- Email: [email protected]
Fire tests to evaluate CPVC pipe sprinkler systems without fire resistance barriers
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609 www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf
Fire tests to evaluate CPVC pipe sprinkler systems without fire resistance barriers Soonil Nam FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062, USA Received 16 August 2004; received in revised form 21 March 2005; accepted 18 May 2005 Available online 12 July 2005
Abstract Nine full-scale fire tests were conducted to assess the adequacy of exposed chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe and fitting sprinkler systems installed in light hazard occupancies. The tests were conducted in an enclosure using six different types of automatic sprinklers including QREC pendent and sidewall sprinklers, a pendent residential sprinkler, and a sidewall residential sprinkler. Two types of fires, fast growing and slow growing, were used as test fires. The sprinkler in each test was operated with the normal operation pressure until the test fire was almost completely suppressed. Next, to assess the integrity of piping systems after fire exposure, the water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min and then were visually inspected for any leakage while hydrostatic pressure was maintained at 12.1 bar. No leakage was detected in any of the tests. The results of the tests indicate that sprinkler systems based on exposed CPVC pipe and fittings can be safely installed in light hazard occupancies and will provide adequate protection when installed to all the relevant standards. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: CPVC pipe sprinkler system; Light hazard occupancy; Plastic pipe and fitting
Tel.: +1 781 255 4964; fax: +1 781 255 4024.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.05.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS 596
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
1. Introduction Plastic pipes and fittings in sprinkler systems have been allowed to be used under NFPA 13 [1] and other relevant listing standards [2,3] with the following limitations: (1) in wet pipe sprinkler systems only, (2) for light hazard occupancies only, and (3) where the piping is completely separated by non-removable, fire-rated barriers. Recognizing that sprinkler systems using non-metallic pipes can be potentially subjected to thermal deformation, which could hamper the proper operation during a fire incident, these systems have been required to utilize thermal barriers referred to above. However, because of significant economic advantages including ease of installation and strong resistance to corrosion, especially microbiologically influenced corrosion, wider use of plastic pipe fire sprinkler systems is occurring in many light hazard occupancies such as hotels, offices, college dormitories, etc. That prompted re-assessment of a standard requiring the nonremovable fire resistance barriers associated with the installation of plastic pipe sprinkler systems. This paper gives an evaluation of the integrity of exposed chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe and fitting sprinkler systems in light hazard occupancies. This work is the continuation of a previous work [4] evaluating the integrity of chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe sprinkler systems installed with thin steel covers in light hazard occupancies. As the system was proven acceptable with the covers as thin as 0.9 mm, the current test program as an objective determined whether performance would be acceptable without any thermal barriers or protective covers. Specifically, the objective of the testing was to determine whether the CPVC piping systems without any thermal protection would maintain the integrity of the fire sprinkler system when exposed to typical light hazard fires.
2. Test program The system integrity was evaluated through a series of fire tests simulating light hazard and residential fire scenarios. Nine fire tests were conducted combining six sets of sprinklers with two sets of test fires, as summarized in Table 1. In the table, QREC denotes ‘‘quick response extended coverage,’’ and ‘‘Test Fire Load’’ will be discussed shortly. 2.1. Test enclosure Fire tests were carried out inside a 3.05-m-high enclosure lined with gypsum wallboard. The width and the length of the enclosure were varied depending on the type of sprinkler used in each test and room sizes were chosen to accommodate the maximum coverage area specified by each sprinkler used in each test, as shown in Table 1.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
597
Table 1 Test configurations for exposed CPVC piping system evaluation Test no.
Test room (3.0 m high) Floor area (m m)
Sprinkler used
Type
Test fire load
K-factor h i
Temperature rating (1C)
Operating water pressure (bar)
97 139 95 95 95
68 68 68 68 68
3.66 1.72 3.66 3.66 3.66
2 cribs 2 cribs 1 34 cribs SFP 1 crib
97 97 97 140
68 68 74 74
2.28 2.28 2.28 1.59
SFP 1 34 cribs 1 34 cribs 2 cribs
LPM ðbarÞ1=2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 (Riser pipe) 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 7.3 4.9
QREC pendent QREC pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent (Riser protection) Residential sidewall Residential sidewall QREC sidewall QREC sidewall
2.2. Test fire consideration Two sets of test fires, a slow growing fire and a fast growing fire, were employed for system evaluations. The test fires used were believed to adequately cover each end of the possible fire scenarios that may be encountered in light hazard occupancies including residential dwellings. 2.2.1. Slow growing fire exposures Slow growing test fires were used because they provided one set of critical test conditions; a longer time before sprinkler activation, thereby, with longer attendant times for heat transfer to exposed CPVC pipes during testing. However, eventual test fire size was also designed to be sufficiently large (with respect to the size of a test enclosure) to activate a present sprinkler prior to test fire fuel being consumed. Another consideration in designing test fire was to demonstrate the immediate impact of a sprinkler water spray on the test fire in order to make a proper assessment of the performance of the sprinkler under consideration. If the properties of the sprinkler piping were altered by heating during the exposure test such that the direction of the sprinkler water spray was altered, for example, then the system would be shown to be inadequate. For those reasons, International Maritime Organization (IMO) cribs used in a gaseous agent test as a part of the standard IMO fire tests [5] were chosen as a fire source. An IMO crib, which is shown in Fig. 1 with the ignition pan, consists of six, trade size 50 mm 50 mm 0.45 m long, kiln-dried spruce or fir lumber having a
ARTICLE IN PRESS 598
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
Fig. 1. An IMO crib over the ignition pan used as a slow-growing test fire source.
moisture content between 9% and 13%. Each weighs approximately 9.3 kg. The members were evenly spaced to form a square structure. The nominal heat release rate of each IMO crib is expected to be 300 kW [5]. Single cribs, two cribs, or 1 34 cribs, i.e., 7 layers, were chosen as fire sources depending on sizes of enclosures for particular tests. The 34 crib, i.e., 3 layers, was made by removing the top layer of lumber from a standard crib of four layers. Ignition was provided by lighting 30 ml of heptane contained inside a circular ignition pan. The outside diameter (OD) of the pan was 156 mm, the inside diameter (ID) was 152 mm, and the height was 76 mm. The cribs were placed 51 mm above the pan. Thus, the top of a single crib would be 0.33 m, that of two cribs would be 0.43 m, and that of 1 34 cribs would be 0.38 m above the floor. Whenever the IMO cribs were involved as a test fire, ignition was provided in the same way. 2.2.2. Fast growing fire exposures A simulated furniture package (SFP) recently developed by FM Global to evaluate the fire performance of residential sprinklers [6] was used as a fast growing fire source. The materials used for the fire load were: (1) two 1.22 m wide 3.05 m high 6.3 mm thick Douglas Fir plywood sheets, (2) two 0.86 m wide, 0.76 m high 76 mm thick foam cushions mounted on a 13-mm-thick plywood sheet with 3 M Foam Fast glue, (3) the previously described IMO wood crib placed over a 0.3 m 0.3 m pan containing 200 ml of water and 200 ml of heptane, and (4) ceiling tiles having a flame spread index of 25 using the ASTM E84 test that covers a 1.22 m 3.05 m area on the ceiling. The materials above were arranged, as shown in Fig. 2, at the corner identified as the location of test fire. The foam cushions were ignited with two 0.15 m long 6.3 mm diameter cotton wicks, which were soaked with 100 ml of heptane. Each wick
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
599
Fig. 2. The simulated furniture package used as a fast-growing fire source.
was located near the open end of each foam cushion. The corner walls were covered with the Douglas Fir plywood sheets that were screwed onto wood furring strips. The ceiling area, four corners of which covers a 1.22 m 3.05 m area, was covered with the ceiling tiles mentioned above. A picture showing the installation of the package in the test enclosure is given in Fig. 8. Ignition of the fast-growing fire load was provided by simultaneous ignition of the heptane inside the pan below the crib and the wicks attached to the two foam cushions. 2.3. Ceiling temperature measurement Air temperatures 25 mm below the ceiling were measured at 11 locations in each test with thermocouples, K-type 30 gage. The locations were as follows: (0.3, 0.15); (0.3, 0.45); (0.3, 2.3); (0.3, 2.6); (0.3, 2.9); (0.3, 3.2); (1.5, 0.6); (1.5, 1.24); (1.5, 1.8); (1.5, 2.3); (1.5, 2.9). Here, the numbers inside the parentheses are the distances in m from the origin (0,0) in the x-direction and the y-direction, respectively (see Fig. 3 for the coordinates). 2.4. Sprinkler actuation detection A thermocouple was installed next to the sprinkler deflector in each test in order to detect sprinkler actuation, in addition to visual observations and water pressure measurements. 2.5. Water pressure measurement In order to measure the water flow rate that would be discharged from the sprinkler in each test, the water pressure applied to the sprinkler was measured
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
600 (0, 0) x
y 3.05 m Sprinkler pipe Test fire
Sprinkler 3.05 m
6.10 m
Fig. 3. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Tests 1–3.
by installing a pressure transducer inserted into the sprinkler pipe. The water flow rate was calculated using the K-factor in conjunction with the measured water pressure. 2.6. Test procedures The sprinkler in each test was operated at an operational pressure that would provide a 0.08 mm/s (0.1 gpm/ft2) discharge density until the ceiling temperatures indicated that test fire was almost completely suppressed. At that point, water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar (175 psi) and maintained for 10 min. Next, the sprinkler was removed from the system and the opening plugged, and pipes and connections were visually inspected for any leakage during which hydrostatic pressures inside the pipes were maintained at 12.1 bar. The rationale behind this high-pressure operation is as follows: when fire departments respond to fire incidents, they occasionally connect fire hoses, which in general operate at a substantially higher pressure than the normal sprinkler pressures, to an operating sprinkler system before they let fire fighters enter the building. Thus, the system should be assessed whether it can maintain the structural integrity at high pressures after it was exposed to fire. The chosen pressure, 12.1 bar in this case, is the maximum listed pressure to CPVC pipes.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
601
3. Conducting fire tests for system evaluation Nine full-scale fire tests were conducted. All the pipes used in the test program were commercially available, nominal 25 mm (1 in) CPVC pipes from BlazeMasters1 (ID ¼ 1:101 in, OD ¼ 1:315 in). All the piping systems installed inside the enclosure were tested with 12.1 bar (175 psi) static pressure prior to fire tests. 3.1. Test configurations The size of test room, the sprinkler, and the test fire load used in each test is given in Table 1. The sprinkler system schematic and the location of the test fire in each test are shown in Figs. 3–7. The figures and Table 1 should be clear enough to explain the test configurations, except, perhaps, Test 5. The main purpose of Test 5 was to verify the acceptability of an exposed CPVC pipe to be used for a riser. A nominal 25-mm pipe was erected to 3.05 m high as a typical riser at the corner of the walls as shown in Fig. 5 (represented as an open circle). Another 25-mm pipe was connected to the top of the riser as a sprinkler pipe. A sprinkler was attached at the end of the 0.3-m-long pipe, which was installed along a diagonal line of the two adjacent walls, i.e., 45 1 off either walls. The purpose of the sprinkler was to protect the exposed CPVC riser pipe from potential fire exposure, not to provide fire protection of the room where the riser is located. This is required by the installation manual [7]. Thus, in addition to the sprinkler at the top of the riser, the room itself must have a separate fire protection system. A single crib located at the corner next to the bottom of the riser was used as the test fire source (see Fig. 5). 3.2. Test highlights Most tests were non-eventual. Sprinklers were actuated in general between 8 and 10 min in slow growing fire cases and around 2 min in fast growing fire cases. Ceiling temperatures in all the tests except in Test 4 started to decrease immediately after sprinkler actuation indicating an impact of sprinkler spray. In Test 4 (see Figs. 4 and 8), the ceiling gas temperatures started to decrease at t ¼ 111 s, 3 s after the actuation of the sprinkler. Here t ¼ 0 corresponds to ignition. These ceiling temperatures then rose to as high as 791 1C at t ¼ 162 s, which were measured by the thermocouple at (0.3, 0.15). A videotape taken during the test showed that the fire grew rapidly after sprinkler actuation. The flames from the fuel load on the floor reached the ceiling at t ¼ 152 s and a section of the pipe was completely engulfed with flames, as shown in Fig. 9. The fire started to lose the intensity at t ¼ 165 s and the sprinkler spray seemed to start to control the fire. 1
Certain trade names and/or company products are mentioned in the text in order to help clarify the experimental procedure and/or equipment used. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by FM Global, nor does it imply that the identified products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 602
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
Test fire
3.05 m Sprinkler pipe
Sprinkler
3.05 m
6.10 m Fig. 4. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Test 4.
Test fire Sprinkler pipe Sprinkler Riser
6.10 m
6.10 m
Fig. 5. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Test 5.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
603
Test fire
6.10 m
Sprinkler pipe
Sprinkler
4.88 m Fig. 6. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Tests 6–8.
Test Fire Sprinkler pipe
2.44 m
Sprinkler
2.44 m
7.32 m
Fig. 7. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Test 9.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 604
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
Fig. 8. Simulated furniture package fire load setup in Test 4.
Fig. 9. Flames engulfing the exposed chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe in Test 4.
Shaking of the enclosure was detected around this time, which was believed to be caused by the rapid decrease of enclosure pressure due to sudden loss of fire intensity. Although no leakage was detected at the end of the test, because the CPVC pipes were exposed to open flames for a considerable time during the test, a portion of the pipe engulfed in the flames was cut into two pieces for a closer inspection after the test. The color of the surface was black and covered with charred plastic. Beyond that, no sign of thermal deformation could be detected by visual inspection. The
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
605
inside of pipe remained clean and orange and no effect of the flames that had impinged upon the pipe was detectable. Another noticeable event occurred in Test 3. The ceiling gas temperatures indicated that the fire was well under control by the sprinkler operation and the fire was believed to be suppressed at 8 min 31 s from the sprinkler actuation. The water pressure was then increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min following test procedures mentioned earlier. However, the crib fire rekindled and started to burn vigorously when the water spray was stopped at t ¼ 2128 s and the door was opened. The fire was extinguished by a hose stream. 3.3. Test results Test results are summarized in Table 2. ‘‘Sprinkler actuation time’’ in the table is the elapsed time from ignition. When the ceiling temperatures indicated that the test fire was under control resulting from sprinkler spray, water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min. ‘‘Time at water pressure increase’’ in the table is the elapsed time from the sprinkler actuation to the starting point of the pressure increase. At the end of each test, the system exposed to fire was visually inspected, while maintaining 12.1 bar hydrostatic pressures, and no leakage was found in any test. It is important to recognize the restrictions that will be imposed with an exposed CPVC riser tested in Test 5. They are: (1) the distance between the outside surface of the riser pipe and either of the walls shall not be greater than 38 mm [7], (2) the horizontal sprinkler pipe attached at the top of the riser pipe shall not be longer than 0.3 m (measured from the center axis of the riser) [7], and (3) the sprinkler attached to the riser [7] shall not be regarded as a part of the protection system of the occupancy where the riser is located. These conditions are imposed by the manufacturers resulting from their own internal research and the conditions are part of the manufactures’ installation guidelines [7]. Table 2 Test results for exposed CPVC piping system evaluation Test no.
Test room (3.0 m Sprinkler type high) Floor area (m m)
Test fire load
1 2 3 4 5
6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 (Riser pipe) 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 7.3 4.9
2 cribs 2 cribs 1 34 cribs SFP 1 crib
8:13 8:52 8:41 1:48 6:05
3:40 6:52 8:31 8:05 3:46
14 15 15 17 15
SFP 1 34 cribs 1 34 cribs 2 cribs
2:19 9:58 11:37 9:29
8:45 3:25 5:01 9:31
12 16 22 8
6 7 8 9
QREC pendent QREC pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent (Riser protection) Residential sidewall Residential sidewall QREC sidewall QREC sidewall
Sprinkler actuation time (min:s)
Time at water Ambient pressure temperature increase (min:s) (1C)
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
606
3.4. Observations on ceiling temperatures The highest ceiling temperatures among the measured in each test are plotted in Figs. 10–12. Because of the way the tests were configured, it can be assumed that a portion of the test pipes in each test was exposed to the fire plumes, temperatures of which were as high as the highest measured ceiling temperature in each test. Fig. 10 shows the highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 1–5. The test fire loads were: 2 cribs in Tests 1 and 2, 1 34 cribs in Test 3, and a single crib in Test 5. 300 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 5
Ceiling Temperature (°C)
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Time (s) Fig. 10. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 1–3, and 5. 350
Test 7 Test 8 Test 9
Ceiling Temperature (°C)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Time (s) Fig. 11. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 7–9.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
607
800 Test 4 Test 6
Ceiling Temperature (°C)
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0
20
40
60
80
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Time (s)
Fig. 12. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 4 and 6.
Thus, the top of the fuel loads (i.e., cribs) was about 2.6 m below the ceiling. The temperatures shown in the figure regarding Tests 1–3 were the ones measured 25 mm below the ceiling, a 0.15-m horizontal distance away from the center of the fire source, while the ceiling temperature regarding Test 5 was the one measured directly above the fire center. The highest ceiling temperatures in Tests 1–3, in which the sprinkler was located in the middle of the test enclosure, were between 215 and 260 1C. The highest ceiling temperature in Test 5, in which the sprinkler location with respect to the fire source was much closer than that in the other tests, was 103 1C. All the ceiling temperatures measured in these tests went down immediately after sprinkler actuation. Fig. 11 shows the highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 7–9. The test fire loads were: 1 34 cribs in Tests 7 and 8, and 2 cribs in Test 9. The top of the fuel loads (i.e., cribs) was 2.6 m below the ceiling. The measurement location in all the tests was a 0.15 m horizontal distance away from the center of the fire source. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in the tests were between 250 and 320 1C. The highest ceiling temperatures in these tests were somewhat higher than those in Tests 1–5, as the sprinklers were farther away from the fire sources than those in Tests 1–3, and 5. All the ceiling temperatures measured in these tests went down immediately after sprinkler actuation. Fig. 12 shows the highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 4 and 6, in which the simulated furniture package was used as the test fire source. The horizontal distance from the center of the fire load package (on the floor) and measurement location was 0.12 m in Test 4 and 0.15 m in Test 6. In Test 4, in which a residential sprinkler was installed at the center of the test enclosure, the sprinkler actuated at t ¼ 108 s, which produced a small decrease in the ceiling temperature near t ¼ 120 s;
ARTICLE IN PRESS 608
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
however, the flames took off and the ceiling temperature reached 791 1C at 162 s, 54 s after sprinkler actuation, while the sprinkler had been fully operating. After that, the flames started to lose the intensity and the fire was under control. This is the only case where the sprinkler actuation did not bring down the ceiling temperature immediately. In Test 6, in which a sidewall residential sprinkler was installed in the middle of the most remotely located wall from the fire load, the sprinkler actuated at 139 s, and the ceiling temperatures started to decrease immediately.
4. Summary and conclusion Nine full-scale fire tests were conducted to assess the adequacy of the exposed CPVC pipe and fitting sprinkler system installed in light hazard occupancies. The tests were conducted inside a test enclosure using six different types of automatic sprinklers. They were quick response extended coverage (QREC) pendent sprinklers of K ¼ 139 and 97 LPM/(bar)1/2, QREC sidewall sprinklers of K ¼ 140 and 97 LPM/(bar)1/2, pendent residential sprinkler of K ¼ 95 LPM=ðbarÞ1=2 , and sidewall residential sprinkler of K ¼ 97 LPM=ðbarÞ1=2 . The room size of the enclosure was adjusted to accommodate the maximum coverage area assigned to each type of sprinkler. The temperature rating of all the sprinklers used in the test program was 68 1C except for the sidewall sprinklers used in Tests 8 and 9, which was 74 1C. Two sets of test fires were used, slow growing and fast growing fires. International Maritime Organization (IMO) cribs were used as the source of the slow growing test fires while a simulated furniture package was used as the source of the fast growing test fires. The water discharge density provided by the sprinklers in all the fire tests was 0.08 mm/s. The sprinkler in each test was operated with a normal operation pressure until the test fire was almost completely suppressed. Then the water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min. Next, the piping system was visually inspected for any leakage while the hydrostatic pressures inside the pipes were maintained at 12.1 bar. No leakage was detected in any of the tests. The results of the fire tests indicate that an exposed CPVC fire sprinkler system installed in light hazard occupancies will provide adequate protection when the sprinkler system is installed in accordance with all the relevant standards.
Acknowledgment The author is grateful to Mr. David W. Ash, Dr. Andrew M. Olah, and Mr. Mike Perkovich, all from Noveon Inc., for providing testing materials and helping set up the tests. The staff at FM Global Test Center is gratefully acknowledged for conducting the tests. The tests described in the paper are becoming part of the standard tests at FM Approvals for plastic pipe and fittings for automatic sprinkler systems.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
609
References [1] NFPA 13. Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA, USA; 2002. [2] Approval Standard for plastic pipe and fittings for automatic sprinkler systems. Class number 1635, FM Approvals. [3] UL 1821. Thermoplastic sprinkler pipe and fittings for fire protection service. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL; 2001. [4] Nam S. Fire tests to evaluate the integrity of the BlazeMasters pipe sprinkler systems installed with the Soffi-Steels covers in light hazard occupancies. Technical report, J.I. 3012913, FM Global Research, Norwood, MA; 2002. [5] Revised Guidelines for the Approval of equivalent fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems, as referred to in SOLAS 74, for machinery spaces and cargo pump-rooms. MSC/Circ. 848, International Maritime Organization, 4 Alpert Embankment, London SE1 75 R; 1998. [6] Bill Jr. RG, Kung HC, Anderson SK, Ferron R. A new test to evaluate the fire performance of residential sprinklers. Fire Technol 2002;38:101–24. [7] BlazeMasters Fire sprinkler systems, installation and specification manual for architectural engineers and fire sprinkler contractors. Noveon Inc., 9911 Brecksville Road, Cleveland, OH.
Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609 www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf
Fire tests to evaluate CPVC pipe sprinkler systems without fire resistance barriers Soonil Nam FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062, USA Received 16 August 2004; received in revised form 21 March 2005; accepted 18 May 2005 Available online 12 July 2005
Abstract Nine full-scale fire tests were conducted to assess the adequacy of exposed chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe and fitting sprinkler systems installed in light hazard occupancies. The tests were conducted in an enclosure using six different types of automatic sprinklers including QREC pendent and sidewall sprinklers, a pendent residential sprinkler, and a sidewall residential sprinkler. Two types of fires, fast growing and slow growing, were used as test fires. The sprinkler in each test was operated with the normal operation pressure until the test fire was almost completely suppressed. Next, to assess the integrity of piping systems after fire exposure, the water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min and then were visually inspected for any leakage while hydrostatic pressure was maintained at 12.1 bar. No leakage was detected in any of the tests. The results of the tests indicate that sprinkler systems based on exposed CPVC pipe and fittings can be safely installed in light hazard occupancies and will provide adequate protection when installed to all the relevant standards. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: CPVC pipe sprinkler system; Light hazard occupancy; Plastic pipe and fitting
Tel.: +1 781 255 4964; fax: +1 781 255 4024.
E-mail address: [email protected]. 0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.05.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS 596
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
1. Introduction Plastic pipes and fittings in sprinkler systems have been allowed to be used under NFPA 13 [1] and other relevant listing standards [2,3] with the following limitations: (1) in wet pipe sprinkler systems only, (2) for light hazard occupancies only, and (3) where the piping is completely separated by non-removable, fire-rated barriers. Recognizing that sprinkler systems using non-metallic pipes can be potentially subjected to thermal deformation, which could hamper the proper operation during a fire incident, these systems have been required to utilize thermal barriers referred to above. However, because of significant economic advantages including ease of installation and strong resistance to corrosion, especially microbiologically influenced corrosion, wider use of plastic pipe fire sprinkler systems is occurring in many light hazard occupancies such as hotels, offices, college dormitories, etc. That prompted re-assessment of a standard requiring the nonremovable fire resistance barriers associated with the installation of plastic pipe sprinkler systems. This paper gives an evaluation of the integrity of exposed chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe and fitting sprinkler systems in light hazard occupancies. This work is the continuation of a previous work [4] evaluating the integrity of chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe sprinkler systems installed with thin steel covers in light hazard occupancies. As the system was proven acceptable with the covers as thin as 0.9 mm, the current test program as an objective determined whether performance would be acceptable without any thermal barriers or protective covers. Specifically, the objective of the testing was to determine whether the CPVC piping systems without any thermal protection would maintain the integrity of the fire sprinkler system when exposed to typical light hazard fires.
2. Test program The system integrity was evaluated through a series of fire tests simulating light hazard and residential fire scenarios. Nine fire tests were conducted combining six sets of sprinklers with two sets of test fires, as summarized in Table 1. In the table, QREC denotes ‘‘quick response extended coverage,’’ and ‘‘Test Fire Load’’ will be discussed shortly. 2.1. Test enclosure Fire tests were carried out inside a 3.05-m-high enclosure lined with gypsum wallboard. The width and the length of the enclosure were varied depending on the type of sprinkler used in each test and room sizes were chosen to accommodate the maximum coverage area specified by each sprinkler used in each test, as shown in Table 1.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
597
Table 1 Test configurations for exposed CPVC piping system evaluation Test no.
Test room (3.0 m high) Floor area (m m)
Sprinkler used
Type
Test fire load
K-factor h i
Temperature rating (1C)
Operating water pressure (bar)
97 139 95 95 95
68 68 68 68 68
3.66 1.72 3.66 3.66 3.66
2 cribs 2 cribs 1 34 cribs SFP 1 crib
97 97 97 140
68 68 74 74
2.28 2.28 2.28 1.59
SFP 1 34 cribs 1 34 cribs 2 cribs
LPM ðbarÞ1=2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 (Riser pipe) 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 7.3 4.9
QREC pendent QREC pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent (Riser protection) Residential sidewall Residential sidewall QREC sidewall QREC sidewall
2.2. Test fire consideration Two sets of test fires, a slow growing fire and a fast growing fire, were employed for system evaluations. The test fires used were believed to adequately cover each end of the possible fire scenarios that may be encountered in light hazard occupancies including residential dwellings. 2.2.1. Slow growing fire exposures Slow growing test fires were used because they provided one set of critical test conditions; a longer time before sprinkler activation, thereby, with longer attendant times for heat transfer to exposed CPVC pipes during testing. However, eventual test fire size was also designed to be sufficiently large (with respect to the size of a test enclosure) to activate a present sprinkler prior to test fire fuel being consumed. Another consideration in designing test fire was to demonstrate the immediate impact of a sprinkler water spray on the test fire in order to make a proper assessment of the performance of the sprinkler under consideration. If the properties of the sprinkler piping were altered by heating during the exposure test such that the direction of the sprinkler water spray was altered, for example, then the system would be shown to be inadequate. For those reasons, International Maritime Organization (IMO) cribs used in a gaseous agent test as a part of the standard IMO fire tests [5] were chosen as a fire source. An IMO crib, which is shown in Fig. 1 with the ignition pan, consists of six, trade size 50 mm 50 mm 0.45 m long, kiln-dried spruce or fir lumber having a
ARTICLE IN PRESS 598
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
Fig. 1. An IMO crib over the ignition pan used as a slow-growing test fire source.
moisture content between 9% and 13%. Each weighs approximately 9.3 kg. The members were evenly spaced to form a square structure. The nominal heat release rate of each IMO crib is expected to be 300 kW [5]. Single cribs, two cribs, or 1 34 cribs, i.e., 7 layers, were chosen as fire sources depending on sizes of enclosures for particular tests. The 34 crib, i.e., 3 layers, was made by removing the top layer of lumber from a standard crib of four layers. Ignition was provided by lighting 30 ml of heptane contained inside a circular ignition pan. The outside diameter (OD) of the pan was 156 mm, the inside diameter (ID) was 152 mm, and the height was 76 mm. The cribs were placed 51 mm above the pan. Thus, the top of a single crib would be 0.33 m, that of two cribs would be 0.43 m, and that of 1 34 cribs would be 0.38 m above the floor. Whenever the IMO cribs were involved as a test fire, ignition was provided in the same way. 2.2.2. Fast growing fire exposures A simulated furniture package (SFP) recently developed by FM Global to evaluate the fire performance of residential sprinklers [6] was used as a fast growing fire source. The materials used for the fire load were: (1) two 1.22 m wide 3.05 m high 6.3 mm thick Douglas Fir plywood sheets, (2) two 0.86 m wide, 0.76 m high 76 mm thick foam cushions mounted on a 13-mm-thick plywood sheet with 3 M Foam Fast glue, (3) the previously described IMO wood crib placed over a 0.3 m 0.3 m pan containing 200 ml of water and 200 ml of heptane, and (4) ceiling tiles having a flame spread index of 25 using the ASTM E84 test that covers a 1.22 m 3.05 m area on the ceiling. The materials above were arranged, as shown in Fig. 2, at the corner identified as the location of test fire. The foam cushions were ignited with two 0.15 m long 6.3 mm diameter cotton wicks, which were soaked with 100 ml of heptane. Each wick
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
599
Fig. 2. The simulated furniture package used as a fast-growing fire source.
was located near the open end of each foam cushion. The corner walls were covered with the Douglas Fir plywood sheets that were screwed onto wood furring strips. The ceiling area, four corners of which covers a 1.22 m 3.05 m area, was covered with the ceiling tiles mentioned above. A picture showing the installation of the package in the test enclosure is given in Fig. 8. Ignition of the fast-growing fire load was provided by simultaneous ignition of the heptane inside the pan below the crib and the wicks attached to the two foam cushions. 2.3. Ceiling temperature measurement Air temperatures 25 mm below the ceiling were measured at 11 locations in each test with thermocouples, K-type 30 gage. The locations were as follows: (0.3, 0.15); (0.3, 0.45); (0.3, 2.3); (0.3, 2.6); (0.3, 2.9); (0.3, 3.2); (1.5, 0.6); (1.5, 1.24); (1.5, 1.8); (1.5, 2.3); (1.5, 2.9). Here, the numbers inside the parentheses are the distances in m from the origin (0,0) in the x-direction and the y-direction, respectively (see Fig. 3 for the coordinates). 2.4. Sprinkler actuation detection A thermocouple was installed next to the sprinkler deflector in each test in order to detect sprinkler actuation, in addition to visual observations and water pressure measurements. 2.5. Water pressure measurement In order to measure the water flow rate that would be discharged from the sprinkler in each test, the water pressure applied to the sprinkler was measured
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
600 (0, 0) x
y 3.05 m Sprinkler pipe Test fire
Sprinkler 3.05 m
6.10 m
Fig. 3. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Tests 1–3.
by installing a pressure transducer inserted into the sprinkler pipe. The water flow rate was calculated using the K-factor in conjunction with the measured water pressure. 2.6. Test procedures The sprinkler in each test was operated at an operational pressure that would provide a 0.08 mm/s (0.1 gpm/ft2) discharge density until the ceiling temperatures indicated that test fire was almost completely suppressed. At that point, water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar (175 psi) and maintained for 10 min. Next, the sprinkler was removed from the system and the opening plugged, and pipes and connections were visually inspected for any leakage during which hydrostatic pressures inside the pipes were maintained at 12.1 bar. The rationale behind this high-pressure operation is as follows: when fire departments respond to fire incidents, they occasionally connect fire hoses, which in general operate at a substantially higher pressure than the normal sprinkler pressures, to an operating sprinkler system before they let fire fighters enter the building. Thus, the system should be assessed whether it can maintain the structural integrity at high pressures after it was exposed to fire. The chosen pressure, 12.1 bar in this case, is the maximum listed pressure to CPVC pipes.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
601
3. Conducting fire tests for system evaluation Nine full-scale fire tests were conducted. All the pipes used in the test program were commercially available, nominal 25 mm (1 in) CPVC pipes from BlazeMasters1 (ID ¼ 1:101 in, OD ¼ 1:315 in). All the piping systems installed inside the enclosure were tested with 12.1 bar (175 psi) static pressure prior to fire tests. 3.1. Test configurations The size of test room, the sprinkler, and the test fire load used in each test is given in Table 1. The sprinkler system schematic and the location of the test fire in each test are shown in Figs. 3–7. The figures and Table 1 should be clear enough to explain the test configurations, except, perhaps, Test 5. The main purpose of Test 5 was to verify the acceptability of an exposed CPVC pipe to be used for a riser. A nominal 25-mm pipe was erected to 3.05 m high as a typical riser at the corner of the walls as shown in Fig. 5 (represented as an open circle). Another 25-mm pipe was connected to the top of the riser as a sprinkler pipe. A sprinkler was attached at the end of the 0.3-m-long pipe, which was installed along a diagonal line of the two adjacent walls, i.e., 45 1 off either walls. The purpose of the sprinkler was to protect the exposed CPVC riser pipe from potential fire exposure, not to provide fire protection of the room where the riser is located. This is required by the installation manual [7]. Thus, in addition to the sprinkler at the top of the riser, the room itself must have a separate fire protection system. A single crib located at the corner next to the bottom of the riser was used as the test fire source (see Fig. 5). 3.2. Test highlights Most tests were non-eventual. Sprinklers were actuated in general between 8 and 10 min in slow growing fire cases and around 2 min in fast growing fire cases. Ceiling temperatures in all the tests except in Test 4 started to decrease immediately after sprinkler actuation indicating an impact of sprinkler spray. In Test 4 (see Figs. 4 and 8), the ceiling gas temperatures started to decrease at t ¼ 111 s, 3 s after the actuation of the sprinkler. Here t ¼ 0 corresponds to ignition. These ceiling temperatures then rose to as high as 791 1C at t ¼ 162 s, which were measured by the thermocouple at (0.3, 0.15). A videotape taken during the test showed that the fire grew rapidly after sprinkler actuation. The flames from the fuel load on the floor reached the ceiling at t ¼ 152 s and a section of the pipe was completely engulfed with flames, as shown in Fig. 9. The fire started to lose the intensity at t ¼ 165 s and the sprinkler spray seemed to start to control the fire. 1
Certain trade names and/or company products are mentioned in the text in order to help clarify the experimental procedure and/or equipment used. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by FM Global, nor does it imply that the identified products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 602
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
Test fire
3.05 m Sprinkler pipe
Sprinkler
3.05 m
6.10 m Fig. 4. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Test 4.
Test fire Sprinkler pipe Sprinkler Riser
6.10 m
6.10 m
Fig. 5. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Test 5.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
603
Test fire
6.10 m
Sprinkler pipe
Sprinkler
4.88 m Fig. 6. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Tests 6–8.
Test Fire Sprinkler pipe
2.44 m
Sprinkler
2.44 m
7.32 m
Fig. 7. Plan view of the sprinkler and the test fire locations in Test 9.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 604
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
Fig. 8. Simulated furniture package fire load setup in Test 4.
Fig. 9. Flames engulfing the exposed chlorinated poly vinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe in Test 4.
Shaking of the enclosure was detected around this time, which was believed to be caused by the rapid decrease of enclosure pressure due to sudden loss of fire intensity. Although no leakage was detected at the end of the test, because the CPVC pipes were exposed to open flames for a considerable time during the test, a portion of the pipe engulfed in the flames was cut into two pieces for a closer inspection after the test. The color of the surface was black and covered with charred plastic. Beyond that, no sign of thermal deformation could be detected by visual inspection. The
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
605
inside of pipe remained clean and orange and no effect of the flames that had impinged upon the pipe was detectable. Another noticeable event occurred in Test 3. The ceiling gas temperatures indicated that the fire was well under control by the sprinkler operation and the fire was believed to be suppressed at 8 min 31 s from the sprinkler actuation. The water pressure was then increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min following test procedures mentioned earlier. However, the crib fire rekindled and started to burn vigorously when the water spray was stopped at t ¼ 2128 s and the door was opened. The fire was extinguished by a hose stream. 3.3. Test results Test results are summarized in Table 2. ‘‘Sprinkler actuation time’’ in the table is the elapsed time from ignition. When the ceiling temperatures indicated that the test fire was under control resulting from sprinkler spray, water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min. ‘‘Time at water pressure increase’’ in the table is the elapsed time from the sprinkler actuation to the starting point of the pressure increase. At the end of each test, the system exposed to fire was visually inspected, while maintaining 12.1 bar hydrostatic pressures, and no leakage was found in any test. It is important to recognize the restrictions that will be imposed with an exposed CPVC riser tested in Test 5. They are: (1) the distance between the outside surface of the riser pipe and either of the walls shall not be greater than 38 mm [7], (2) the horizontal sprinkler pipe attached at the top of the riser pipe shall not be longer than 0.3 m (measured from the center axis of the riser) [7], and (3) the sprinkler attached to the riser [7] shall not be regarded as a part of the protection system of the occupancy where the riser is located. These conditions are imposed by the manufacturers resulting from their own internal research and the conditions are part of the manufactures’ installation guidelines [7]. Table 2 Test results for exposed CPVC piping system evaluation Test no.
Test room (3.0 m Sprinkler type high) Floor area (m m)
Test fire load
1 2 3 4 5
6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 (Riser pipe) 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 7.3 4.9
2 cribs 2 cribs 1 34 cribs SFP 1 crib
8:13 8:52 8:41 1:48 6:05
3:40 6:52 8:31 8:05 3:46
14 15 15 17 15
SFP 1 34 cribs 1 34 cribs 2 cribs
2:19 9:58 11:37 9:29
8:45 3:25 5:01 9:31
12 16 22 8
6 7 8 9
QREC pendent QREC pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent Residential pendent (Riser protection) Residential sidewall Residential sidewall QREC sidewall QREC sidewall
Sprinkler actuation time (min:s)
Time at water Ambient pressure temperature increase (min:s) (1C)
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
606
3.4. Observations on ceiling temperatures The highest ceiling temperatures among the measured in each test are plotted in Figs. 10–12. Because of the way the tests were configured, it can be assumed that a portion of the test pipes in each test was exposed to the fire plumes, temperatures of which were as high as the highest measured ceiling temperature in each test. Fig. 10 shows the highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 1–5. The test fire loads were: 2 cribs in Tests 1 and 2, 1 34 cribs in Test 3, and a single crib in Test 5. 300 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 5
Ceiling Temperature (°C)
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Time (s) Fig. 10. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 1–3, and 5. 350
Test 7 Test 8 Test 9
Ceiling Temperature (°C)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Time (s) Fig. 11. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 7–9.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
607
800 Test 4 Test 6
Ceiling Temperature (°C)
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0
20
40
60
80
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Time (s)
Fig. 12. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 4 and 6.
Thus, the top of the fuel loads (i.e., cribs) was about 2.6 m below the ceiling. The temperatures shown in the figure regarding Tests 1–3 were the ones measured 25 mm below the ceiling, a 0.15-m horizontal distance away from the center of the fire source, while the ceiling temperature regarding Test 5 was the one measured directly above the fire center. The highest ceiling temperatures in Tests 1–3, in which the sprinkler was located in the middle of the test enclosure, were between 215 and 260 1C. The highest ceiling temperature in Test 5, in which the sprinkler location with respect to the fire source was much closer than that in the other tests, was 103 1C. All the ceiling temperatures measured in these tests went down immediately after sprinkler actuation. Fig. 11 shows the highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 7–9. The test fire loads were: 1 34 cribs in Tests 7 and 8, and 2 cribs in Test 9. The top of the fuel loads (i.e., cribs) was 2.6 m below the ceiling. The measurement location in all the tests was a 0.15 m horizontal distance away from the center of the fire source. The highest ceiling temperatures measured in the tests were between 250 and 320 1C. The highest ceiling temperatures in these tests were somewhat higher than those in Tests 1–5, as the sprinklers were farther away from the fire sources than those in Tests 1–3, and 5. All the ceiling temperatures measured in these tests went down immediately after sprinkler actuation. Fig. 12 shows the highest ceiling temperatures measured in Tests 4 and 6, in which the simulated furniture package was used as the test fire source. The horizontal distance from the center of the fire load package (on the floor) and measurement location was 0.12 m in Test 4 and 0.15 m in Test 6. In Test 4, in which a residential sprinkler was installed at the center of the test enclosure, the sprinkler actuated at t ¼ 108 s, which produced a small decrease in the ceiling temperature near t ¼ 120 s;
ARTICLE IN PRESS 608
S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
however, the flames took off and the ceiling temperature reached 791 1C at 162 s, 54 s after sprinkler actuation, while the sprinkler had been fully operating. After that, the flames started to lose the intensity and the fire was under control. This is the only case where the sprinkler actuation did not bring down the ceiling temperature immediately. In Test 6, in which a sidewall residential sprinkler was installed in the middle of the most remotely located wall from the fire load, the sprinkler actuated at 139 s, and the ceiling temperatures started to decrease immediately.
4. Summary and conclusion Nine full-scale fire tests were conducted to assess the adequacy of the exposed CPVC pipe and fitting sprinkler system installed in light hazard occupancies. The tests were conducted inside a test enclosure using six different types of automatic sprinklers. They were quick response extended coverage (QREC) pendent sprinklers of K ¼ 139 and 97 LPM/(bar)1/2, QREC sidewall sprinklers of K ¼ 140 and 97 LPM/(bar)1/2, pendent residential sprinkler of K ¼ 95 LPM=ðbarÞ1=2 , and sidewall residential sprinkler of K ¼ 97 LPM=ðbarÞ1=2 . The room size of the enclosure was adjusted to accommodate the maximum coverage area assigned to each type of sprinkler. The temperature rating of all the sprinklers used in the test program was 68 1C except for the sidewall sprinklers used in Tests 8 and 9, which was 74 1C. Two sets of test fires were used, slow growing and fast growing fires. International Maritime Organization (IMO) cribs were used as the source of the slow growing test fires while a simulated furniture package was used as the source of the fast growing test fires. The water discharge density provided by the sprinklers in all the fire tests was 0.08 mm/s. The sprinkler in each test was operated with a normal operation pressure until the test fire was almost completely suppressed. Then the water pressure was increased to 12.1 bar and maintained for 10 min. Next, the piping system was visually inspected for any leakage while the hydrostatic pressures inside the pipes were maintained at 12.1 bar. No leakage was detected in any of the tests. The results of the fire tests indicate that an exposed CPVC fire sprinkler system installed in light hazard occupancies will provide adequate protection when the sprinkler system is installed in accordance with all the relevant standards.
Acknowledgment The author is grateful to Mr. David W. Ash, Dr. Andrew M. Olah, and Mr. Mike Perkovich, all from Noveon Inc., for providing testing materials and helping set up the tests. The staff at FM Global Test Center is gratefully acknowledged for conducting the tests. The tests described in the paper are becoming part of the standard tests at FM Approvals for plastic pipe and fittings for automatic sprinkler systems.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Nam / Fire Safety Journal 40 (2005) 595–609
609
References [1] NFPA 13. Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA, USA; 2002. [2] Approval Standard for plastic pipe and fittings for automatic sprinkler systems. Class number 1635, FM Approvals. [3] UL 1821. Thermoplastic sprinkler pipe and fittings for fire protection service. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL; 2001. [4] Nam S. Fire tests to evaluate the integrity of the BlazeMasters pipe sprinkler systems installed with the Soffi-Steels covers in light hazard occupancies. Technical report, J.I. 3012913, FM Global Research, Norwood, MA; 2002. [5] Revised Guidelines for the Approval of equivalent fixed gas fire-extinguishing systems, as referred to in SOLAS 74, for machinery spaces and cargo pump-rooms. MSC/Circ. 848, International Maritime Organization, 4 Alpert Embankment, London SE1 75 R; 1998. [6] Bill Jr. RG, Kung HC, Anderson SK, Ferron R. A new test to evaluate the fire performance of residential sprinklers. Fire Technol 2002;38:101–24. [7] BlazeMasters Fire sprinkler systems, installation and specification manual for architectural engineers and fire sprinkler contractors. Noveon Inc., 9911 Brecksville Road, Cleveland, OH.