Consulting-Specifying Engineer - March 2009 - (Page 14) M/E/P Roundtable CSE: What methods of fire protection design do you prefer for data centers and laboratories with sensitive equipment, and why? Ryan: It really depends on what is in the space. If the equipment is highdollar and poses a high risk to a company’s revenue or operations when not functioning, then a clean agent system such as FM200 is likely merited. We typically deploy only a double interlocking pre-action system or standard waterbased sprinkler systems. Berry: A multilayered approach is preferred—early warning fire detection (typically aspirated systems) as well as conventional smoke detection. Early detection allows for manual intervention to locate problems before the fire occurs. Water mist is preferred for data center applications with conventional sprinklers in laboratory areas. Water mist provides the advantage of minimizing water damage risk compared to conventional sprinklers. When compared to gas systems, water mist also provides the advantage of avoiding pressure venting requirements that tend to be large and pose problems of integrating into the building fabric. Babigian: In this situation, it is imperative for the client’s goals and expectations to be clear. We typically design preaction sprinkler systems, and occasionally we recommend gaseous suppression systems. Sometimes, clients think that by using a gaseous system, they can avoid having any sprinkler piping in the data center. This is generally not the case, as the state or city codes typically mandate sprinkler systems. If clients understand how low the likelihood is of water accidentally entering the room, many opt out of adding gaseous systems. Lane: In a wet system, maintenance personnel can potentially knock off a head and cause significant damage and cost. Normally a water sprinkler system is not recommended in a data center, but the local authorities may require it. A flooding fire extinguishing system or clean agent system is the preferred method for the critical environment of a data center. These agents are nonconductive and can be discharged with occupants in the room. In some cases, NFPA 75 allows rn If your Wa PVC-coated Galvanized Rigid Conduit doesn’t carry this ETL-Verification label you are risking the high cost and catastrophic potential of product failure. Sound alarmist? It isn’t – and here’s why. Fact One: All brands of PVC-coated galvanized rigid conduit manufactured in the U.S. meet exactly the same safety standards established in UL 6. However g! in Fact Two: Not all brands are authorized to carry the ETL PVC-001 label predicting product service life. Why? Because not all brands of PVC-coated galvanized rigid conduit have passed the stringent requirements of ASTM D870 and ASTM D2247, the two accepted tests designed to predict service life of a coating under the two most common conditions that affect the adhesive bonds of protective coatings: heat and humidity. If product performance and service life are important to you look for the ETL-Verification label or add ETL-Verification to your spec! If your PVC-coated galvanized rigid conduit doesn’t carry an ETL-Verification label you risk premature product failure and the consequences of costs related to downtime as well as safety, legal and environmental issues. For additional details about the importance of specifying ETL PVC-001, logon to: www.plastibond.com or contact us • Phone: 903.843.5591 • E-mail: sbickerstaff@robroy.com Input #208 at csemag.com/quickResponse 14 Consulting-Specifying Engineer • MARCH 2009 http://www.plastibond.com http://www.plastibond.com http://www.csemag.com/quickResponse
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.