1 9 8 3 Fall M e e t i n g

T e c h n i c a l C o m rn i t t e e D o c , u m e n t a t i o n

/

TCD-83-F

A Compilation of the Documented Action on Comments Received by the Technical Committees Whose Reports Have Been Published

Prior to Consideration at the NFPA Fall Meeting

Orlando Hyatt Orlando, FL

November 14-17, 1983

I Please Bring to the Fall Meeting

NFPA

Copyright© 1983 All Rights Reserved

National Fire Protection Association, Inc. Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269

1 1 M - 9 - 8 3 - S M P r i n t e d in U,S.A.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Report of Committee on Storage

Correlating Committee

Robert G. Planer, Chairman Johnson & Higgins

Robert M. Hodnett, Secretary National Fire Protection Assn.

(Nonvoting)

J. S. Barritt , Industrial Risk Insurers Thomas E. Goonan, Schirmer Engineering Corp. Edward Jefferson, UniRoyal Inc. W. P. Thomas, Jr., Ken~)er Insgrance Cos. C. R. Thomson, Canadian Wood Council

Nonvoting

Wesley L. D. Chisholm, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Rep. NFPA Committee on Motor Vehicle & Highway Fire Protection

R. A. Pedersen, Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau Rep. NFPA Committee on Piers & Wharves

Technical Committee

General Storage

W. P. Thomas, Jr., Chairman Kemper Insurance Cos.

David H. Lauridsen, Secretary GHR Energy Corp.

J. S. Barri t t , Secretary, Industrial Risk Insurers Robert E. Bean, Trail Park Fire Control Tax Dist 7 Martin M. Brown, White Plains, NY J. P. Carroll, SPI R. C. Everson, M & M Protection Consultants Thomas E. Goonan, Schirmer Engineering Corp. W. R. Heitzig, Dow Chemical Co.

Rep. Chemical Manufacturers Assn. Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance Richard D. Jacobson, Factory Mutual Research Corp. Edward Jefferson, UniRoyal Inc.

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section R. S. Johnson, Owens-Illinois Inc. Raymond J. Malek, Paul J. Grunau Co.

Rep. NAS & FCA Robert G. Planer, Johnson & Higgins J. P. Spollen, Western Electric Co., Inc. R. W. Weitzel, Borden, Inc.

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Edward W. Whalen, New York Board of Fire Underwriters

Alternates

Thomas J. Brown, Jr., Factory Mutual Research Corp. (Alternate to R. D. Jacobson)

J. D. Crawford, Johnson & Higgins (Alternate to R. G. Planer)

Gregory L. Daum, South Orange, NJ (Alternate to A~rican Insurance Assn. Rep)

Robert C. Hawker, Owens-Illinois Inc. (Alternate to R. S. Johnson)

Stephen R. Hoover, Kemper Group Alternate to W. P. Thomas)

Fletcher MacGregor, IRM Insurance Alternate to A. I . Hjertstedt)

E. E. Miller, Industrial Risk Insurers Alternate to J. S. Barritt)

Gerald W. O'Rourke, Schirmer Engineering Corp. Alternate to T. E. Goonan)

Henry I . Potter, General Services Admin. Alternate to General Services Administration)

Allen D. Walters, American Warehousemen's Assn. Alternate to American Warehousemen's Assn.)

Lewis H. Zimmermann, Adelphia Automatic Sprinkler Co. Alternate to R. J. Malek)

Subcommittee on

Baled Fibre Storage

Allen I . Hjertstedt, Chairman Improved Risk Mutuals

Damon N. Anderson, Fire Prevention and Engineering Bureau of Texas David L. Fralin, Dan River, Inc. Larry LaTouf, Calcot, Ltd.

Rep. The Cottongrowers Warehouse Assn. La Rue Medders, L]oyds, New York David Orrick, Cotton Fire & Marine Underwriters John B. Thomas Jr., Cornwall & Stevens B. Bruce Turner, Eugene B. Smith & Co., Inc.

Rep, The Cotton Warehouse Assn. of America R. G. Weigand, Schirmer Engineering Corp.

Alternates

Thomas J. Kramer, Schirmer Engineering Corp. (Alternate to R. G. Weigand)

Rex McKinney, Farmers Co-op Compress (Alternate to Larry LaTouf)

W. Neely Mallory Jr., Memphis Compress and Storage Co. (Alternate to B. Bruce Turner)

Subcommittee on Storage of RoliPaper Subcommittee

Chairman

Robert C. Hawker, Manager Owens-Illinois, Inc.

George M. Hidzick, Kemper Insurance Companies Robert L. Knop, M & M Protection Consultants Thomas Mills, Kimberly Clark Corp. Peter A. Smith, International Paper Company David B. Patterson, Reed Stenhouse Limited Richard Yost, Scott Paper Co. Roger Major, Abitibi Price Richard D. Jacobson, Factory Mutual Research Corp. Chuck Henrici, Elk Grove Fire Department, IL Mike Thrower, Union Camp Corp. Jack Barritt, Industrial Risk Insurers Jack CastIeberry, International Paper Co.

These l ists represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

The Supplementary Report of the Committee on Storage is presented in 2 parts.

Part I , prepared by the Technical Committee on General Storage, proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents its action on the public comn~nts received on its Report on NFPA 231E-1984, Recommended Practice for the Storage of Baled Cotton, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1983 Fall Meeting.

Part I has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on General Storage which consists of 18 voting members; of whom 16 voted affirmatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Lauridsen and Malek).

Part I has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Correlating Committee on Storage which consists of 6 voting members; all of whom voted affirmatively.

Part I I , prepared by the Technical Committee on General Storage, proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on its Report on NFPA 231F-1984, Standard for the Storage of Roll Paper, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1983 Fall Meeting.

Part I I has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on General Storage which consists of 18 voting members; of whom 15 voted affirmatively, 1 negatively (Mr. Jacobson), and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Lauridsen and Malek).

Part I I has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Correlating Committee on Storage which consists of 6 voting members; all of whom voted a f f i r~ t ive ly .

154

Mr. Jacobson voted negat ively for the fo l lowing reasons: I . Proposal 34, Figure 5-1.2 (also Figure A-5-1.2). Present

column headings and d~mands for medium weight paper in Figure 5-1.2 and A-5- I .2 insinuate that standard banded array is s i gn i f i can t l y less hazardous than open banded array. This is unsupported by the f i r e test data and ear l ie r test work. In fac t , Test C2 and C4 showed that standard (unbaoded) arrays are as hazardous as open (unbanded) arrays. Figures should be changed as recommended in Proposal 34.

2. Proposal 35, A-5- I .5 . The proposed 67 percent area penalty for ordinary temperature spr inklers in the document dra f t is total ly unsupported. This value was taken directly from NFPA 231C and has been inccrrectly applied mathematically. The 110 percent penalty, as recommended in proposal 35, is consistent with the reasoning behind the penalty in 231C. Proposal 35 should be accepted in the 110 percent penalty used in the document until further investigation proves otherwise.

The Committee Proposal substantiating the need for this document was inadvertently omitted from the Technical Committee Report. The substantiation follows:

The need for a standard for storage of rol l paper was brought to the attention of the Association after there had been several disastrous fires in warehouses containing rol l paper. The lack of a national standard has made designing, building and using a f ac i l i t y for the storage of rol l paper an expensive undertaking, sometimes resulting in substandard f i re protection. Because of the unique characteristics of rol l paper, the Standards Council was petitioned and agreed to have the Technical Committee on General Storage formul~te a new NFPA 231F, Standard for the Storage of Roll Paper.

155

PART I

231E- 4 - (Membership L is t ) : Accept SUBMITTER: David Orrick, Dallas, TX ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-N/A RECOMMENDATION: Update subcommittee membership by deleting those members who hive ret i red or died and adding newly appointed members.

Delete the fol lowing Committee Members: J. J. Calvin, Southwick, Inc. Walter H. McClain, Cotton Fire and Marine Underwriters. J. P. Sett le, Fire Prevention and Engineering Bureau of Texas. Add the fol lowing Committee Members: Damon N. Anderson, Fire Prevention and Engineering Bureau of

Texas. David Orrick, Cotton Fire and Marine Underwriters. John B. Thomas, J r . , Cornwall and Stevens. Delete the fol lowing alternate: David Orrick, Cotton Fire and Marine Underwriters.

SUBSTANTIATION: Edi tor ia l COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231E- 1 - (1-2.1, 1-3, 3-3.3.1, 4-2.3, B-I) : Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Stephen R. Hoover, Al l iance of American Insurers

PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: In a l l the cases l is ted change " f lash-over" to "f lame-over." SUBSTANTIATION: Although the Committee defined the term "f lash-over" for use in this standard, the connotation most people in the f i r e protection f i e ld have of the term is vast ly d i f f e ren t .

"Flash-over" is due to thermal radiat ion feedback from the ce i l ing and walls of a room, which are heated by a f i r e . The feedback heats the contents of the room, and when a l l the combustibles are heated to thei r ignit ion temperature, simultaneous igni t ion occurs. "Flameover" is the rapid spread of flame over one or more surfaces. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. - - In 1-3 add a new def in i t ion to read as follows:

"Flame-over. A f i r e that spreads rapidly over the exposed l in ty surface of the bales. In the cotton industry the common term is "flash-over" and has the same meaning."

Revise the Flash-Over def in i t ion to read as follows: "Flash-over. See Flame-over."

COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and feels the revised def in i t ion of "flash-over" and the new def in i t ion of "flame-ever" should sat isfy his intent.

231E- 13 - (1-2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfel ter , American Insurance Association ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence of fourth paragraph to read, in part '~

"When the bales are t iered or piled in buildings or outdoors, the loose surface f ibers are easi ly ignited in the presence of an igni t ion source, and . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording indicates the loose f ibers are a ready source of ign i t ion. The source of ign i t ion would be a match, spark or other hot item. The loose f ibers are the fuel that is ignited, not the igni t ion source. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231E- 14 - ( I -2 .1) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfel ter, American Insurance Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECUMMENDAIION: Revise f i r s t sentence of fourth paragraph to re~d, in part, and add new second sentence to read:

. . . and f i r e may spread rapid ly over the entire mass or body of the material. This is known as flashover in the cotton storage business. (Continue with exist ing second sentence.)" SUBSTANTIATION: Flashover is used twice in the same sentence which is redundant. More importantly "f lashover" here in the cotton storage business is d i f fe ren t that f lashover in a room or compartment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Revise the f i r s t sentence of the fourth paragraph to read as fol lows:

"When the bales are t iered or piled in buildings or outdoors, the loose surface f ibers are easi ly ignited in the presence of an igni t ion source and f i r e may spread rapid ly over the ent i re mass or body of the mater ia l . " COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but has deleted, "This is known as f lashover in the cotton storage business" because of the change made as a resul t of Comment No. 1 on I -2.1, 1-3, 3-3.3.1, 4-2.3, and B-I. Also see the Committee Action for Comment 13 on I-2.1.

231E- 15 - (!-2.2(e~ and (f)~(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: herald _. Lingenrelter, Amerlcan Insurance Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add two new causes:

(e) Exposures. ( f ) Incendiarism.

SUBSTANTIATION: For consistency with B-2, we believe these causes should also be l is ted. This also points out that f i r es can star t due to causes outside the control of the individual location. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ T : "Exposures" and "Incendiarism" are not common causes of f i r e in baled cotton. Both of these are mentioned in Appendix Section B-2.

231E- 9 - (3-1.1 and 3-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Subcommittee on Baled Fibre Storage COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Asterisk Section 3-1.1 and relocate present Section 3-1.2 to the Appendix under A~3.1.1 SUBSTANTIATION: The subcommittee feels bale number l imitat ions per building or f i r e d iv is ion should not be a part of the recommended practice but included for information use only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

?31E- 12 - (4-1.3.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjerstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ~N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adding:

4-1.3.5 On new ins ta l la t ions the use of spr inkler heads in the ordinary temperature range is recommended, subject to maximum cei l ing temperatures as outlined in NFPA 13, Standard for the Ins ta l la t ion of Sprinkler Systems. SUBSTANTIATION: Limited tests and actual f i r e experience indicate an i n i t i a l low heat release; thus, spr inkler heads in the ordinary temperature range should o f fe r some advantage by opening faster than would intermediate or high temperature c lass i f i ca t ions under s imi lar conditions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple.

Add an aster-Tsk at 4-1.3.5 and add a new section to read as fol lows:

A-4.1.3.5 Limited tests and actual f i r e experience indicate an i n i t i a l low heat release; thus, sprinklers in the ordinary temperature range should o f fe r some advantage by opening faster than would intermediate or high temperature c lass i f i ca t ions under s imi lar conditions. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has added his substantiation as advisory material in the Appendix.

231E- 8 - (4-1.3 and 4-I .3(a) through (g) (New)): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Subcommittee on Baled Fibre Storage ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 4-1.3 to read:

4-1.3 For t iered or rack storage up to a nominal 15 f t (4.6 m) in height, spr inkler discharge densities and areas of application should be in accordance with the fo l lowing:

(a) For t iered storage up to 12 f t (3.6 m), Ordinary Hazard Group 3 of NFPA 13, Standard for the Ins ta l la t ion of Sprinkler Systems, should be used.

(b) For t iered storage above 12 f t (3.6 m) and up to 15 f t {~.5 m), Commodity Class IV Curve of NFPA 231, Standard for Indoor General Storage, should be used.

(c) Baled storage that is not t iered may be based on a design of 0.15 gpm/ft 2 (0.10 L/s/m 2) over 3,000 s g f t (279 m 2] of operating area for wet pipe systems and over 3,900 sq f t (363 m 2) for dry pipe systems. This untiered design density would l im i t storage to one bale high, on side or on end, and prohibi t possible future t ie r ing without a probable redesigning of the spr ink ler system.

(d) For rack storage to 15 f t (4.6 m), Curve E of Figure 6-11.1(d), NFPA 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, should be used. No modif ication should be allowed in spr inkler density or area of operation for rack storage below the height indicated, nor for clearance from the top of storage to ce i l ing.

(e) Minimum spr inkler operating areas should be 3~000 sq f t (279 m 2) for wet pipe systems and 3,900 sq f t (363 m L) for dry pipe sxstems ; maximum operating area should not exceed 6,000 sq f t (557 m~).

I f ) No reduction in spr ink ler operating area is recorn~nded for the use of high temperature spr inkler heads.

(~) On new ins ta l la t ions the use of spr inkler heads in the ordlnary temperature range is recommended, subject to maximum cei l ing temperatures as outli.ned in NFPA 13, Standard for the Ins ta l la t ion of Sprinkler Systems.

Delete Sections 4-1.3.1, 4-1.3.2, and 4-1.3.4, and Figure 4-1.3 as information now incorporated in 4-1.3.

Renumber Section 4-1.3.3 to 4-1.3.1.

156

SUBSTANTIATION: Figure 4-1.3 is too restrictive in not taking into account lower storage heights, and i t is fe l t that baled cotton as a commodity offers no greater sprinkler density needs than recommended above, except for a greater operating area to compensate for a faster f i re spread. As to (f) and (g) above, limited tests and actual f i re experience indicate an in i t ia l low heat release; thus, sprinkler heads in the ordinary temperature range should offer some advantage by opening faster than would intermediate or high temperature classifications. COMMII-rEE ACTION: Holcl for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The adoption of this comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review and would propose something that would require considerable research and discussion by the Technical Committee anC cannot be properly handled within the time frame established for processing the Report.

231E- 5 - (4-1.3 and 4-1.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjerstedt, IRM Insurance L'R~RI;[LFf~r-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECORMENDATION: Revise Section 4-1.3 to read:

4-1.3 For tiered or rack storage up to a nominal 15 f t (4.6 m) in height, sprinkler discharge densities and areas of application should be in accordance with Figure 4-I.3. The density provided for the area of operation may be from any point on the selected curve. I t is not necessary to meet more than one point on the selected curve. (Delete reference to 231C).

Revise Section 4-1.3.1 to read: 4-1.3.1 Where roof or ceiling heights would prohibit storage

above a nominal 10 f t (3.1 m), the sprinkler discharge density may be reduced by 20 percent of that indicated in Figure 4-1.3, but not less than 0.15 gpm/ft 2 (0.14 L/s/m2). SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-1.3 as worded refers to 231C, Rack Storage of Materials, which is not intended to cover baled cotton or fibers. The above revision condenses that offered with no actual change.

Section 4oi.3.1 as offered above would compensate for low roofed or ceilinged structures offering limited storage heights. COMMITTEE ACTION: Acce~t.

231E- 6 ° (Figure 4-1.3): Accept SUBMII-FER: Allen I . Hjerstedt, IRM Insurance

PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise Curves C and D of Figure 4-13 as shown below:

Sprinkler Density -- (L/s)m 2

0.08 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.24

Curves - A a C D

SUBSTANTIATION: Curve C is an extrapolation between Commodity Class 4 curve of 231 and 231C (Curve F-of Figure 6-11.1(d)) at the 15 foot storage height.

The figure shown is more in parallel with the aforementioned Curves and corrects the marked difference in densities for upper limit sprinkler operating areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231E- 3 - (4-1.3.4 and B-4): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen R. Hoover, Alliance of American Insurers L'-O'IQUTEN-~'-I~N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Change the term "sprinkler heads" to "sprinklers." SUBSTANTIATION: The term "sprinkler head" is meaningless. The correct term is "sprinkler." Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

Change in all places specifically in the last line of 4-1.3.4, in the twelfth line of f i r s t paragraph and the fourth llne of the second paragraph of B-4.

231E- I0 - (4-1.3.5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Subcommittee on Baled Fibre Storage COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENUAT[ON: Add new Section 4-i.3.5.

4-1.3.5 I f a pipe schedule sprinkler system is installgd, sprinkler head spacing should not exceed 100 sq f t (9.3 m~).

Note: The numeral may have to be changed depending on other revisions in Chapter 4. SUBSTANTIATION: The 231E Subcommittee feels that a 100 sq f t spacing is appropriate and more effective in a baled cotton warehouse in controlling or minimizing f i re spread.

Note to Subcommittee: Think we need more substantiation to the spacing limitations than outlined, especially when densities are below 0.25 gpm/sq f t . Please include with returned ballot. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The adoption of this comment would put NFPA 231E in conflict with NFPA 13 which allows a protection area of 130 f t 2 for ordinary hazard occupancies. The Committee also feels that an important factor is density not area of coverage or spacing.

231E- 2 - (4-4.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Stephen R. Hoover, Alliance of American Insurers ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete the second paragraph:

"Plant water, from . . . of "wet water." SUBSTANTIATION: An outmoded f i re protection technique having no place in present guidance to warehouse protection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels the use of "wet water" is s t i l l a viable f i re protection tool. "Wet water" is used in portable extinguishers and there is an NFPA standard on wetting agents, NFPA 18-1979.

0.12 0.15 0,20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Sprinkler Density -- gpm/ft 2

Figure 4-1.3 Sprinkler System Design Curves

% I

<

o _=

231E- 7 - (5-5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjerstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 5-5.1 to read:

5-5.1 Freshly ginned cotton bales are highly subject to insidious f i res, commonly called "fire-packed bales," originating from the ginning operation. Remainder of section as written. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. The period following "fires" results in an interruption to the overall thought. Feel the rewording above offers a smoother line of thought and information as intended. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231E- 16 - (5-7.1.2 Note): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Association ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise Note to read as follows:

NOTE: When hose reels are used, they should be easily pulled by t ~ people. SUBSTANTIATION: Change men to people. The people involved can be either male or female. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the note to read as follows: NOTE: When hose reels are used, they should be easily pulled by

two persons. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and the use of "persons," rather than "people," which more accurately specifies the intent, should satisfy the submitter.

157

231E- 11 - (2-3.1.1 and A-2-3.1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Subcommittee on Baled Fibre Storage

PROPOSAL NO.: 231E-1 RECOMMENDATION: Asterisk 2-3.1.1, and add to Appendix:

A-2.3.1.1 NFPA 80A suggests that exposing or exposed buildings, where protected throughout by an approved properly maintained system of automatic sprinklers of adequate design for the hazard involved, no exposure hazard is considered to exist or the exposing hazard is materially reduced.

The aforementioned concept is well recognized and may be acceptable subject to the authority having jurisdiction.

However, the possibil i ty remains that even a well designed sprinkler system could be subject to failure due to that outlined in Section I-2, and in accordance with that allowed in I-1.4, as an alternate to NFPA 80A, Section 2-3 may be applied to sprinklered warehouses, or as an option to f i re divisions, clear spaces may be used based on Table A-2.3.1.1.

Table A-2.3.1.1

7 6 ~5 2 22 8 30,4 38 0

200- - - - - 60 B

1 oo - - - - - ,~v- C" 3o 4 g

25 50 7S ~o0 1~5

Clear spaces between sprinklered buildings . f t

Curve Legend: A Facing walls of both buildings being masonry or

reinforced concrete with no more than 10 percent wall openings.

B One building having a masonry wall as in Curve A, and the other wall being of any other type material.

C - Both facing walls being other than masonry. The condition requiring the greatest clear space should be used

as in the following example:

r

i ..... 1 75'(22 9 m)

IO0' 130 5 m)

Masonry

I No~.

o

NORTH: Masonry wall, 100 f t (30.5 m) in length facing a 75 f t (22.9 m) metal wall: Use Curve B, 75 f t (22.9 m) length for a clear space of 65 f t (19.8 m).

EAST: Both walls nonmasonry, the longest 200 f t (61 m): Use Curve C for a clear space of about 100 f t (30.5 m).

WEST: Both masonry walls, the longest 200 f t (61 m): Use Curve A for a clear space of 50 f t (15.2 m).

NOTE 1: The curves in Table A-2-3.1.1 should be used with all buildings having an approved sprinkler system, whether under public protection or not so protected.

NOTE 2: For buildings having a sprinkler system not in accordance with Chapter 4, or those not sprinklered, the clear space should be increased by 50 percent of that obtained in Table A-2-3.1 . I .

NOTE 3: Nonsprinklered buildings, not under public protection, as established by the authority having jurisdiction, should have the clear space increased by 100 percent of that obtained in Table A-2-3.1.1.

NOTE 4: Interpolation to reduce or increase clear spaces for situations other than indicated should be referred to the authority having jurisdiction.

NOTE 5: No modification of clear space is recommended for the installation of outside open or automatic sprinklers along the roof or eave lines of either or both exposing buildings.

SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 80A is a Recommended Practice with no mandatory provisions, as is 231E.

231E contains, under Section 1-1.4, a statement mandated by the NFPA Standards Council to be incorporated in all documents, to the effect that "there is no intent to restrict new technologies or alternative arrangements that may offer improved protective features over those outlined." The informative inclusion of clear spaces or f i re walls between sprinklered baled cotton warehouses in the Appendix offers an "improved" option to that which 80A outlines; thus, no conflict t ruly exists.

In the Forward of 80A, a statement is offered to the effect that, "The hazards of exposure to a structure from adjacent exposing fires and the almost numberless variety of conditions under which such exposure may occur render impossible the formulation of any simple table, formulae or set of rules which will adequately cover all conditions." In Appendix A of 80A is also stated: "The present state of art of f i re protection engineering is such that i t is r~)t possible to define clearly how all or even a few of these variables (pre-listed to statement) interact to influence exposure severity." The subcommittee members favoring that Recommended above readily agrees with the 80A statements and feels that cotton warehousing offers a f i re condition that was not considered by 80A for the following reasons:

1) 80A indicates that 15 Ibs/ f t 2 and up as a "severe" f ire loading catagory, but without definition of Btus per Ib or rate of heat release, and no broad examples of occupancy. A cotton warehouse , when fu l l , offers the potential of in excess of 100 Ibs/ f t ~ of f i re loading, or well in excess of what 80A indicates under its severest category. I t would seem that 80A does not cover a f i re loading of this magnitude.

2) In recommending f i re walls or clear spaces between sprinklered cotton warehouses, i t is well recognized by subcommittee members listed that sprinkler protection is the most reliable means of protection afforded. However, sprinkler protection as outlined in 231E is s t i l l largely emperical, and in real i ty sprinkler systems do fa i l for a variety of reasons; thus, i t is fe l t that informative options should be made available to the cotton warehousing indjustry as a back-up to sprinkler protection, and that clear spaces outlined or f i re walls have served this industry well over the years.

3) 80A does not define what catagory all-metal construction may apply to, although 4-2.2 of 80A states, "Non-combustible exposed exterior wall ( f i re resistance less than 3 hours)." This could include nonrated masonry, aluminum, corrugated iron, corrugated asbestos, etc., each of which may have a different resistance to radiated heat. Cotton warehouses buil t today are, for the most part, of all-metal construction. Catagorizing such construction within 80A could lead to various interpretations and erroneous results by individuals.

In summary, 80A appears ambiguous and short as to what the wide variety of occupancies and construction types may offer, and cotton warehousing should be considered outside its scope.

That recommended above offers a reasonably safe "rule-of-thumb" option to 80A rather than supercede i t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The adoption of this comment would conflict with NFPA 80A which does not require spacing between buildings that are protected with automatic sprinkler systems.

158

PART II

231F- 25 - (1-1.1): A:cept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allan I . Hjerstedt, IRM Insurance ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Recommend revis'~on to read:

I-1.1 This standard applies to the storage of ro l l paper when in buildings or structJres. SUBSTANTIATION: The w3rd "stored," in second line is superfluous as "storage of ro l l paper," has already been indicated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read as follows: I-1.1 This standard applies to the storage of ro l l paper in

buildings or structure~. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The CommitteE, agrees with the submitter but feels the deletion of :he word "when" makes the intent clearer.

231F- 26 - (1-1.2): A,:cept in principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjerstedt, IRM Insurance ~ N PROPOSAL NO,: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Recomnend change to read:

1-1.2 The provision:~ in this standard apply to new f a c i l i t i e s or when converting existing buildings to ro l l paper storage occupancy. I t may be used as a basis for evaluating existing storage f a c i l i t i e s . SUBSTANTIATION: As presently written, the word "contained" and the double use of " ro l l paper storage" superfluous.

Second sentence star':ing with, "They" is improper, being more of a personal pronoun. The word " I t . . ." is more suitable being an impersonal pronoun. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read as follows: i-1.2 This standard applies to new fac i l i t i e s or when

converting existing bu Idings to ro l l paper storage occupancy. I t may be used as a basis for evaluating existing storage f a c i l i t i e s . COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but feels the d e l ~ n of ihe words "The provisions in" makes the intent clearer.

231F- 28 - (1- I .3.2 ant A-I-1.3.2 (New)): Accept in pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjer tstedt , IRM Insurance ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Recomnend revis ion of Section i -1.3.2 as fol lows:

I -1.3.2" Storage uncer 10 f t (3 m) in height. A-I-1.3.2 For storace below 10 f t (3 m) in height, the

spr inkler design c r i t e r i a should be in accordance with Figure A- I - I .2 at that indicated for the 10 f t (3 m) level , but excluding the application of Sections 5-1.3, 5-1.4 and 5-1.6. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 1-1.3.2 presently references NFPA 13 for storage below 10 f t without qual i f icat ion.

Based on the requirements of Figure 5-1.2, and Ordinary Hazard Group 3 of NFPA 13, the differences in sprinkler specifications can be considerable for minor storage height variations.

As that outlined and "required" in Chapter 5 and Figure 5-1.2 of NFPA 231F is based on actual tests, i t is f e l t that 231F should of fer specific guidance for storage heights below that indicated. This would then take into consideration the variances in arrays, bending and paper weights. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete I-1.3.2 and revise 5-I.2 to read as follows: 5-1.2 Storage of Heavy Weight Class or Medium Weight Class ro l l

paper, as defined by this standard under 10 f t (3 m) in height shall be protected by sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Instal lat ion of Sprinkler Systems, for Ordinary Hazard Group 3. CO~ITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has added a reference t ) Ordinary Hazard Group 3 for storage under 10 f t in height and rel%ated the section to 5-1.2 which is a more appropriate location.

231F- 21 - ( i-1.3.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance ~ N PROPOSAL NO. : N/A RECOMMENDATION: Sectio~ i-1.3.2 refers to NFPA 13 without qualif ications. Sugges: returning to subcommittee for guidance on storages below 10 feet. SUBSTANTIATION: Is i t ~ssumed that NFPA 13 would cover ro l l paper under Ordinary Hazards Group 3? And of any weight class, banded or unbanded?

231F presently offers a "minimum" .3/2000 under Figure 5-1.2 and Figure A-1-I.2 ranges from .2/2000, .2/2500, and .3/2000.

NFPA 13 would of fer .22/1500 or .2/2000, and not d i f ferent iate between weight classes or banding, nor temperature rating for sprinklers.

Possibly the present ]0 foot height starting point should apply to al l storages up to 10 feet, or take in down to 5 feet? COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comment No. 28 on I-1.3.2

231F- 20 - (1-2): Accept SUBMITTER Allen I. Hjertstedt , IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Under Section i-2 Purpose. Last sentence, last l ine, change word "safety" to "protection." SUBSTANTIATION: The word "protection" is more appropriate when dealing with protection of property against f i r e !oss. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231F- 29 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, An~rican Insurance Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: "Wrapped Storage" should be defined as:

"Rolls provided with a complete heavy kra f t covering around both the sides and the ends." SUBSTANTIATION: C la r i f i ca t i on . "Both sides," as in proposal, is 5nclear; t he~ are not two sides. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231F- 8 - ( i -3 and Figure B-I) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjertstedt , IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Change to read:

Standard Array. A ver t ica l storage arrangement where the distance between columns in one direct ion is small ( I in. (25 mm) or less), and in excess of 2 in. (50 mm) in the other direct ion.

Figure B-I plan View of Typical Tissue Storage Standard Array. SUBSTANTIATION: Standard Array de f in i t i on confusing in l imi t ing distance in one direct ion only. Distance of other direct ion should be qual i f ied.

In Figure B-I, is this array "standard?" Columns abut in one direct ion with spacing between columns in other direct ion of 6 and 16 inches. I f a Standard Array, so state as an example. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Revise the def in i t ion of "Standard Array" as submitted. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the revised def in i t ion of "Standard Array" as submitted. The dimensions in Figure B-1 exceed those for a standard array. The Committee feels the de f in i t i on is adequate without an i l l u s t ra t i on .

231F- 7 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Allen I. Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RE{/OMMENDATION: Under Section 1-3, Wrapped Storag~ has an aster isk, but in the Appendix the explanatory narrat ive is under A-I-1.3.7.

Suggest preceding Wrapped Storage with A-I-3. SUBSTANTIATION: Ed i to r ia l . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231F- 6 - (1-3): Reject SUBMITTER: Allen I. Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A R~uumMtNUArIUN: ~ual i t icat ion of - "Incidental Storage" - suggest appendix quideline:

"Incidental Storage* Roll paper that occurs in areas . . ." Precede "Wrapped Storage" - under A-1-3. Incidental Storage. As a general rule and to of fer guidelines

for protection, area of storage defined as in excess of "incidental" should be considered when a storage array is 250 sq f t or greater and at least in a double row configuration. Either Figure 5-1.2 or A-1-1.2 may be applied. SUBSTANTIATION: The term "incidental" is ambiguous and subject to various interpretations. A suggested guideline should be offered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CDMMIFTEL UUMMENT: The Committee was unable to formulate a comprehensive definit ion that would apply to al l types of incidental storage and f e l t the subject was so broad that i t would make any Appendix material of l i t t l e value to the user.

Z31F- 5 - ( i -3 ) : Accept in Part SUBMII-TER: Allen I. Hjertstedt , IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Under 1-3 Def in i t ions, suggest deleting:

I ] Exfo l ia t ion. 2) Rack Storage. 3) Sprinkler Or i f i ce Size. 4) Sprinkler Temperature Rating.

SUBSTANTIATION: Item i ) , P), 3), 4) above not needed as in the case of 1), there is no reference to this in the Standard or Appendix; 2), is referenced under Section 1-h3.4, and excluded; 3) and 4) are covered in NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Delete the definitions of "Exfol iat ion" and "Sprinkler Orif ice Size."

159

COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter for parts 1 and 3 of his comment. The def ini t ion of "Rack Storage" is needed because i t is mentioned in 1-1.3.4. "Sprinkler Temperature Rating" is needed because i t is mentioned in 5-1.5 as published in the TCR.

_ _ m

231F- 4 - (1-3): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization

PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Revised the def in i t ion "Sprinkler Orif ice Size" to read:

" . . . and a large drop sprinkler has a nominal 0.64 in. (16.3 mm) or i f ice and special f i re plume penetration characteristics. SUBSTANTIATION: UL have listed a 0.64 or i f ice sprinkler other than the model used in the f i re test program, and which has not so far as I know been tested for f i re plume penetration. This "Extra Large Orifice" sprinkler would deliver 45 gpm at 16.5 psi (vs 31.5 psi for a large or i f ice sprinkler) and 60 gpm at 29.5 psi (vs 56 psi for a large or i f ice. ) This would sat isfy Figure 5-1.2 density requirements for a l l height and storage arrays except Medium Weight Open, at i00 sq f t spacing. However, in the absence of test information there is nothing to indicate that the actual discharge patterns from these spr inklers at the i r lower operating pressures would resu l t in a degree of f i r e control equivalent to that contemplated by the standard. UL does not require a penetration test, and i t does not seem appropriate to extrapolate from performance in a 350 Ib wood crib test and pan tests to "equivalent" performance with up to 25 f t high ro l l paper. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~OMMITTEE COMMENT: The intent of the Committee was to define '~Sprinkler Orif ice Size" only and no other characteristic of a sprinkler. Also there is a discussion of large drop sprinkler systems in Section A-5-1.2.

231F- 10 - (4-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: The word "tissue" be deleted from sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Tissue is clearly excluded under Section I-1.3.6, and reference here may be confusing to user. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete "tissue" in the last line and add a new A-4-I to read as fol lows:

A-4-1 P i l ing Procedures and Precautions. Floor load design should take into account the added weight of water which could be absorbed during f i r e f i gh t ing operations by commodities such as tissue.

Add an asterisk at 4- I . COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that although the storage of tissue is not covered by the standard, guidance is needed on pi l ing procedures involving tissue. The Committee has removed "tissue" from the body of the text and added a new appendix section for guidance.

231F- 39 - (4-2.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT

PROPOSAL NO. : N/A RECOMMENDATION: Remove this entire Section 4-2.5 SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement is ambiguous - what clearance, I f t I /8 inch! COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Although no clearances are specified the Committee feels that i t is good guidance. The actual amount of clearance would depend on the f ie ld instal lat ion and would vary as the type and size of lights used and the type of paper stored.

SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-3.1 as presently worded refers to the storage of commodities which expand with the absorption of water, a generalization. 231F deals with a specific commodity and should reference that commodity only.

I f expansion rates are di f ferent due to banding or by weight of paper this should be qualif ied by the subcommittee. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read as follows: 4-3.1 Wall aisles shall be at leas 24 in. (600 mm) wide to

minimize possible structural damage from rol l paper that expands with the absorption of water. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has ed i to r ia l l y revised i t for c la r i t y .

231F- 40 - (5-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT L~O-M-MENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Add "new" in the f i r s t sentence:

" . . . and higher in new buildings or structures . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: Figure A- I - I ,2 is to apply to Existing Storage Faci l i t ies (see A-1-I.2) and Figure 5-1.2 to New Faci l i t ies why not say i t in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CUMMITTEE COMMENT: The standard also applies to existing buildings that have been converted to ro l l paper storage and existing ro l l paper storage fac i l i t i es that are having a sprinkler system installed for the f i r s t time.

231F- 42 - (Figures 5-1.2 and A-1-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Add a less than sign "<" in front of the f i r s t , th i rd, f i f t h , etc. 5 f t clearance in both Figures. SUBSTANTIATION: Greater than 5 f t is l isted but what do you use i f you have less than 5 f t clearance. The figures now currently only l i s t i f you have exactly 5 f t clearance or greater than a 5 f t clearance ( i .e . what i f the clearance is only 3 f t - the Figures can not presently be used). I am sure not all clearances are 5 f t or > 5 f t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add < before the f i r s t , th i rd, f i f t h and seventh items in Table T-1.2 and f i r s t , th i rd, f i f t h , seventh and ninth items in Table A- I - I .2 . Change the designation of the tables from Figures 5-1.2 and A- I - I .2 to Tables 5-1.2 and A-1-1.2 respectively. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but feels equal to or less than 5 f t is mere appropriate than less than because i t also applies to exactly 5 f t .

231F- 41 - (Figures 5-1.2 and A-1-1.2): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT~N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECUMMENUATIUN: Revlse Figures 5-1.2 and A- I - I .2 as follows:

Add: "To Sprinkler Deflector" after "Clearance." Move "Closed Standard Open" up in Figures under Weight. Add: "Array" to "Closed, Standard and Open." Add: "Banded or Unbanded" under "Closed Heavyweight." Add: "Or Unbanded" to "Standard Medium Weight." Provide more space between the groupings especially the

di f ferent weights. SUBSTANTIATION: These tables are very d i f f i c u l t to read and not complete. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

The Committee accepts all the submitter's comments except the f i r s t . The Committee feels that "Clearance" is already defined in i-3 Definit ions. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See The Committee Action on Comment No. 15 on Figure 5-1.2 and F~gure A- I - I .2 .

231F- 11 - (4-2.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Allen I .Hjer tstedt , IRM Insurance L'-O-MW~-E-NT-ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

4-2.6 Suff icient clearance shall be maintained around the path of f i re door travel, and f i re extinguishing and protection equipment to assure accessibi l i ty for inspection and operational use. SUBSTANTIATION: Broadens statement to ref lect the need to inspect and use al l f i re protection equipment. As worded, comment infers only f i re doors in need of attention. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

~ m

231F- 22 - (4-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMI1-FER: Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Recommend changing to read:

4-3.1 Wall aisles shall be at least 24 in. (60 mm) wide to minimize possible structural damage as ro l l paper expands with the absorption of water.

231F- 34 - (Figure 5-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Richard Oacobson, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Change densities and areas for 15 and 20 f t high medium weight paper in a banded standard array as shown:

Medium Weight

Closed Banded Banded Open Banded or Unbanded Standard or Unbanded

.3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 lo f t

.3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000

.3/2000 .45/2000 .45/2500 15 f t

.3/2000 .45/2500 .45/3000

.3/2000 .6/2000 .6/2500 2Oft

.3/2500 .6/2500 .6/3000

25it .45/3000 .6/3000 .75/2500

160

SUBSTANTIATION: Colum headings and demands for medium weight paper in the~roposed standard insinuate that standard banded array is signif icant l j less hazardou than open banded array. This is unsupported by tes!: data with medium weight paper. In fact, Test C2 and C4 showed that standard (unbanded) arrays are as hazardous as open (unbanded) arrays.

I f I recall correctly, column headings for medium weight paper in an earlier draft proposal developed by the Roll Paper Subcommittee at the April 8, iq82 Newark meeting looked like this:

Medium Weight

Closed Banded Standard or Open Banded or Unbanded Banded Unbanded

.3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000

.3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000

.3/2000 .3/2000 .45/2500

.3/2000 .3/2500 .45/3000

.3/2000 .45/2500 .6/2500

.3/2500 .45/3000 .6/3000

.45/3000 .6/300n .75/2500

Afterwards, I believE, the Subcommittee f e l t that no credi t should be given to banded mecium weight paper unless stored in a standard array. Consequently, open banded array was grouped with open unbanded and standard unbanded array, as is presently proposed in 231F. In doing so an inconsistency with the f i re tests developed.

Changing the densities and areas as shown in this comment accomplishes three objectives:

I) Reflects the mirimal effect between standard and open array with medium weight paper as shown in Test C2 and C4.

2) Reflects more consistently the effects of banding in a standard array as sho~'n in Tests A2 and A3 involving heavyweight paper.

3) Continues to support the subcommittee's view that banding is not effective with medium weight paper when stored in an open array, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMII-FEE COMMENT: The Committee feels the protection specified in Figure 5-1.2 is adequate. The Committee agrees that tests C2 and C4 did not show a reduction in hazard due to array alone. However, i t was fe l t that the benefit of banding and standard array in combination was adequately demonstrated by the f ire test data and earlier test work.

231F- 30 - (Figure 5-].2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: We believe the figure should be revised by rearanging the headings as il lustrated, in part, as shown on next page. Technically, we cannot state how we believe the medium weight columns should be identified; we note, however, that unhanded standard arrays seem to be completely omitted. SUBSTANTIATION: The figure is unclear due to the arrangement of

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 15 on Figure 5-1.2 and Figure A-I- I .2.

231F- 23 - (Figure 5-I.2 and Figure A-1-I.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Recommend in both Figures 5-1.2 and A-1-1.2 adding to hea-dings the word, "array" ( i .e . , Standard Array, Open Array, Closed Array, etc.) SUBSTANTIATION: To avoid confusion between definitions as listed under Sectio~-l-3 and headings. The use of definitions should be constant throughout the narrative and Figures offered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Conment Nos. 15 and 41 on Figures 5-1.2 and A-I-1.2.

231F- 15 - (Figure 5-1.2 and Fiqure A-1-1.2): Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: Pete Murphy, Champion Internat ion Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Under Medium Weight the column labeled "Banded Standard" should read:

"Standard Banded or Unbanded" SUBSTANTIATION: The exist ing f igures do not give "any" protect ion requirements for Medium Weight, Standard array, unbanded. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Revise Figure 5-1.2 and Figure A-I-1.2 as shown on next page. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Based on the test data, the suggested change would result in inadequate protection for "Standard Unbanded." The Committee has provided a separate colum for "Medium Weight Standard Unbanded."

231F- 19 - (Figure 5-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Jack Barr i t t , Industrial Risk Insurers ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Under-"Heavyweight" category, "Open" array, the area of application for 25 f t high storage, "Banded" and "Unbanded" should be increased by 500 sq f t to become .6/3000 and .6/3500 respectively. SUBSTANTIATION: In view of the approach taken for other arrays and weights of paper iq this standard, i t does not appear logical to reduce the area of ~pplication as storage height increases even though the density is being increased. The minimal approach would be to hold the area of application constant as the density is adjusted for height.

Compare, for instance, in Table 5-I.2 the protection of 20-ft high "heavyweight pape ̂ , open array, banded" with 20-ft high "mediun~veight paper, s:andard array, banded." The former requires 0.45/3000 while the laLter requires 0.45/9500. Same density, but the heavyweight array "equires 500 sq f t more area of application. However, for the same arrangement and types of paper at 25 f t , we now find ;hat the heavyweight paper requires 500 sq f t "less" protection -- a swing of 1000 sq f t !

Except for the two cited instances, the area of application has either remained constant or been increased with increases in height of storage. I know of no reason for reversing this approach -- i .e. , reducing areas of application with increases in height -- for the two arrangements mentioned. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ : The Committee feels the protection specified in Figure 5-1.2 is adequate.

Fire tests indicated that increasing the storage height of heavyweight paper from 20 f t to 25 f t while holding other factors constant, nearly doubled the number of sprinklers opening. An actual f i re in banded heavyweight stored 20 f t high open array with less than 5 f t clear space and protected at 0.58/2400 only opened two sprinklers. Allowing for the increase in height i t is the consensus of the Committee while the recommended criteria does appear logical, i t is ~Ldequate at 0.60/3000.

161

Heavyweight Medium Weight Standard Open

Storage Clearance Closed Closed Banded Banded Open Banded Height ( f t ) ( f t ) Banded Unhanded Banded Unbanded or Unbanded Standard or Unbanded

10 5 .3 /2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/200n

10 >5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3 /2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000

15 5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2500 .3/3000 .3/200~ .3/2000 .4B/25PO

15 >5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3 /2000 .3 /3000 .3/3500 .3/2000 .3/2500 .45/3000

20 5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3 /2500 ,45/3000 ,45/3500 .3/2000 .45/2500 .6/2500

20 >5 .3/2000 .3/2500 .3 /3000 .45/3500 .45/4000 .3/2500 .45/3000 .6/3000

25 5 .45/2500 .45/3000 .45/3500 .6/?500 .6/3000 .45/3000 .6/3000 .75/2500

Figure 5-1.2

NOTE Densities and/or areas may be interpolated between any 5 f t storage heiqht increment.

Storage Height ( i t )

I0

10

15

15

20

20

25

Heavyweight Medium Weight Closed Array Standard Array Open Array Closed Array Standard Array Open Array

Clearance Banded or Banded or Banded or ( i t ) Unbanded Banded Unbanded Banded Unbanded Unbanded Banded Unhanded Unbanded

<5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3 /2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 . 3 / 2 0 0 0 .3/2000

>5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000

<5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2500 .3/3000 .3/2000 .3/2000 . 4 5 / 2 5 0 0 .45/2500

>5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/3000 .3/3500 .3/2000 .3/2500 . 4 5 / 3 0 0 0 .4513000

<5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3 /2500 .45/3000 .45/3500 .3/2000 .45/2500 .6/2500 .6/2500

>5 .3/2000 .3/2500 .3 /3000 .45/3500 .45/4000 .3/2500 .45/3000 .6/3000 .6/3000

<5 .45/2500 .45/3n00 .45/3500 .6/2500 .6/3000 .45/3000 .6/3000 . 7 5 / 2 5 0 0 .75/2500

Table 5-1.2 Design Density/Area of Application Chart

NOTE: Densities and/or areas may be fnterpoTated between any 5 f t storage height increment.

Heavyweight Medium Weight Closed Array Standard Array Open Array Closed Array Standard Array Open Array

Storage Clearance Banded or Banded or Banded or Height ( i t ) ( i t ) Unbanded Banded Unbanded Banded Unhanded Unbanded Banded Unbanded Unbanded

10 <5 .2/2000 .2/2000 .2/2000 .25/2000 .25/2000 .2/2000 .25/2000 . 3 / 2 0 0 0 .3/2000

10 >5 .2/2000 .2/2000 .2/2000 .25/2500 .25/2500 .2/2000 .25/2000 . 3 / 2 0 0 0 .3/2000

15 < 5 .25/2000 .25/2000 .25/2500 .3/2500 .3 /3000 .25/2000 .3/2000 .45 /2500 .45/2500

15 >5 .25/2000 .25/2000 .25/2500 .3/3000 .3 /3500 .25/2000 .3/2500 .45 /3000 .45/3000

20 <5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2500 .45/3000 .45/3500 .3/2000 .45/2500 . 6 / 2 5 0 0 .6/2500

20 >5 .3/2000 .3/2500 .3/3000 .45/3500 .45/4000 .3/2500 .45/3000 . 6 / 3 0 0 0 .6/3000

25 <5 .45/2500 .45/3000 .45/3500 .6/2500 .6/3000 .45/3000 .6/3000 .75/2500 .75/2500

25 >5 .45/3000 .45/3500 .45/4000 .6/3000 .6/3500 .45/3500 .6/3500 . 7 5 / 3 0 0 0 .75/3000

30 <5 .6/2500 .6/3000 .6/3000 .75/2500 .75/3000 .6/4000 .75/3000 . 75 /3500 .75/3500

Table A-I.1.2 Design Density/Area of Application Chart

NOTE: Densities and/or areas may be interpolated between any 5 f t storage height increment.

162

231F- 16 - (Figure 5-1.2 and Figure A-1-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Pete Murphy, Champion International Corporation Lr6]~I@J~-NT~ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Under "Heavyweight" column and under "Closed" column should read:

"Closed Banded or Unbanded." SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording leads to confusion. ~ O N : Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 41 on Figures 5-1.2 and A-1-].2.

The 1/2 in. orif ice sprinkler has a good track record for protection of many commodities in several configurations and cannot be ignored even in new installations. For densities below 0.3 gpm/sq f t they may be applicable. Above 0.3 gpm/sq f t they wil l begin to cancel out of their own accord due to the high pressures needed.

The density/area concept has not yet been demonstrated for either the 0.64 in. orif ice or fast response sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 43 on 5-1.3 and NO. 5 on 1-3.

231F- 43 - (5-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT

PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Make an exception for an extra large orif ice (.64 in.) sprinkler. SUBSTANTIATION: Is this an adequate minimum pressure for an extra large orifice (.64 in.) sprinkler? This minimum requirement makes no exceptions so i t would apply to "al l" sprinklers. See Section A-6.I.2 i t states that the minimum pressure should be 50 psi. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 5-1.3 through 5-1.8 as follows: Renumber 5-1.2 as 5-].3. Renumber 5-1.3 as 5-1.3.2. Renumber 5-1.4 as 5-1.3.1 and revise to read as follows: 5-1.3.1 The 17/32 in. (13.5 mm) nominal orif ice sprinkler shall

be used for new installations. Renumber 5-1.5 as 5-1.3.3. Renumber 5-1.6 as 5-1.3.4. Renumber A-5-I.6 as A-5-I.3.3. Renumber 5-1.7 as 5-1.4. Renumber 5-1.8 as 5-1.5 and rewse as follows: 5-1.5 Where dry pipe systems are used, the areas of operation

indicated by Figure 5-1.2 shall be increased by 30 percent. Add a new A-5-I.5 to read as follows: A-5-1.5 In a dry pipe system the 30 percent area increase

should be compounded, i.e. 2000 f t 2 (1.67 for low temperature sprinkler) (1.3 for dry pipe systems) = total area (4342 i t2) . Where dry pipe systems are used in existing installations, the areas of operation indicated by Figure A-1-I.2 should be increased by 30 percent. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee has deleted "the minimum size sprinkler" from 5-1.3.1 (old 5-1.4). Table 5-1.2 is based on the use of large orif ice sprinklers and the clarif ication and reorganization should satisfy the submitter's intent.

231F- 3 - (6-1.4): Accept in principle SUBMITTER: T. G. Colli~ge, Insurers' Advisory Organization L'~O'MP~E-NI~-ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Add second sentence to Section 5-1.4:

"Sprinklers of larger nominal orifice size shall possess special f i re plume penetration characteristics (see A-5.1.2)." SUBSTANTIATION: UL have listed a 0.64 orifice sprinkler other than the model used in ;;he f i re test program, and which has not so far as I know been tested for f i re plume penetration. This "Extra Large Orifice" sprinkler would deliver 45 gpm at 16.5 psi (vs 31.5 psi for a large orifice sprinkler) and 60 gpm at 29.5 psi (vs 56 psi for a large orif ice.) This would satisfy Figure 5-1.2 density requirements for all height and storage arrays except Medium Weight Open, at 100 sq i't spacing. However, in the absence of test information there is nothing to indicate that the actual discharge patterns from these sprinklers at their low operating pressures would result n a degree of f i re control equivalent to that contemplated by the standard. UL does not require a penetration test~ and i t does not seem appropriate to extrapolate from performance in a 350 Ib wood crib test and pan tests to "equivalent" performance with up to 25 f t high rol l paper. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. ~ T : The Committee intended that only large orif ice sprinklers should be used. See the Committee Action on Public Comment No. 43 on 5-1.3 specifically the new 5-1.3.1. The use of large drop sprinkler systems is adequately discussed in A-5-I.2.

231F- 2 - (5-1.4 and A-5.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Stephen R. Froover, Alliance of American Insurers I~)~IRE'RT-I)N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 5-1.4 as follows:

5-1.4 The densities and areas provided in Figures 5-1.2 and A-I-1.2 are based on f i re tests using standard response, large orif ice (17/32 in.) sprinklers. To use standard orif ice (1/2 in.), extra large orifice (.64 in.), or fast response sprinklers consult the authority having jurisdiction and A-5.1.2.

Add the following to A-5.1.2: "The standard orif ice (1/2 in.) sprinkler was not used to

establish Figure 5-1.2 and A-I.1.2 however, there is ample testing of other commodities to show that i t is possible to protect roll paper with I/2 in." SUBSTANTIATION: The tables used in the standard are based on standard response, large orifice (17/32 in.) sprinklers. The standard should be clear on that point so that other types of sprinklers are not used without further consultation.

231F- 1 - (5-1.5", A-1-1.3.6, A-5.1.2, and A-5-1.6): Accept SUBMIl-rER: Stephen R. Hoover, Alliance of American Insurers L'~II~g~"~'-~N PROPOSAL NO. : N/A RECOMMENDATION: In Section 5-1.5" change the term "sprinkler heads" to "sprinklers."

In Section A-5.1.2 revise the f i f t h paragraph as follows: "Large (Irop . large drop sprinklers with a maximum spacing

of 100 f t ~ (9.3 m2i and a minimum spacing of BOft ~ (7.5 ~).,,

In the sixth paragraph change "sprinkler heads" to "sprinklers." In Section A-5-I.6 change the term "sprinkler heads" to

"s pr ink I ers." SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "sprinkler head" or "head" are meaningless in this connotation. The correct term is "sprinkler." Also in the last llne of the f i f th paragraph of A-5.1.2 the spacing^is 80 f t 2 (not 80 i t ) and the conversion is approximately 7.5 m L (not 24 m). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231F- 44 - (5-1.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Delete "by the area curves." SUBSTANTIATION: I can not find an~ area curves in this standard. ~UMMIlItt A~11Ofl: Accept in Princlple. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 43 on 5-1.3. The revised 5-1.5 refers to Figure 5-1.2 rather than "the area curves."

231F- 24 - (5-1.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I. Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Recommend rewording:

5-1.8 Where dry pipe systems are used, the areas of sprinkler operation shall be increased by 30 percent. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 5-1.8 as presently worded refers to "curves" as a basis for increasing operating area. There are no curves. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COM~ITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on the new 5-1.5 for comment NO. 43 on 5-1.3.

231F- 14 - (5-1.8 and A-5.1.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Pete Murphy, Champion International Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: When increased area for sprinklers less than 286°F is also used each percentage increase should be applied independently. SUBSTANTIATION: I f existing system is dry and uses 1650 rated heads, the demand area wil l vary depending on how the 30 percent and 67 percent factors are applied:

l~I 3/2000 + 2000 (30> + 2000 (67> o 313940 (a) .3/2000 + 2000 (.30) = .3/2600 then (b) .3/2000 + 2600 (.67) = .3/4342

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Accepted industrial practice for designing sprinklr systems for rol l paper storage is to compound the correction factors. The Committee agrees with this procedure. See the Committee Action for the new A-5-1.5 for Comment No. 43 on 5-1.3.

231F- 17 - (Appendix A-2): Reject SUBMII-FER: Pete Murphy, Champion International Corporation ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: NEEDS RECOMMENDATION. SUBSTANTIATION: Results of small scale tests should be reported to determine validity of applying protection needs for 10 lb. newsprint to (e.g. 19 lb. bond paper). In my opinion 19 lb. bond paper burns closer to heavyweight than to newsprint. Consideration should be given to using curves to determine density required, based on actual basis weight.

163

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ : Small scale testing is only an indicator that the surface burn rate varies with the basis weight. Only fu l l scale testing should be used to establish density requirements. The cut off between Heavy Weight Class and Medium Weight Class is the Committee's best judgement and that typical ly used in the paper industry.

231F- 45 - (5-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Hose demand criteria should be added and or state where small hoses can be supplied from i.e sprinkler systems. SUBSTANTIATION: No small hose demand is given only the reference to NFPA 14 and this is not applicable to Roll Paper Storage. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Hose demand cri ter ia are provided in 5-3.2.

231F- 46 - (5-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Delete:

"Also see NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems."

Also delete "NFPA 14" from Appendix C. SUBSTANTIATION: Why is i t necessary to install a standpipe and Hose System according to NFPA 14 to reduce 1/2 of the portable f i re extinguisher requirement. Shouldn't small hoses taken from the sprinkler system be just as adequate i f included into the sprinkler demand design? No reference is made in NFPA 231, 231C, or 231D about following NFPA 14. COMMII-FEE ACTION: Accept.

231F- 47 - (5-6.2(a) through (h)): Reject SUBMITTER: Carroll V. Lovett, Easton, CT ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Rearrange the order of the various items according to importance. Item (a) should be last. Item (g) should be moved up to near the top. The last part of (h) "Safety and evacuation procedures" should be listed f i r s t . SUBSTANTIATION: These items should be listed in order of importance. Safety and evacuation procedures should be paramount and not listed last. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: All the items listed are of equal importance. I t was not the Committee's intent that they be listed in order of importance.

231F- 13 - (5-7* and A-5-7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECUF4MENDATION: Confusing duplication - Section 5-7 regarding Alarm Service indicates mandatory supervised sprinkler alarm service. A-5.7 indicates "should" or suggested. Should be one or the other.

Recommend: 5-7- Alarm Service. Central Station, auxiliary, remote

station, or proprietary sprinkler waterflow alarm service shall be provided.

A-5-7 Local waterflow alarm may be acceptable where . . . complete paragraph as written. SUBSTANTIATION: Duplication results in sprinkler supervision being mandatory and nonmandatory.

This statement, "Local waterflow alarm may be . . . , " indicates suggestive and should be in the Appendix. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le .

Delete the second sentence and add as an exception to 5-7 to read as follows:

Exception: Local waterflow alarm may be acceptable where recorded guard service is provided.

Delete A-5.7 and the asterisk at 5-7. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and the reorganization should satisfy his intent.

231F- 38 - (Chapter 2, Figure A-1-1.2 and A-2): Reject SUBMITTER: Carrol l V. Lovett , Easton, CT COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A REUUMMENDAIION: Dlvlde Medium Weight Class into two (2) groups i .e . 10 Ib to 15 Ib and 15 Ib to 20 Ib. Also, revise the appropriate spr inkler design c r i t e r i a for ex is t ing buildings or structures in Figure A - I - I . 2 to be more appropriate due to the weight/burning rate. See the f igure shown below. You may also wish to reconsider Figure 5-1.2.

Add a statement in the Appendix: "When d i f fe ren t weight classes are used together, use the higher

spr ink ler design." SUBSTANTIATION: Being that the f i ve tests val idated that the burning rate is dependent on the paper weight and only i0 Ib/lO00 sq f t newsprint was tested, how can materials at 17-19.5 Ib/lO00 be grouped together in one (I) general class. This is over restrictive especially for existing fac i l i t ies. There are safety factors already bui l t into the sprinkler design for 10 lb newsprint and this will be increased 2-3 fold for paper at the top or heavy end ( i .e. 70-19.5 lb). This standard should be similar to the other storage standards by having more than three (3) commodity classes ( i .e. NFPA 231 has 5 commodity classes). Why shouldn't 19 Ib medium weight paper be protected similar to 20 Ib heavyweight paper instead of 10 Ib medium weight paper? The difference will be less i f there are two classes of Medium Weights plus this wil l result in the protection being more realistic for the hazard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject, ~ T : See Committee Action for Comment No. 17 for Appendix A-2.

Heavyweight Storage Closed Array Standard Array Height Clearance Banded or

~f t ) ( i t ) Unbanded Banded Unbanded

10 5 .2/2000 ,2/2000 .2/2000

10 >5 ,2/2000 .2/2000 .2/2000

15 5 .25/2000 .25/2000 .25/2500

15 >5 .25/2000 .25/2000 .25/2500

20 5 .3/2000 .3/2000 .3/2500

20 >5 .3/2000 .3/2500 ,3/3000

25 5 .4B/2500 ,45/3000 .45/3500

25 >5 .45/3000 .45/3500 .45/4000

30 5 .6/2500 .6/3000 .6/3000

Medium Weight 15 to 20 Ib Medium Weight 10 to 15 Ib Open Array Closed Array Standard Array Open Array Closed Array Standard Array Open Array

Banded or Banded or Banded or Banded or Banded or Banded or Banded Unbanded Unbanded U n b a n d e d Unbanded Unbanded U n b a n d e d Unbanded

.25/2000 .25/2500 .2/2000 .25/2000 .3/2000 .2/2000 .25/2000 .3/2000

.25/2500 .25/3000 .2/2000 .P5/2000 .3/2000 .2/2000 .25/2000 .3/2000

.3/2500 .3/3000 .25/2000 .3/2000 .4/2500 .?5/2000 .3/2000 .45/200

.3/300n .3/3500 .25/2000 .3/2500 .4/3000 .25/2000 .3/2500 .45/3000

.45/3000 .45/35~0 ,3/2000 .4/2500 .5/2500 .3/2000 ,45/2500 .6/2500

.45/3500 .45/4000 ,3/2500 .4/3000 .5/3000 .3/2500 .45/3000 .6/3000

.6/2500 ,6/3000 .45/3000 .5/3000 .7/2500 .45/3000 .6/3000 .75/2500

.6/3000 .6/35n0 .45/3500 .B/3500 .7/3000 .45/4000 .6/3500 .75/3000

.6/3500 .6/4000 .6/3000 .7/3000 .7/3500 .6/4000 .75/3000 .75/3500

Figure A - l - I . 2

NOTE: Densities and/or areas may be interpolated between any 5 f t storage height increment.

164

231F- 37 - (Figure A-I- I .2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Richard Jacobson, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Revise densities or demand areas in Figure A-I-I .2 such that the sprinkler water demands are at least equal to that specified in Figure 5-1.2 SUBSTANTIATION: The reasoning behind allowing 0.20 and 0.25 densities for existing locations but not for proposed locations seems vague and is inconsistent with other NFPA standards. Either densities or demand areas should be increased such that water demands are at least equal to what is recommended for proposed locations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ T : The Committee feels that the requirements outlined in 5-1.2 should be used fo r new ins ta l la t ions and that the recommendations outlined in A- I - I .2 are adequate for exist ing ins ta l la t ions . Also see the Committee Action f o r Comment No. 31 on A- I - I .2 and A-1-1.3.

231F- 18 - (Figure A-I- [ .2) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Jack Barr i t t , Industrial Risk Insurers L'-O'~Eq~FI~N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RE~UMMENDATION: 1, Under "Heavyweight, Standard, Unbanded," the area of application should be 3600 sq f t or .6/3500.

2. Under "Heavyweigh% Open, Banded" and "Heavyweight, Open, Unbanded," the area of application for 25 f t should be increased by 500 sq f t to .6/3000 and .6/3500 respectively, and the density for 30 f t increased to 75 {i .e..75/3500 and .75/~000).

3. Under "Medium Weight, Closed, Banded or Unbanded" the area of application for 25 fi: should be decreased by 500 sq f t to .45/3500. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. The same arguments are made against decreasing the areas of application in the face of increasing storage heights as were offered relative to Table 5-1.2. In all other arrangements, the area of application either has been held constant or been increased in response to an increase in height.

2. The 0.60 density for 30 foot high storage is considered inadequate in the two Jr stances cited. For these particular arrays, the density was increased by 0.15 gpm/sq f t to offset a 5 foot increase in height when storage went from 20 to 25 feet. Suddenly, however, no ircrease in density is shown when storage climbs another 5 feet to the 30 foot level. In medium weight papers, this logical progression is maintained up to a density of 0.75 gpm/sq f t . Once again, i f we compare "heavyweight, open, banded" with "medium weight, standard, banded," we see equivalent sprinkler densities advocated for all storage heights up through 25 feet. I t would seem that these two weight/array combinations are comparable in hazard. But at the 30 f t storage height, 0.60 density (the same as for 25 feet) is suddently appropriate for the heavy weight while a density of 0.75 gpm/sq f t is needed for the medium weight combination!

The test program only encompassed storage heights to a nominal 25 feet. In some of the combinations cited, I doubt i f 30 foot storage heights can be protected by 17/32 inch ceiling sprinklers alone. Nevertheless, i f protection ewxtrapolations are to be made for such storage heights, the progression should be consistent and show a deqsity of 0.75 gpm/sq f t fo r 30 feet when 0.60 was needed for 25 feet .

3. For th is closed ar-ay, the area of application at 20 feet was only increased by 500 sq f t to allow for the I0 f t clearance to sprinklers. I see no reason to increase the allowance to 10(i)0 sq f t at the 25 f t Storage height. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept: in Part. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Part 1 is rejected. See also Committee Action Tor Comment 19 on Figure 5-1.2. See Committee Action for Comment No. 15 for Figure 5-1.2 and Figure A-I- I .2 for parts 2 and 3.

231F- 27 - (A-I-1.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Allen I . Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance L'~I~@L~N-Y-~N PROPOSAL NO. : N/A RECOMMEN[JATION: Recommend adding to that written:

"For storage under 10 f t (3 m) in height, see NFmA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, Ordinary Hazard Group 3." SUBSTANTIATION: To offer guidance for storage heights below that indicated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. ~ : See the Committee Action for Comment No. 28 on i-1.3.2 and A-1-1.3.2.

231F- 32 - (A-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: In discussion of fu l l scale tests on tissue rol ls and linerboard, the "rate of f i re spread over the surface of the linerboard" should be referred to as either "slower" or "slow," in lieu of "relat ively slower." SUBSTANTIATION: The term "relat ively slower" is confusion, I f the f i re spread is to be expressed in relation to tissue rol ls, "slower" is the relative term. I f the wording is to express an absolute relationship, then "slow" should be used. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

tn ~ne ~nird ~ine of the fourth paragraph delete "relat ively." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has c(arified the intent.

231F- 33 - (A-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A R~CVMMENDATIDM: Under discussion of categories, indicate that "the broad range of papers have been classified into four major categories as follows"

Add "Tissue Weight - soft, absorbant, any basis weight" in the l i s t .

Under table, "Paper Classes," l i s t "Tissue Weight" and l i s t appropriate products. SUBSTANTIATION: We believe the Committee has not made i t clear as to the status of "tissue class" products. According to Section 2-4, tissue class may include any basis weight; yet Section 1-1.3.6 seems to indicate tissue class is excluded. Does the standard cover tissue class products having a basis weight of 11 lb. (per 1000 sq f t )? Shouldn't "tissue class" be listed in Section A-2 as a fourth category?

Also, how does one decide whether a product is "soft" and "absorbant" as described in the definition of "tissue class." I f a gauzy textured product has a basis weight of 11 Ibs. but is soft and absorbent, is the product covered by the standard?

We simply wish to point out to the Committee that the definition of tissue class is so broad that is confusing.

We recognize that our proposed change may not be acceptable to the Conmpttee, but offer this comment to enable the Con~ittee to make appropriate changes for clari f ication. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In 2-3 move "and tissues" from the f i r s t line to the end of the sentence to read as follows:

2-3 Light Weight Class includes all papers havincr a basis weight (weight per 1,000 sq f t ) (93 m 2) less than I [ ) lb (45 kg) and tissues.

Renumber 2-4 as 2-3.1 and delete "Class" in the heading. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has editor ial ly revised Sections 2-3 and 2-4 for c lar i ty.

231F- 31 - (A-1-1.2 and I~-i-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Association L'R)-BI@L~NT'-C)N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section A-I-1.2 to read:

"Existing Storage Facil it ies. Sprinkler Systems . . . in accordance with Figure 5-1.2."

Delete proposed Figure A-1-1.2. Revise Section A-I-1.3 to read: "Sprinkler design cr i t ( r ia . . . in accordance with Figure

5-1.2, Closed Array. SUBSTANTIATION: Is NFPA 231F the design standard or not? Existing storage protection should be evaluated against the standard; likewise an arrangement not covered by the standard (A-1-I.3) should be evaluated by comparison with the standard. One should not evaluate by comparision with requirements which are not proper - i f they were proper, they would be "the standard."

In existing storage, the hazard is the same as in new storage; why evaluate to a different "standard?" COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In A-1-1.2 add a new second sentence to read as follows: "While f i re may be controlled by the protection shown in Table

A-1-1.2 greater damage may occur where lesser protection is stipulated in Table A-I-1.2 than that specified in Table 5-1.2. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The C)mmittee feels guidance is needed for existing installations ap~ properly belongs in the Appendix as a recommendation. In preparing the document the Committee reviewed loss data that indicated that A-1-I.2 was valid.

165

231F- 9 - (A-3.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Allen I , Hjertstedt, IRM Insurance ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Relocate f i r s t paragraph under Section A-3-1.1 to Section A-3-3; references Section 3-3 in Chapter 3. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial reference correction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231F- 35 - (A-5-1.5): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Richard Jacobson, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMME~ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A M~CUMMENDArlON: Last sentence in Section A-5-I.6 should be revised to read:

"A 110 percent increase in the design area should be considered." SUBSTANTIATION: The are penalty for ordinary temperature rated sprinklers has been incorrectly applied.

Tests ut i l iz ing 165°F sprinklers. First consider the math behind the penalty used in NFPA 231C. This standard was based on tests using primarily 165°F sprinklers. From testing i t has been shown that roughly half as many 286°F sprinklers will operate compared with 165OF sprinklers under the same. f i re conditions.

Thus: No. of 165OF No. of 286OF

opened in test predicted n n (.5)

Because of di f ferences between spr inklers the mul t ip l ie r was set at .6.

n n (.6) Consequently, when covert ing from 165°F demand areas to

286°F demand areas in NFPA 231C, the demand area can be reduced by 40 percent. In the case of converting from 286°F demand areas to 165°F demand areas, the inverse of .6 (1.57) is used as the mu l t i p l i e r .

Tests u t i l i z i n g 286OF spr inklers. Using the same basis that roughly twice as many 165°F spr inklers w i l l operate compared with 2B6°F sprinklers under the same f i re condtions:

No. of 2BB°F No. of 165°F o__pened in test predicted

n nTBT Because of differences between sprinklers the multiplier is

increased 10 percent as above. n n (2.1)

Consequently, since the Roll Paper Standard is based on 286°F sprinklered tests, the multiplier should be 2.1 when converting from 286°F to 1656F demand areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. ~ T : This comment proposes something that would require considerable research and discussion by the Technical Committee and cannot be proper ly handled within the time frame established for processing the report . A subcommittee w i l l be appointed to study the subject.

231F- 12 - (A-5.1.6): Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: Allen I H jer ts tedt , IRM Insurance COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO : N/A RECOMMENDATION: Section A-5- I .6 should be changed to Section A-5- I .5 . Section 5-1.6 is not referenced in Appendix - Section 5-1.5 is. SUBSTANTIATION: Ed i t o r i a l . COMMII-FEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le . COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 43 on 5-1.3.

231F- 36 - (Appendix B): Accept in Principle SUBMII-FER: Richard Jacobson, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Add the results of the two latest tissue tests to Appendix B. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise A-I-1.3.6 as follows: A-1-1.3.6 Protection requirements for soft lightweight tissue

paper have not yet been developed. Fire tests have been conducted on 20 f t (6m) and 25 f t (7.6m) high verticle storage of tissue with 10 f t (3m) and 5 f t (1.5m) clear space to ce i l ing in pi les extending up to seven columns in one d i rect ion and s ix columns in the other d i rect ion. In these tests, target columns of t issue were located d i r ec t l y across an B f t (2.4m) ais le from the main p i le . Three tests were run using 17/32 in. 286o~ (13.5mm, 1410C) spr inklers were used on a 100 sq f t (9.3m L) spacing and at constant pressures of 14 psi , 60 psi , and 95 psi (97, 414 and 655 kPa, respect ive ly) . One test was run using 0.64 in. 286°F (16.3 mm 141Oc) spr inklers on 9100 sq f t (9.3 m 2) spacing at a constant pressure of 50 psi (345 kPa). Two tests were conducted fo l lowing a scheduled decay from an i n i t i a l pressure of 138 psi (952 kPa) to a design point of 59 psi (407 kPa) i f 40 spr inklers opened. The s ign i f i cant character is t ic of these f i r e tests was the rapid i n i t i a l f i r e spread across the surface of the r o l l s . Cei l ing temperatures were control led during the decaying pressure tests and during the higher constant pressure tests. With the exception of the 20 f t h!vh decaying pressure test, the extent of f i re spread within the plle could not be clearly established. Aisle jump was experienced except at the 95 psi constant pressure (655 kPa), 20 f t (6 m) high decaying pressure and large-drop test. Water absorption and pile instabi l i ty caused pile collapse in all tests. This characteristic must be considered when manually attacking a f i re in tissue storage occupancies. A summary of these f i re tests can be found in Appendix B. Available f i re experience in roll tissue storage occupancies does not correlate well with the constant pressure fu l l scale f i re tests regarding the number of sprinklers operating and the extent of f i re spread. Better correlation is noted with the decaying pressure tests. Thirteen fires reported in storage occupancies ranging from 10 to 20 f t (3 to Bm) high and protected by wet pipe sprinkler systems ranging from ordinary hazard to 0.6 gpm per f t sq (2.4L/M/Min) design densities were controlled with an average of 17 sprinkler heads. The maximum number of wet pipe sprinkler heads opening was 45 and the minimum was 5 vs. 88 and 26, respectively, in the constant pressure tests. 17 sprinkler heads opened in the 20 f t (6m) high decaying pressure test. One actual f i re in tissue storage protected by a dry system opened 143 sprinklers but was reported as controlled.

Revise Figure B-2 as shown on next page. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The inclusion of the tissue f i re tests made editorial changes in the ~-I-1.3.6 necessary.

231F- i - (Entire Standard): Accept SUBMITTER: The Technical Committee on General Storage RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Committee on General Storage recommends adoption of a new 231F Standard for Storage of Roll Paper. SUBSTANTIATION: The need for a Standard for the Storage of Roll Paper was brought to the at tent ion of the association af te r there had been several disastrous f i res in warehouses containing ro l l paper. The lack of a national standard has made designing, bui lding and using a f a c i l i t y for the storage of baled cotton an expensive undertaking sometimes resul t ing in substandard f i r e protection. Because of the unique characteristics of Roll Paper the Standards Council was petitioned and agreed to have the Technical Committee on General Storage formulate a new NFPA 231F, Standard for the Storage of Roll Paper. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Edi tor ia l Changes

The Committee has had the fo l lowing ed i to r ia l changes cal led to i ts at tent ion and agrees they should be made.

A - I - I . 3 . 6 In the th i rd l ine spell " ve r t i ca l " cor rect ly and in the fourteenth l ine delete the "d" in "ndot."

A-I-3 Add "A- I -3" before "Wrapped Storage." A-2 Light Weight Change from "Basis Weight of less than I0 Ib

per IO00 sq i t " to "Basis Weight of less than I0 Ib per I000 sq f t and tissues regardless of basis weight."

A-5-1.2 In the second line of the seventh paragraph delete "or NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler System Rules, or both."

Add a new Chapter 6 and revise Appendix C as follows: Chapter 6 This Chapter l ists publications referenced within

this document which, in whole or in part, are part of the requirements of this document.

6-] This standard makes reference to the following NFPA standards and the year dates shown indicate the latest edition available. They are available from the National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269.

NFPA 10-1981, Standard for Portable Extinguishers NFPA 11A-19B~, Standard for Medium and High Expansion Foam

Systems NFPA 14-ie83, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on of Standpipe and

Hose Systems NFPA 13-1983, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on of Sprinkler Syste~ NFPA 71-1982, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on , Maintenance and use

of Central Stat ion Signaling Systems NFPA 72A-1q79, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on , Maintenance and

Use of Local Protect ive Signaling Systems for Guard's Tour, Fire Alarm and Supervisory Service

NFPA 72B-1979, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on , Maintenance and Use of Aux i l i a ry Protect ive Signaling Systems for Fire Alarm Service

NFPA 72C-198B, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on , Maintenance and Use of Remote Stat ion Protect ive Signaling Systems

NFPA 720-1979, Standard for the I ns ta l l a t i on , Maintenance and Use of Proprietary Protective Signaling Systems

NFPA 91-1973, Standard for the Installation of Blower and Exhaust Systems for Dust, Stock and Vapor Removal or Conveying

NFPA 220-1979, Standard on Types of Building Construction C-I.2 Other Publications. ASTM E3RO-197R, Standard for Metric Practice, American Society

for Testing and Mater ia ls, 1916 Race Street , Phi ladelphia, PA ]9103.

Revise Appendix C as fol lows: Appendix C Referenced Publications which are Recommendations. C-i This standard makes reference to the fo l lowing NFPA

Recommendations and Guides and the year dates shown indicate the la test edi t ion avai lable. They are avai lable from the National Fire Protect ion Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269

NFPA 27-1981, Recommendations for Organization, Training and Equipment of Fire Brigades

NFPA 204M-1982, Guide for Smoke and Heat Venting C-2 Other Publicat ions. I ns ta l l a t i on rules for spr ink ler systems using large drop

spr ink lers, Data sheet 2-7, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, ]15] Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062.

166

Test Number BI* B2 B3 B4 B5*** B6***

Test Date 10/4/79 7/23/80 7/30/80 1 0 / 1 5 / 8 0 7/28/82 8/5/82

Paper Type Tissue Tissue Tissue Tissue Tissue Tissue

Stack Height { f t - in . ) 21-10 20-0 21-8 18-6 19-10 25-3

Paper Banded No No No No No No

Paper WrappeJ No No No No No No

Fuel Array Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Std,

Clearance to Ceiling ( f t - in . ) 8-2 10-0 8-4 11-6 5-2 4-9

Clearance to Sprinklers ( f t - in . ) 7-7 9-5 7-9 10-9 4-7 4-2

Sprinkler Orifice (in.) 17/32 17/32 17/32 0.64 17/32 17/22

Sprinkler Temp. Rating (OF) 280 280 280 280 280 280

Sprinkler Spacing ( f t x f t ) 10 x 10 10 x 10 10 x 10 10 x 10 10 x I0 10 x 10

Water Pressure (psi) 14"* 60 95 50 138 In i t ia l 138 In i t ia l 102 Final 88 Final

Moisure Content of Paper (%) 9.3 g.3 10.2 6.0 ~.2 g.2

First Sprinkler Operation (min:sec) 0:43 0:32 0:38 0:31 0:28 0:22

Total Sprinklers Open 88 33 26 64 17 29

Final Flow (gpm) 2575** 1992 1993 4907 1363 2156

Sprinkler Demand Area ( f t 2) 8800 3300 2600 6400 1700 2900

Avg. Discharge Density (gpm/ft 2) 0.29** 0.60 0.77 0.92 In i t ia l 0.96 In i t ia l 0.80 Final 0.74 Final

Max. One Min. Avg. Gas Temp. Over Ign i t i on (OF) 1680"* I~63 1634 1519 * * * * * * * * *

Duration of High Temp. Within Acceptable Limits No Yes Yes Marginal Yes Yes

Max. One Min. Av 9. Fi re Plume Gas Veloc i ty Over Ign i t ion ( f t / sec) 40.7 50.2 47.8 -

Target Ign i ted Yes Yes No No No B r i e f l y

Extent of Fire Damage Within Acceptable Limits No No Marginal Marginal Yes Marginal

Test Duration (min) 17.4 20 20 25.5 45 45

*Phase [ "'est. **Pressure Increased to 50 psi at 10 min.

***Phase I I [ Tests Decaying Pressure ****Max, Steel Temp. Over Ign i t ion 341°F

*****Max. Steel Temp, Over Ign i t ion 132OF

Figure B-2 Summary of Roll Paper Tissue Tests

167