and adopts.
the table for sprinkler density did not turn out good, it was a cut and paste job:::
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 1
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REPORT OF FINDINGS
SPRINKLER PROTECTION
CRITERIA FOR A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
STORAGE FACILITY
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 2
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REPORT OF FINDINGS
SPRINKLER PROTECTION CRITERIA FOR A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
Prepared For:
Mr. Hal C. Kendrick
National Indoor Storage, LLP
5501 Independence Parkway, Suite 314
Plano, Texas 75023
February 18, 2008
Project H44071
© 2008 Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 1
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
I. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
National Indoor Storage, LLP (NIS) is developing a facility in Lewisville, Texas
specifically designed to store recreational vehicles (RV), boats and a limited number
of prestige automobiles. Light services such as interior and exterior cleaning, wax
and detail, generator servicing, and electric service to maintain battery charge will be
provided inside the building. Ancillary services available outside the building may
include a car wash area, propane tank re-fill, sewer flushing, potable water tank refill,
and a local shuttle.
The building is planned to be 213-feet by 728-feet and occupy approximately
152,040 square feet. The interior height is expected to vary between 18 feet at the
exterior wall to 27 feet at the center of the building. The exterior walls will be
constructed of split face concrete masonry units (CMU) and support a steel truss
system with metal roof decking. The building will be open throughout with the
exception of a 400 to 600 square foot enclosed area to accommodate office and
restroom facilities for 1 to 4 employees. Overhead doors will be located at each end
and at one-third intervals along both sides of the building.
It is anticipated that the building can accommodate a maximum of 350 to 360
vehicles assuming they are parked end to end in 11.5 foot wide aisles with a
minimum 3-foot separation between parked vehicles. Further, it is assumed that
65% of the vehicles will be RV’s and 35% will be boats of varying lengths. It is
expected that 40% of the RV’s (i.e. 26% of the total number of vehicles in the
building) will be larger than 35 feet long. The inclusion of the percentage breakdown
of vehicle types is not intended to limit the storage to a particular quantity of vehicles,
but rather to illustrate a typical distribution in the building.
II. BACKGROUND
The Lewisville Fire Marshal has expressed concern that the building is not typical
with respect to other storage facilities within the jurisdiction and requested that
National Indoor Storage, LLP (NIS) seek professional guidance to help the Fire
Marshal determine an appropriate fire protection scheme for the building.
There are no nationally recognized documents specifically created for protection of a
facility of this type. There are a number of occupancies that have characteristics
similar to an RV storage facility that are regulated under the 2003 International
Building Code (IBC), 2003 International Fire Code (IFC), and National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standards. The purpose of this report is to present a
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 2
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
summary of research conducted into the fire hazard associated with indoor RV
storage and recommendations for sprinkler protection.
III. RESEARCH
There is no research available specifically regarding sprinkler protection of
recreational vehicles in the type of facility planned by NIS or enclosed parking
garages. There is a limited number of studies available in the literature documenting
sprinkler protection for cars in parking structures, however there is nothing recent.
There is more data available documenting test fires initiated to determine the heat
release rate of various types of vehicles ranging from small passenger cars to school
buses and subway coaches.
Comparing values from these test programs can provide a broad indication of the
relative hazard of various commodities. Most of the fire tests listed in the table
below were conducted in either a laboratory setting under a ventilation hood/cone
calorimeter or in a parking structure with a ceiling height of approximately 10 feet.
The Ingason tests were conducted in a simulated tunnel with forced ventilation under
a 17 foot ceiling. All of these tests were allowed to burn themselves out and did not
involve sprinkler systems.
Vehicle Description
Peak Heat
Release
Rate (MW) Reference
Ford Taurus 1.5 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)
Datsun 160J sedan 1.8 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)
Datsun 180B sedan 2.0 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)
Passenger mini-van 2.4 Stroup, DeLauter, Lee,
Roadarmel (2001)
1982 Austin Maestro 7.5 Shipp, Spearpoint (1995)
1986 Citreon BX 4.5 Shipp, Spearpoint (1995)
School Bus 29 Ingason (1994)
Passenger train 13.5 Ingason (1994)
Subway coach 35 Ingason (1994)
Simulated truck load
(6300 lbs of densely packed wood
cribs, plastic, and rubber tires)
17 Ingason (1994)
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 3
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
As noted in the table above, there is a broad range of heat release rates (HRR)
expected from different vehicles. The variance in peak HRR can be attributed to a
number of factors including the size of the vehicle, ventilation conditions in the test
facility, whether the doors and/or windows were open or closed, and the year the
vehicle was manufactured. Increasing the ventilation by forcing air into the test
facility and open windows in the test vehicle enhances the rate of burning. Vehicles
with all windows and doors closed at the beginning of the test tended to smolder for
extended periods before growing. Newer manufactured vehicles contain more
plastic than older cars which increase the HRR.
IV. SPRINKLER EFFECTS REPORTED FROM TEST OBSERVATIONS
A. Results of the tests conducted with sprinklers were reported in terms of
ceiling temperature and cannot be compared directly with the heat release
values noted in the table above. There are a number of general observations
reported in the literature regarding sprinklers and fires in parking garages that
can be expected to extend to fires involving larger vehicles.
1. “Fire Tests with Cars Parked in an Enclosed Car Park Building:
Suisse,” Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zietung, No. 12 (1970).
a) Generally, the fire remains confined to the burning car for a very
long time and will spread to adjacent cars only under certain
conditions. For example: burning petrol being swept by
extinguishing water towards a neighboring car, or where highly
combustible material in or outside the burning car are capable of
sustaining a vigorous combustion over a long period.
A tank explosion is very unlikely, even if the fire rages around the tank.
The petrol burns at the filler cap through the pressure relief valve, the
burnt-out tank seal and the melted seams.
b) Sprinklers cannot extinguish a fire inside a vehicle.
c) The extinguishing water causes immediate smoke spread,
eventually leading to complete loss of visibility.
2. “Fire and Unprotected Steel in Closed Carparks,” BHP Melbourne
Research Laboratories Report Number MRL/PS98/87/001 (August
1988).
a) Without an automatic sprinkler system:
i. Fire spread through the test car,
ii. In some tests fire spread from car to car,
iii. High temperatures were reached in the air and, after
about thirty minutes, in the structure, and
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 4
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
iv. Smoke and toxic products were produced for long and
potentially lethal periods of time.
b) With an automatic sprinkler system:
i. The fire was rapidly controlled
ii. Fire was confined to the cabin of the test car,
iii. The fire did not spread from car to car,
iv. Low temperatures were maintained in the air and the
structure,
v. The quantities of smoke and toxic products produced
were reduced, and
vi. The durations of high levels of smoke and toxic products
were reduced.
c) With a limited sprinkler system operated manually on fires which
had been allowed to develop and spread:
i. The fire was rapidly controlled,
ii. The maximum temperatures in the air and the steelwork
were rapidly reduced,
iii. The period over which large quantities of smoke and
toxic products would otherwise have been produces were
reduced.
d) The report concludes that as a result of nine fire tests, fire
protection of the steelwork is not necessary in a closed carpark
with a functioning sprinkler system.
3. Bennets, I.D., Thomas, I.R., Almand, K.H., Proe, D.J., Lewins, R.R.,
“Fires in Carparks,” The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited
(1989).
a) The results of this study supported the conclusions of the BHP
Melbourne Research Laboratories summarized in Item 2 above
based on three tests in a partially enclosed carpark.
V. SUMMARY OF NFPA 13 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS
The following table is a summary of sprinkler design requirements from NFPA 13-
1999, 2003 IFC, and two test programs involving car fires in enclosed parking
garages. While the IFC does not provide any guidance on sprinkler protection for
this type of facility, the minimum sprinkler design requirements noted below from
Chapter 27 are included as a reference to the minimum applicable requirements if
the building were classified as a Group H occupancy. Liquids in the fuel tanks of
motor vehicles located inside of buildings are not subject to the requirements of the
IFC per Section 3403.3.3, Exception 1.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 5
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
Description Occupancy
Classificati
on
Flow
Rate
(gpm/ft2
)
Design
Area
(ft2)
Hose
Deman
d
(gpm)
Reference**
1 Auto Parking and
Show Rooms
Ordinary
Hazard-1
0.15 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.1
and 7-2.3.1.1
2 Repair Garages Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.2
and 7-2.3.1.1
3 Tire
Manufacturing
Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.2
and 7-2.3.1.1
4 Gas Cylinder
Storage
(including
liquefied
flammable gases)
0.30 2500 500 13: 7-10.10.2
and NFPA 55
5 Plywood and
Particle Board
Manufacturing
Extra
Hazard-1
0.30 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.1
and 7-2.3.1.1
6 Upholstering with
plastic foams
Extra
Hazard-1
0.30 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.1
and 7-2.3.1.1
7 Manufactured
Homes or
Modular Building
Assemblies
(where finished
enclosure is
present and has
combustible
interiors)
Extra
Hazard-2
0.40 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.2
and 7-2.3.1.1
8 Tire storage up to
5 feet on floor or
tread
Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 1500 250 13: Table 7-
2.3.2.2
9 Indoor areas
storing hazardous
materials
Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 3000 250 IFC-2003:
2704.5
10 Fire and
Unprotected Steel
in Closed
Carparks
N/A 0.26 114 ft2 per
sprinkler
155°F
k=5.6
BHP Steel
Int’l Group
(1988)
11 Fire Tests with
Cars Parked in an
Enclosed Carpark
Building: Suisse
N/A 0.24
gpm
100 ft2 per
sprinkler
(estimated
)
155°F
k=3.7
Schweizerisc
he
Feuerwehr-
Zietung
(1970)
**Note: All references to NFPA 13 assume the 1999 edition as currently enforced in the City of
Lewisville.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 6
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
A typical automobile parking garage, which has many features that are similar to this
facility, would be protected as an Ordinary Hazard Group 1 (OH-1) occupancy as
noted in Item 1, in the table above. The fire tests involving automobiles noted in
Items 10 and 11, in the table above, used a sprinkler density that was approximately
65% greater than the amount of water required for an OH-1 occupancy and was
demonstrated to limit the fire to the vehicle of origin for an extended period of time.
While it is acknowledged that the sprinkler system cannot extinguish a fire that
originates inside the vehicle, the sprinkler system is effective in limiting the spread to
adjacent vehicles.
The hazards and concerns present in this facility that distinguish it from a typical
parking garage are the high fuel load contained in the RV, the presence of a
propane storage tank in the vehicle, and the quantity of fuel in the vehicle’s tank
compared to what is found in a typical automobile.
The high fuel load associated with an RV is addressed most directly via Item 7, in
the above table. A fire that starts in a manufactured home inside of a building is a
similar challenge to a fire located inside of an RV in that the fire is shielded from the
sprinkler water spray. The combustible loading in the manufactured home is
expected to be the wood framing in interior partitions, carpeting, doors, window and
door trim, kitchen cabinets, and built-in appliances. The RV contains many of the
same items, and also includes upholstery and furniture. The major difference
between the two scenarios is the manufactured home has a combustible exterior
where as an RV is constructed of a metal frame and an exterior skin that may be a
combination of metal, fiberglass, and composites.
Items 3, 4, 6, and 8 are included in the table above as points of reference to what
would be required for the protection of commodities that are associated with an RV,
recognizing that these sprinkler densities do not anticipate a shielded fire.
Automatic sprinkler information regarding the presence of a propane tank and the
quantity of fuel in the vehicle tank, each of which is typically not restricted in a
parking garage, are addressed in Items 4 and 9 in the table above. IFC
requirements for propane inside a building are addressed in Chapter 38. NFPA 13
treats gas cylinder storage, including storage of liquefied flammable gases, as an
Extra Hazard Group 1 occupancy. Section 3404.3.3, Exception 1 in the 2003 IFC
does not restrict the quantity of fuel in motor vehicle tanks however the storage of
hazardous materials is treated as no less than an Ordinary Hazard Group 2
occupancy.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 7
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
In consideration of the discussion and information presented above and in lieu of
specific testing involving indoor RV storage facilities, it is our recommendation that
the following sprinkler protection criteria be used for the RV storage facility as
described in this report. These recommendations assume that the building, use, and
construction complies with all applicable codes and standards currently enforced by
the City of Lewisville.
A. Sprinkler system designed as an Extra Hazard Group 2 occupancy as defined
in NFPA 13 Sections 2-1.3.2 and A-2-1.3.2.
B. Design for a minimum flow rate of 0.40 gpm/ft2 in the hydraulically most
remote 2,500 ft2 area (13-1999: 7-2.3.1.1).
C. The design shall be revised to a minimum flow rate of 0.40 gpm/ft2 in the
hydraulically most remote 3,250 ft2 area (i.e. 30% area increase) if a dry
system is provided (13-1999:7-2.3.2.6).
D. The maximum area of protection for a single sprinkler shall not exceed 100 ft2
(13-1999: 5-6.2).
E. The maximum spacing between sprinklers shall not exceed 12 ft (13-1999: 5-
6.2).
F. Standard spray upright with a minimum value of K=8.0 gpm/(psi)1/2 shall be
provided.
G. High temperature, 286°F degree sprinklers shall be provided to limit sprinkler
activations to those in the immediate proximity of the fire.
H. Area of protection for a single extra hazard occupancy shall not exceed
40,000 ft2 if installed as a wet system (13-1999: 5-2). This will require a
minimum of five (4) wet risers if constructed as currently planned.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 8
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
I. The maximum volume controlled by a single dry pipe valve shall not exceed
750 gallons (13-1999: 4-2.3). The number of risers will be determined based
on the final sprinkler design.
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Prepared by:
February 18, 2008
Thomas E. Izbicki, P.E. Date
Reviewed by:
February 18, 2008
Nathaniel J. Addleman, P.E. Date
TEI/NJA/MAC/cmw
H44071 – RP OUTLINE RV STORAGE FACILITY - FINAL
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 9
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REFERENCES
The following are references used for this report:
1. “Fire Tests with Cars Parked in an Enclosed Car Park Building: Suisse,”
Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zietung, No. 12 (1970).
2. “Fire and Unprotected Steel in Closed Carparks,” BHP Melbourne Research
Laboratories Report Number MRL/PS98/87/001, (August 1988).
3. Bennets, I.D., Thomas, I.R., Almand, K.H., Proe, D.J., Lewins, R.R., “Fires in
Carparks,” The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, (1989).
4. Gewain, R.G., “Fire in an Exposed Steel Parking Structure,” Modern Steel
Construction, First Quarter, (1973.
5. Hirashima, T., Wang, Y., Uesugi, H., Kitano, T., Ave, T., “Large Scale Fire tests of a
4-Story Type Car Park, Part 2: Analysis of the Thermal Stresses and Deflections,”
Fire Safety Science-Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium, pp. 655-
666, (2003).
6. Hirschler, M. M., Hoffman, D.J., Hoffman, J.M., Kroll, E.C., “Fire Hazard Associated
with Passenger Cars and Vans,” Fire and Materials 2003 Conference Proceedings,
Interscience Communications, Ltd., (2003).
7. Shipp, M., Spearpoint, M., “Measurement of the Severity of Fires Involving Private
Motor Vehicles,” Fire and Materials, volume 19, 143-151, (1995).
8. Mangs, J., Keski-Rahkonen, O., Characterization of the Fire Behavior of a Burning
Passenger Car, Part I: Car Fir Experiments,” Fire Safety Journal, volume 23, 17-35
(1994).
9. Stroup, D.W., DeLauter, L., Lee, J., Roadarmel, G., “Passenger Minivan Fire Tests,”
Report of Test FR 4011, National Institute of Standards and Technology, (2001).
10. Ingason, H., “Heat Release Rate Measurements in Tunnel Fires,” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Fires in Tunnels, Boras Sweden, (1994).
11. Babrauskas, V., “Heat Release Rates,” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, 3rd edition, (2003).
12. NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection
Association, (1999 edition).
13. Kruppa, J., Joyeux, D., Zhao, B., “Evaluation of the Fire Resistance of a Car Park
Structure Based on Experimental Evidences,” Proceedings Second International
Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
(August 1997).
Recently, the City of Lewisville gave a certificate of occupancy to a company called National Indoor Storage which has the capacity to house 340+ large RV's. Prior to construction when I was Fire Marshal, the city requested an analysis to be performed as this application had not been addressed - professionally - in any industry. In checking with NFPA the Chair for the RV section was interested as well since there are many issues with fire load including L..P.G., Diesel and Gasoline in large quantities. The fire suppression system design and construction design took into consideration these factors. In our research of other parts of the country we discovered the possibility of extremely inadequate fire protection in like facilities. The facility approved in Lewisville provides control over ventilation and fire resistive natural lighting panels.
The author of the design has given us permission to share this with NFPA and Fire Officials. The NFPA committee may use the design to develop as criteria in the future. In the meantime, sharing this design with other fire officials may be of assistance in preventing a certificate of occupancy to an inadequately protected facility in other jurisdictions in Texas. When we made the selection we requested three design professional firms and chose RJA through the design professional section of the fire code 104.7.2 - Technical Assistance. Please keep in mind that this is information only and not to be used as design criteria or used to design a facility without permission from RJA until NFPA creates and adopts.
Sincerely,
Cleve Joiner
Building Official
City of Lewisville
The author of the design has given us permission to share this with NFPA and Fire Officials. The NFPA committee may use the design to develop as criteria in the future. In the meantime, sharing this design with other fire officials may be of assistance in preventing a certificate of occupancy to an inadequately protected facility in other jurisdictions in Texas. When we made the selection we requested three design professional firms and chose RJA through the design professional section of the fire code 104.7.2 - Technical Assistance. Please keep in mind that this is information only and not to be used as design criteria or used to design a facility without permission from RJA until NFPA creates and adopts.
the table for sprinkler density did not turn out good, it was a cut and paste job:::
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 1
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REPORT OF FINDINGS
SPRINKLER PROTECTION
CRITERIA FOR A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
STORAGE FACILITY
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 2
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REPORT OF FINDINGS
SPRINKLER PROTECTION CRITERIA FOR A
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
Prepared For:
Mr. Hal C. Kendrick
National Indoor Storage, LLP
5501 Independence Parkway, Suite 314
Plano, Texas 75023
February 18, 2008
Project H44071
© 2008 Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 1
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
I. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
National Indoor Storage, LLP (NIS) is developing a facility in Lewisville, Texas
specifically designed to store recreational vehicles (RV), boats and a limited number
of prestige automobiles. Light services such as interior and exterior cleaning, wax
and detail, generator servicing, and electric service to maintain battery charge will be
provided inside the building. Ancillary services available outside the building may
include a car wash area, propane tank re-fill, sewer flushing, potable water tank refill,
and a local shuttle.
The building is planned to be 213-feet by 728-feet and occupy approximately
152,040 square feet. The interior height is expected to vary between 18 feet at the
exterior wall to 27 feet at the center of the building. The exterior walls will be
constructed of split face concrete masonry units (CMU) and support a steel truss
system with metal roof decking. The building will be open throughout with the
exception of a 400 to 600 square foot enclosed area to accommodate office and
restroom facilities for 1 to 4 employees. Overhead doors will be located at each end
and at one-third intervals along both sides of the building.
It is anticipated that the building can accommodate a maximum of 350 to 360
vehicles assuming they are parked end to end in 11.5 foot wide aisles with a
minimum 3-foot separation between parked vehicles. Further, it is assumed that
65% of the vehicles will be RV’s and 35% will be boats of varying lengths. It is
expected that 40% of the RV’s (i.e. 26% of the total number of vehicles in the
building) will be larger than 35 feet long. The inclusion of the percentage breakdown
of vehicle types is not intended to limit the storage to a particular quantity of vehicles,
but rather to illustrate a typical distribution in the building.
II. BACKGROUND
The Lewisville Fire Marshal has expressed concern that the building is not typical
with respect to other storage facilities within the jurisdiction and requested that
National Indoor Storage, LLP (NIS) seek professional guidance to help the Fire
Marshal determine an appropriate fire protection scheme for the building.
There are no nationally recognized documents specifically created for protection of a
facility of this type. There are a number of occupancies that have characteristics
similar to an RV storage facility that are regulated under the 2003 International
Building Code (IBC), 2003 International Fire Code (IFC), and National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standards. The purpose of this report is to present a
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 2
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
summary of research conducted into the fire hazard associated with indoor RV
storage and recommendations for sprinkler protection.
III. RESEARCH
There is no research available specifically regarding sprinkler protection of
recreational vehicles in the type of facility planned by NIS or enclosed parking
garages. There is a limited number of studies available in the literature documenting
sprinkler protection for cars in parking structures, however there is nothing recent.
There is more data available documenting test fires initiated to determine the heat
release rate of various types of vehicles ranging from small passenger cars to school
buses and subway coaches.
Comparing values from these test programs can provide a broad indication of the
relative hazard of various commodities. Most of the fire tests listed in the table
below were conducted in either a laboratory setting under a ventilation hood/cone
calorimeter or in a parking structure with a ceiling height of approximately 10 feet.
The Ingason tests were conducted in a simulated tunnel with forced ventilation under
a 17 foot ceiling. All of these tests were allowed to burn themselves out and did not
involve sprinkler systems.
Vehicle Description
Peak Heat
Release
Rate (MW) Reference
Ford Taurus 1.5 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)
Datsun 160J sedan 1.8 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)
Datsun 180B sedan 2.0 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)
Passenger mini-van 2.4 Stroup, DeLauter, Lee,
Roadarmel (2001)
1982 Austin Maestro 7.5 Shipp, Spearpoint (1995)
1986 Citreon BX 4.5 Shipp, Spearpoint (1995)
School Bus 29 Ingason (1994)
Passenger train 13.5 Ingason (1994)
Subway coach 35 Ingason (1994)
Simulated truck load
(6300 lbs of densely packed wood
cribs, plastic, and rubber tires)
17 Ingason (1994)
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 3
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
As noted in the table above, there is a broad range of heat release rates (HRR)
expected from different vehicles. The variance in peak HRR can be attributed to a
number of factors including the size of the vehicle, ventilation conditions in the test
facility, whether the doors and/or windows were open or closed, and the year the
vehicle was manufactured. Increasing the ventilation by forcing air into the test
facility and open windows in the test vehicle enhances the rate of burning. Vehicles
with all windows and doors closed at the beginning of the test tended to smolder for
extended periods before growing. Newer manufactured vehicles contain more
plastic than older cars which increase the HRR.
IV. SPRINKLER EFFECTS REPORTED FROM TEST OBSERVATIONS
A. Results of the tests conducted with sprinklers were reported in terms of
ceiling temperature and cannot be compared directly with the heat release
values noted in the table above. There are a number of general observations
reported in the literature regarding sprinklers and fires in parking garages that
can be expected to extend to fires involving larger vehicles.
1. “Fire Tests with Cars Parked in an Enclosed Car Park Building:
Suisse,” Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zietung, No. 12 (1970).
a) Generally, the fire remains confined to the burning car for a very
long time and will spread to adjacent cars only under certain
conditions. For example: burning petrol being swept by
extinguishing water towards a neighboring car, or where highly
combustible material in or outside the burning car are capable of
sustaining a vigorous combustion over a long period.
A tank explosion is very unlikely, even if the fire rages around the tank.
The petrol burns at the filler cap through the pressure relief valve, the
burnt-out tank seal and the melted seams.
b) Sprinklers cannot extinguish a fire inside a vehicle.
c) The extinguishing water causes immediate smoke spread,
eventually leading to complete loss of visibility.
2. “Fire and Unprotected Steel in Closed Carparks,” BHP Melbourne
Research Laboratories Report Number MRL/PS98/87/001 (August
1988).
a) Without an automatic sprinkler system:
i. Fire spread through the test car,
ii. In some tests fire spread from car to car,
iii. High temperatures were reached in the air and, after
about thirty minutes, in the structure, and
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 4
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
iv. Smoke and toxic products were produced for long and
potentially lethal periods of time.
b) With an automatic sprinkler system:
i. The fire was rapidly controlled
ii. Fire was confined to the cabin of the test car,
iii. The fire did not spread from car to car,
iv. Low temperatures were maintained in the air and the
structure,
v. The quantities of smoke and toxic products produced
were reduced, and
vi. The durations of high levels of smoke and toxic products
were reduced.
c) With a limited sprinkler system operated manually on fires which
had been allowed to develop and spread:
i. The fire was rapidly controlled,
ii. The maximum temperatures in the air and the steelwork
were rapidly reduced,
iii. The period over which large quantities of smoke and
toxic products would otherwise have been produces were
reduced.
d) The report concludes that as a result of nine fire tests, fire
protection of the steelwork is not necessary in a closed carpark
with a functioning sprinkler system.
3. Bennets, I.D., Thomas, I.R., Almand, K.H., Proe, D.J., Lewins, R.R.,
“Fires in Carparks,” The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited
(1989).
a) The results of this study supported the conclusions of the BHP
Melbourne Research Laboratories summarized in Item 2 above
based on three tests in a partially enclosed carpark.
V. SUMMARY OF NFPA 13 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS
The following table is a summary of sprinkler design requirements from NFPA 13-
1999, 2003 IFC, and two test programs involving car fires in enclosed parking
garages. While the IFC does not provide any guidance on sprinkler protection for
this type of facility, the minimum sprinkler design requirements noted below from
Chapter 27 are included as a reference to the minimum applicable requirements if
the building were classified as a Group H occupancy. Liquids in the fuel tanks of
motor vehicles located inside of buildings are not subject to the requirements of the
IFC per Section 3403.3.3, Exception 1.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 5
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
Description Occupancy
Classificati
on
Flow
Rate
(gpm/ft2
)
Design
Area
(ft2)
Hose
Deman
d
(gpm)
Reference**
1 Auto Parking and
Show Rooms
Ordinary
Hazard-1
0.15 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.1
and 7-2.3.1.1
2 Repair Garages Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.2
and 7-2.3.1.1
3 Tire
Manufacturing
Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.2
and 7-2.3.1.1
4 Gas Cylinder
Storage
(including
liquefied
flammable gases)
0.30 2500 500 13: 7-10.10.2
and NFPA 55
5 Plywood and
Particle Board
Manufacturing
Extra
Hazard-1
0.30 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.1
and 7-2.3.1.1
6 Upholstering with
plastic foams
Extra
Hazard-1
0.30 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.1
and 7-2.3.1.1
7 Manufactured
Homes or
Modular Building
Assemblies
(where finished
enclosure is
present and has
combustible
interiors)
Extra
Hazard-2
0.40 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.2
and 7-2.3.1.1
8 Tire storage up to
5 feet on floor or
tread
Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 1500 250 13: Table 7-
2.3.2.2
9 Indoor areas
storing hazardous
materials
Ordinary
Hazard-2
0.20 3000 250 IFC-2003:
2704.5
10 Fire and
Unprotected Steel
in Closed
Carparks
N/A 0.26 114 ft2 per
sprinkler
155°F
k=5.6
BHP Steel
Int’l Group
(1988)
11 Fire Tests with
Cars Parked in an
Enclosed Carpark
Building: Suisse
N/A 0.24
gpm
100 ft2 per
sprinkler
(estimated
)
155°F
k=3.7
Schweizerisc
he
Feuerwehr-
Zietung
(1970)
**Note: All references to NFPA 13 assume the 1999 edition as currently enforced in the City of
Lewisville.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 6
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
A typical automobile parking garage, which has many features that are similar to this
facility, would be protected as an Ordinary Hazard Group 1 (OH-1) occupancy as
noted in Item 1, in the table above. The fire tests involving automobiles noted in
Items 10 and 11, in the table above, used a sprinkler density that was approximately
65% greater than the amount of water required for an OH-1 occupancy and was
demonstrated to limit the fire to the vehicle of origin for an extended period of time.
While it is acknowledged that the sprinkler system cannot extinguish a fire that
originates inside the vehicle, the sprinkler system is effective in limiting the spread to
adjacent vehicles.
The hazards and concerns present in this facility that distinguish it from a typical
parking garage are the high fuel load contained in the RV, the presence of a
propane storage tank in the vehicle, and the quantity of fuel in the vehicle’s tank
compared to what is found in a typical automobile.
The high fuel load associated with an RV is addressed most directly via Item 7, in
the above table. A fire that starts in a manufactured home inside of a building is a
similar challenge to a fire located inside of an RV in that the fire is shielded from the
sprinkler water spray. The combustible loading in the manufactured home is
expected to be the wood framing in interior partitions, carpeting, doors, window and
door trim, kitchen cabinets, and built-in appliances. The RV contains many of the
same items, and also includes upholstery and furniture. The major difference
between the two scenarios is the manufactured home has a combustible exterior
where as an RV is constructed of a metal frame and an exterior skin that may be a
combination of metal, fiberglass, and composites.
Items 3, 4, 6, and 8 are included in the table above as points of reference to what
would be required for the protection of commodities that are associated with an RV,
recognizing that these sprinkler densities do not anticipate a shielded fire.
Automatic sprinkler information regarding the presence of a propane tank and the
quantity of fuel in the vehicle tank, each of which is typically not restricted in a
parking garage, are addressed in Items 4 and 9 in the table above. IFC
requirements for propane inside a building are addressed in Chapter 38. NFPA 13
treats gas cylinder storage, including storage of liquefied flammable gases, as an
Extra Hazard Group 1 occupancy. Section 3404.3.3, Exception 1 in the 2003 IFC
does not restrict the quantity of fuel in motor vehicle tanks however the storage of
hazardous materials is treated as no less than an Ordinary Hazard Group 2
occupancy.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 7
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
In consideration of the discussion and information presented above and in lieu of
specific testing involving indoor RV storage facilities, it is our recommendation that
the following sprinkler protection criteria be used for the RV storage facility as
described in this report. These recommendations assume that the building, use, and
construction complies with all applicable codes and standards currently enforced by
the City of Lewisville.
A. Sprinkler system designed as an Extra Hazard Group 2 occupancy as defined
in NFPA 13 Sections 2-1.3.2 and A-2-1.3.2.
B. Design for a minimum flow rate of 0.40 gpm/ft2 in the hydraulically most
remote 2,500 ft2 area (13-1999: 7-2.3.1.1).
C. The design shall be revised to a minimum flow rate of 0.40 gpm/ft2 in the
hydraulically most remote 3,250 ft2 area (i.e. 30% area increase) if a dry
system is provided (13-1999:7-2.3.2.6).
D. The maximum area of protection for a single sprinkler shall not exceed 100 ft2
(13-1999: 5-6.2).
E. The maximum spacing between sprinklers shall not exceed 12 ft (13-1999: 5-
6.2).
F. Standard spray upright with a minimum value of K=8.0 gpm/(psi)1/2 shall be
provided.
G. High temperature, 286°F degree sprinklers shall be provided to limit sprinkler
activations to those in the immediate proximity of the fire.
H. Area of protection for a single extra hazard occupancy shall not exceed
40,000 ft2 if installed as a wet system (13-1999: 5-2). This will require a
minimum of five (4) wet risers if constructed as currently planned.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 8
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
I. The maximum volume controlled by a single dry pipe valve shall not exceed
750 gallons (13-1999: 4-2.3). The number of risers will be determined based
on the final sprinkler design.
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Prepared by:
February 18, 2008
Thomas E. Izbicki, P.E. Date
Reviewed by:
February 18, 2008
Nathaniel J. Addleman, P.E. Date
TEI/NJA/MAC/cmw
H44071 – RP OUTLINE RV STORAGE FACILITY - FINAL
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 9
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008
LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
REFERENCES
The following are references used for this report:
1. “Fire Tests with Cars Parked in an Enclosed Car Park Building: Suisse,”
Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zietung, No. 12 (1970).
2. “Fire and Unprotected Steel in Closed Carparks,” BHP Melbourne Research
Laboratories Report Number MRL/PS98/87/001, (August 1988).
3. Bennets, I.D., Thomas, I.R., Almand, K.H., Proe, D.J., Lewins, R.R., “Fires in
Carparks,” The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, (1989).
4. Gewain, R.G., “Fire in an Exposed Steel Parking Structure,” Modern Steel
Construction, First Quarter, (1973.
5. Hirashima, T., Wang, Y., Uesugi, H., Kitano, T., Ave, T., “Large Scale Fire tests of a
4-Story Type Car Park, Part 2: Analysis of the Thermal Stresses and Deflections,”
Fire Safety Science-Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium, pp. 655-
666, (2003).
6. Hirschler, M. M., Hoffman, D.J., Hoffman, J.M., Kroll, E.C., “Fire Hazard Associated
with Passenger Cars and Vans,” Fire and Materials 2003 Conference Proceedings,
Interscience Communications, Ltd., (2003).
7. Shipp, M., Spearpoint, M., “Measurement of the Severity of Fires Involving Private
Motor Vehicles,” Fire and Materials, volume 19, 143-151, (1995).
8. Mangs, J., Keski-Rahkonen, O., Characterization of the Fire Behavior of a Burning
Passenger Car, Part I: Car Fir Experiments,” Fire Safety Journal, volume 23, 17-35
(1994).
9. Stroup, D.W., DeLauter, L., Lee, J., Roadarmel, G., “Passenger Minivan Fire Tests,”
Report of Test FR 4011, National Institute of Standards and Technology, (2001).
10. Ingason, H., “Heat Release Rate Measurements in Tunnel Fires,” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Fires in Tunnels, Boras Sweden, (1994).
11. Babrauskas, V., “Heat Release Rates,” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, 3rd edition, (2003).
12. NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection
Association, (1999 edition).
13. Kruppa, J., Joyeux, D., Zhao, B., “Evaluation of the Fire Resistance of a Car Park
Structure Based on Experimental Evidences,” Proceedings Second International
Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
(August 1997).
