ML20078S592
| ML20078S592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1994 |
| From: | Burski R ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | Zimmerman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-92-08, GL-92-8, TAC-M855621, W3F1-94-0220, W3F1-94-220, NUDOCS 9412280414 | |
| Download: ML20078S592 (87) | |
Text
- wn
-as-e cr~ENTERGY
%%"le"~'"
KAra. LA 70066 Td 504 739 6774 R F. Burski
- Dext, Ntde Sde'y Y,h!Of ford 3 W3F1-94-0220 A4.05 L
PR December 21, 1994 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. Roy P. Zimmerman Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Subject:
Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 i
Follow-up to the Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Regarding Generic Letter 92-08 Issued Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) on December 21, 1993 (TAC NO. M85621)
Gentlemen:
This submittal is in response to the NRC letter dated September 23, 1994 on the above subject.
This letter stated that, on the basis of NRC Staff review of the Waterford 3 response to the subject request for additional information, the information submitted for the following sections was either deferred or incomplete: Section III, "Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers Outside the Scope of the NUMARC Program" and Section VI, " Schedules".
It was required, pursuant to Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ammended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f) that Entergy submit a written report for Waterford 3 within 90 days from the date of the NRC letter.
The report is to provide a description of the corrective action plan associated with Thermo-Lag fire barriers in the plant, including the schedule for completion.
You will find the required report hereto attached.
i i
I
.()
)
l 94122eo414 e41221
~
PDR ADOCK 05000382 P
PDR i
7.j..f Follow-up to' the Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Regarding Generic Letter 92-08 Issued Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) on December 21,.1993 (TAC NO. M85621)
W3F1-94-0220 Page 2 December 21, 1994
- s.
If you have any questions concerning the submittal, please contact 0.P. Pipkins at (504) 739-6707.
Very truly yours, az' R.F. Burski Director Nuclear Safety RFB/0PP/ssf Attachments i
cc:
NRC, Document Control Desk l
L.J. Callan, NRC Region IV C.P. Patel, NRC-NRR R.B. McGehee l
~
N.S. Reynolds NRC Resident Inspectors Office l
r l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of
)
)
Entergy Operations, Incorporated
)
Docket No. 50-382 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station
)
AFFIDAVIT D.W. Vinci, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is Manager, Licensing - Waterford 3 of Entergy Operations, Incorporated; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the attached Request for Additional Information Regarding NRC Generic letter 92-08; that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
s j
in D.W. Vinci Manager, Licensing - Waterford 3 STATE OF LOUISIANA
)
) ss PARISH OF ST. CHARLES
)
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the Parish and State above named this 2 l'" day of D E c E. m o &, 1994.
^
Eb b
Notary Public My Commission expires w ' T ** t*FC
\\
'[
i i
FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)
REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 92-08 ISSUED PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f)
This report is being offered in response to the NRC letter dated September 23, 1994, which required a report of the Waterford 3 Thermo-Lag corrective action plan, including the schedule for completion.
As summarized in earlier submittals, Waterford 3 currently has only seven applications of Thermo-Lag in the plant. These installations will be described in further detail later in this report.
None of the Waterford 3 Thermo-Lag applications are utilized for the protection of electrical components or raceways.
Each of the seven Thermo-Lag installations involve protection of HVAC ducts in which fire dampers are installed a short distance from their respective HVAC penetrations through three hour rated fire barriers (e.g., wall s/ floors).
Essentially, our Thermo-Lag installations are designed to ensure that the protected duct will provide at least an equivalent level of protection to that of the fire barrier.
In Entergy's May 18, 1994 letter (W3F1-94-0056) to the NRC, it was stated that a Generic Letter 86-10 evaluation was being conducted to assess final actions for resolution of the Thermo-Lag issue at Waterford 3.
The resolution alternatives listed in that letter (W3F1-94-0056) included:
Exemption Request Enhance Defense in Depth Measures Modification Upgrade Thermo-Lag Remove / Replace with Alternate material, or Installed Configuration Acceptable The Engineering evaluatien has been completed.
Results of the evaluation concluded that the last of the above listed alternatives is the appropriate resolution alternative for Waterford 3.
The installed configuration of Thermo-Lag has been determined to be acceptable. A summary of the supporting basis for this determination follows. Actual referenced calculation packages, drawings and evaluations are available at Waterford 3 for future NRC audits or inspections.
1
I BACKGROUND:
As a result of the Browns Ferry fire which occurred March 22, 1975, the NRC undertook measures to order the protection of redundant systems required to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
The NRC issued 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, in 1981 and made them applicable to all nuclear power plants.
Section III. G of Appendix R specifically addresses requirements for the protection of redundant safe shutdown electrical systems for the purpose of ensuring that at least one electrical circuit, capable of achieving and maintaining safe shutdown, remains free of fire damage.
Licensees can satisfy the requirements of Section III.G by one of the following methods:
Separate redundant divisions with 3-hour rated fire barriers.
Separate redundant divisions with I hour fire rated barriers and provide automatic suppression and detection.
Provide more than 20 feet of horizontal separation between redundant divisions with no intervening combustibles and provide automatic suppression and detection.
Before licensees could use a fire barrier material to satisfy the requirements of Appendix R, the NRC required that the one and/or three hour ratings be demonstrated by subjecting a specimen to a standard fire exposure test, conducted by a nationally recognized fire testing laboratory.
Fire barrier materials that could be used to protect electrical circuits were still in the developmental stage in 1981 when licensees began submitting fire test reports performed by Thermal Ceramics Inc. for approval. The staff accepted the test reports which were then used throughout the industry to qualify Thermo-Lag.
Since the NRC originally accepted Thermo-Lag, increasingly significant allegations associated with Thermo-Lag have surfaced.
In 1989, River Bend Station performed fire endurance tests on site specific Thermo-Lag installations which failed to meet the performance requirements.
The NRC established a Special Review Team to evaluate a variety of Thermo-Lag I
issues and make recommendations for their resolution. One conclusion of the Special Review Team was that fire resistance ratings and ampacity derating factors for Thermo-Lag fire barriers are indeterminate.
In 1992, Comanche 2
BACKGROUND (Continued):
Peak performed fire tests of site specific Thermo-Lag installations which also failed to meet the specified performance requirements. The NRC subsequently indicated that all existing Thermo-Lag fire tests are invalid.
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) was tasked to prepare a test program of Thermo-Lag to determine what installations were unacceptable along with determining the type of upgrades that may be needed to insure the required fire rating of an installation.
The NEI test program was set up into phases; two of those phases have been completed.
This evaluation will use information from phase two of those tests to document that the installations of Thermo-Lag at Waterford 3 will meet the intent of 10 CFR 50 Appendix R.
ASSUMPTIONS:
Review of installation records and packages for the seven fire dampers listed within this evaluation found that they did not reference Thermal Science Inc.
Technical Note 20684 (Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System Installation Procedures Manual, Power Generating Plant Specification). However, results of destructive examinations do indicate that the Thermo-Lag was installed on the dampers and ductwork in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in the Thermal Science technical note.
Examinations performed under the Condition Identification / Work Authorization (CI/WA) 289585/01121648 were limited to three installed configurations.
It is assumed that similar Thermo-Lag configurations were installed in the same manner.
In addition to bounding the installed configurations, this evaluation addresses the combustibility issue of Thermo-Lag. Thermo-Lag combustibility values have not yet been determined, therefore, the heat content value and density for Thermo-Lag used in this evaluation is based on the NUMARC Combustibility Evaluation Guide.
PHYSICAL LOCATION OF THERMO-LAG ASSEMBLIES Thermo-Lag has been used to enclose the HVAC duct and fire damper from the fire barrier to the fire damper in areas where fire dampers are located outside the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier. This fireproofing is a result of requirements from Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1 Appendix A.
The locations are as follows:
3
s 1.
RAB +21 Elev.-Diesel Generator Room B, FD-76 (3 hr.)
Fire Area RAB 15 2.
RAB +21 Elev.-Diesel Generator Room A, FD-77 (3 hr)
Fire Area RAB 16 3.
RAB -4 Elev.- Boric Acid Concentrator Room A, FD-177 (3 hr.)
Fire Area RAB 31 4.
RAB -4 Elev.- Boric Acid Concentrator Room B, FD-178 (3 hr.)
Fire Area RAB 31 5.
RAB -4 Elev.- Boric Acid Concentrator Room C, FD-179 (3 hr.)
Fire Area RAB 31 6.
Wing Area +21 Elev.-FD-3HV-B217B (3hr.)
Fire Area RAB 25 7.
Wing Area -4 Elev. -FD-3HV-B218A (3hr.)
Fire Area RAB 32 LEVEL OF PROTECTION:
The assemblies installed at Waterford 3 are solely on ductwork and fire dampers. The amount of Thermo-Lag is installed to protect a length of ductwork s 5'-0".
Due to the minimal amount of protected ductwork, a very localized plume would have to develop.
Furthermore, temperatures could exceed the 250 F plus ambient on the unexposed side, but not affect the system because there are no cables within the assembly.
The Thermo-Lag could become red hot, but if no flame through occurs, this configuration would be successful in preventing flame propagation to an 4
adjacent area (UL Standard 555).
In addition, the continuous backing of the j
ductwork along with the air space in the duct will reduce the effects of conductive heat transfer into the protective envelopes as well as reduce the rate that the barrier material softens during fire exposure.
The ductwork also offers a greater resistance to the Thermo-Lag material sagging.
To fail these configurations, first the fire would need to fail the Thermo-Lag, then it must breach a metal enclosure and traverse a short distance (s 5') containing no combustibles, then exit the enclosure and still be hot enough to cause ignition. The expected fire severity curve for a low fire load as represented by the fire areas containing Thermo-Lag (less than 100,000 Btu /sq.ft.-NFPA Handbook Sixteenth Edition Section 7, Chapter 9), indicates 4
-l that room temperatures would not reach 1100 F within the first 50 minutes of a fire.. Temperatures considered for the stress limitations of steel is the actual temperature of the steel and not the ambient temperature within the room. The ability of steel to transfer heat from a localized source in
-conjunction with the ability of the air inside the duct to dissipate heat would prolong the time it would take for the steel to reach a critical temperature of 1100 F.
Due to this reasoning, it can be concluded that the ductwork will provide an additional 60 minutes of fire rating ~ to the 86 minute Thermo-Lag fire rating determined in the " Installed to Tested Fire Barrier Evaluations" results (Attachment A). Therefore the overall rating of the Thermo-Lag protected assembly is a minimum 146 minutes.
FD-3-HV-B217B and FD-3-HV-8218A are located on the same ductwork that penetrates a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier.
Thermo-Lag enclosing each duct and damper is located on each side of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier.
Fire propagation to either side of the barrier would be a tortuous path.
First, the fire would need to fail the Thermo-Lag, then it must breach a metal enclosure and traverse 6 to 10 ft.
containing no combustibles, then breach another metal enclosure and additional Thermo-Lag on the opposite side of the barrier.
Following this difficult path required for fire propagation, the fire would have to exit the enclosure and still be hot enough to cause ignition.
It is concluded that the combination of these two dampers located on opposite sides of the same 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier, can be considered a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> configuration.
For dampers FD-177, 178 and 179 the Thermo-Lag enclosure would not experience a high degree of impact from the plume generated by thermal thrust because of their location (directly above a doorway, therefore negligible combustibles).
It is concluded that because of the location of these Thermo-Lag installations, along with the determined minimum fire rating, that these barriers can be considered 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barriers.
For dampers FD-76 and FD-77 an additional 60 minutes is added to their duration because of the 10 gauge metal which completely encapsulates the Thermo-Lag.
It is concluded that with the combination of the 10 gauge metal and the determined minimum fire rating, that these barriers can be considered 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barriers.
5
FIRE HAZARDS ANALYSIS The btu's/sq.ft. and fire severity indicated in this section includes the Thermo-Lag installed in the fire area.
A.
Propagation of Flame through the Thermo-Lag Barrier Fire Area RAB 15 to Fire Area RAB 2 FD-76 separates the Diesel Generator Room B (RAB 15) from the H & V Mechanical Room (RAB 2).
A fire originating ia the H & V Mechanical Room does not pose a legitimate threat to the Diesel Generator Room B because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 43 minutes (57,143 Btu /sq.ft.).
The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with the Thermo-Lag provides 146 minutes of protection plus 60 additional minutes of protection from the 10 gauge metal which completely encapsulates the Thermo-Lag (See Attachment A for FD-76) for a total of over 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> protection.
A fire originating in the Diesel Generator Room B does not pose a legitimate threat to the H & V Room because of the fire damper. This is due primarily to the moderate fire severity of 92 minutes (122,299 Btu /sq.ft.) and the level of protection (discussed above) provided by the damper /Thermo-Lag configuration.
Fire Area RAB 16 to Fire Area RAB 2 FD-77 separates the Diesel Generator Room A (RAB 16) from the H & V Mechanical Room (RAB 2).
4 A fire originating in the H & V Mechanical Room does not pose a legitimate threat to the Diesel Generator Room A because of the fire damper. This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 43 minutes (57,143 Btu /sq.ft.).
The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with the Thermo-Lag provides 146 minutes of protection plus 60 additional minutes of protection from the 10 gauge metal which completely encapsulates the Thermo-Lag (See Attachment A for FD-77) for a total of over 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of protection.
6
'l A fire originating in the Diesel Generator Room A does not pose a legitimate threat to the H & V Room because of the fire damper. This is due primarily to the moderate fire severity of 85 minutes (113,374 Btu /sq.ft.) and the level of protection (discussed above) provided by the damper /Thermo-Lag configuration.
Fire Area RAB 31 to Fire Area RAB 23 FD-177 separates the Vestibule / Corridor of RAB 31 from the Boric Acid Concentrator Room A (RAB 23).
A fire originating in the Vestibule / Corridor does not pose a legitimate threat to the Boric Acid Concentrator Room A because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 53 minutes (69,625 Btu /sq.ft.).
The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with Thermo-Lag provides a minimum 3 hrs. of protection (See Attachment A for FD-177).
A fire originating in the Boric Acid Concentrator Room A does not pose a legitimate threat to the Vestibule / Corridor because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 36 minutes (47,280 Btu /sq.ft.).
The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with Thermo-Lag provides a minimum 3 hrs, of protection (See Attachment A for FD-177).
Fire Area RAB 31 to Fire Area RAB 23 FD-178 separates the Vestibule / Corridor of RAB 31 from the Boric Acid Concentrator Room B (RAB 23).
A fire originating in the Vestibule / Corridor does not pose a legitimate threat to the Boric Acid Concentrator Room B because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 53 minutes (69,625 Btu /sq.ft.).
The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with Thermo-Lag provides a minimum 3 hrs. of protection (See Attachment A for FD-178).
A fire originating in the Boric Acid Concentrator Room B does not pose a legitimate threat to the Vestibule / Corridor because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 36 minutes (47,280 Btu /sq.ft.).
The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with Thermo-Lag provides a minimum 3 hrs. of protection (See Attachment A for FD-178).
7
1 Fire Area RAB 31 to Fire Area RAB 23 FD-179 separates the Vestibule / Corridor of RAB 31 from the Waste Concentrator Room (RAB 23).
A fire originating in the Vestibule / Corridor does not. pose a legitimate threat to the Waste Concentrator Room because of the fire damper.
This 1s due primarily to the low fire severity of 53 minutes (69,625 1
Btu /sq.ft.). The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with Thermo-Lag provides a minimum 3 hrs. of protection (See Attachment A for FD-179).
A fire originating in the Waste Concentrator Room does not pose a
)
legitimate threat to the Vestibule / Corridor because of the fire damper.
j This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 36 minutes (47,280 Btu /sq.ft.). The fire damper and ductwork enclosed with Thermo-Lag provides a minimum 3 hrs. of protection (See Attachment A for FD-179).
Fire Area RAB 25 to Fire Area RAB 32 FD-3HV-B2178 separates the +21 Wing Area-Equipment Access Area (RAB 25) from the -4 Wing Area-Pipe Penetrations and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water Pumps (RAB 32).
A fire originating in the +21 Wing Area-Equipment Access Area does not pose a legitimate threat to the -4 Wing Area-Pipe Penetrations and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water Pumps because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 48 minutes (63,886 Btu /sq.ft.). The damper on each side of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier and tortuous path described under " Level of Protection" above equates to a minimum 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> protection (See Attachment A for FD-3HV-B217B).
A fire originating in the -4 Wing Area-Pipe Penetrations and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water Pumps does not pose a legitimate threat to the
+21 Wing Area-Equipment Access Area because of the fire dampers. This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 13 minutes (17,243 Btu /sq.ft.).
The damper on each side of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier and tortuous path described under " Level of Protection" above equates to a minimum 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> protection (See Attachment A for FD-3HV-B2178.).
i j
i l
Fire Area RAB 32 to Fire Area RAB 25 FD-3HV-B218A separates the -4 Wing Area-Pipe Penetrations and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water Pumps (RAB 32) from the +21 Wing Area-Equipment Access Area (RAB 25).
A fire originating in the +21 Wing Area-Equipment Access Area does not pose a legitimate threat to the -4 Wing Area-Pipe Penetrations and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water Pumps because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity of 48 minutes (63,886 Btu /sq.ft.).
The damper on each side of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier and tortuous path described under " Level of Protection" above equates to a minimum 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> protection (See Attachment A for FD-3HV-D218A).
A fire originating in the -4 Wing Area-Pipe Penetrations and Auxiliary Component Cooling Water Pumps does not pose a legitimate threat to the
+21 Wing Area-Equipment Access Area because of the fire damper.
This is due primarily to the low fire severity 13 minutes (17,243 Btu /sq.ft.).
The damper on each side of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier and tortuous path described under " Level of Protection" above equates to a minimum 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> protection (See Attachment A for FD-3HV-8218A).
CONCLUSIONS Through this evaluation, it has been concluded that the Thermo-Lag enclosing fire dampers and ductwork will provide a minimum fire rating of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
This far exceeds the fire loading of the areas involved.
j This evaluation concludes that the installed Thermo-Lag provides sufficient protection to ensure that at least one train of safe shutdown equipment will remain free of fire damage.
REFERENCES 10 CFR Appendix R FSAR Section 9.5 Waterford 3 Associated Circuits Analysis LDRS (Commitment Management)
FSAR Amendments (Pre-Startup)
NRC Bulletin No. 92-01 NRC Bulletin No. 92-01 Supplement 1 NRC Information Notice 91-47 NRC Information Notice 91-79 NRC Information Notice 91-79 Supplement 1 NRC Information Notice 92-46 9
+.
- c NRC Information Notice 92-55 NRC Information Notice 92-82 NRC Information Notice 94-34 NRC Generic Letter 92-08 Grand Jury Subpoena dated Feb. 1, 1993 CI/WA 278842/01097171 CI/WA 289585/01121648 CI/WA 259011/01028139 CI 281257 CR94-739 CMS A-20258
)
Fire Impairment 93-313 Policy Issue-SECY-94-127 i
UL Standard 555-Fire Dampers W3 Drawinas B-316 SSA G-252-S20 G-858-S01 G-869-S02 G-252-S07 G-252-S23 G-859-S02 G-252-S10G G-252-S27 G-863-S01 G-252-S15 G-322-S10 G-864-S01 W3 Combustible load Calculations EC-F-91-004-CLC for RAB 2 EC-F-91-015-CLC for RAB 15 EC-F-91-017-CLC for RAB 16 EC-F-91-025-CLC for RAB 23 EC-F-91-028-CLC for RAB 25 EC-F-91-031-CLC for RAB 31 EC-F-91-032-CLC for RAB 32 ME-003-006 ME-003-009 DCN-NY-HV-323 DCN-NY-HV-25'iR1 DCN-NY-HV-272R1 NOCP-300 FP-001-015 NFPA Fire Protection Handbook Sixteenth Edition Fire Research for Steel HVAC Systems-NFPA Journal, Nov.1984 pg. 46 Nuclear Management & Resources Council "Thermo-Lag Combustibility Evaluation Methodology",
October 1993 10
l ATTACHMENT A TO W3F1-94-0220 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION l
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
TERERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-76
~
BARRIER / COMMODITY LOCATION DATA: +21 RAB Diesel Generator Rooms B Fire Area RAB 15 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
FD-76 Segament of FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST M unin, RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 120 mia.
See RTYPE A9.02 Total 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> (OTHER)
APPLICABLE TEST
REFERENCES:
NEITest 2-10 REMARKS: 'Inis eherune4ag 3=e*=Ma*3== is e==es====dy suppened firema the damsper and/or ductwork it rests on. Stick pies are in place to esseare j
therane4ag rumnains in place. Ten gange salvamimed seed e=eR=== the easire theruso4ag han=*3== giving a seinummma of 1 hear fire rating. This thersae-lag w=mani== is based am strueenral faBurus rusher chas siterusal failures h W3 does est use therine4ag to presert cable racewsys. INartherunere, I
the are=r== criteria as famed in UL !Ea==d=d $55 can he applied hae=== thisw= man 3=9 is part of a fire damayer systema.
a No fire endurance testing has been perforuned for this type of com5garasion. In a dire are==ris, becaisse of ks locaties, the thermudag asseeably will esperience a higher degree ofinspect frena che pteme generated by therusal thrust. Ilowever, theruno4ag is enclosed with le gainge galv==i=d steel.
Becaanse steel has a high therusal-
' ;* ';y,it can transfer heat fruen a lae=Emed heat source rather apsickly. This property,is conjesectnee with its
)
thersnal capacity, enables steel to act as a heat sink. When the steel has an appertumsty se transfer heat to cooler regsees,it can take a relatively i
long tiene for a unemaker to reach its critical valve. A ^-. x ^ 2 ef Ilet*F is merusally considered to be the crkical tesaperature for steel. At this temiperature, the yield stress in the steel has s% creased to aheest 60% of the value at r m temperature, which is the level merusally insed as the design working sestss. Since the le gauge ceclosaare has me leads other them it's own weight it ceW resnais in place at temperatures well aheve f loo *F.
DEEDI798/ DOMINO 12 PAGE F-2
- I
FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 2
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-76 SKETCH OF INSTALLED CONFIGURATION:
cif"d2" MULTI-SE WGN
' 7E ~^ 'll' 31% RRWD DRMPER.
/
s-q si f
b
-FIRE 6 AKRIER
- - -- -- -. 9 g
a rHILT I
[
g W
66LTS 2
,EGil *4 6 E F.
y l
l is.
h 4,,, y,>. > >.
. n,,, > y > >., :. '
+. v
,,. a...s.:... m l*--
l 9
=
[., 0
. s.
y
+,4
..u-ev;
.a, g
- y l
/A5 9
T'
/
l l-g
.i CLG BF
-J g $
R R615 g
_d d ID G AUGE
/
d f
/
/,
/
/
/ M G A LV -
=
ST EE L YA THGM6-LAG S36 nRE bAMPER.
SECT 16M l\\- A PLAM \\l l E W1 PAGE F-4
FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF 9
PERFORMANCE THERh80-LAG mAmamm gYsrEMFSprECTED mten80DtrY IDEPmrIER.
FD-M PARAMETERS e
ArruCABLE MRg mammma gyyrgM mwrg wn COMMODITY GA ewriumm ammumAmm
@A TEsrEDammuaAMS)
GA APPUCABLE GA EVALUAhm/
EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
TYPE Fire Dammper and Doctwerk CaMe Tray net 2-19 E-1 SIZE 92" x 92" 6" x 4" CaMe Tray NEI 2-10 E-1 24" x 4" CaMe Tray MATERIAL Steet 6" x 4" CaMe Tray - Alemaisena NEI 2-10 Installed steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ahmmimmma beended by tested configuraties.a a as (Tame 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 ths/LF 24" = 2.94 he/LF CONTENTS / TOTAL Drxtwork= 44 hdLF E-5 ENCLOSED MASS CaMe Wt. 6" = 3.30 he/LF NEI 2-10 (Eschading damsper) 24" = 9.30 he/LF Tesal 6" = 5.65 the/LF 24" = 12.74 ths/LF ORIENTATION Vertical Horizontal / Vertical N EI 2-10 Samic - N/A PAGE F-6
FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 4
OF 9
PERFORMANCE Tutaneouc mammina systEns/FearscrEs COnceoDtTY IDErrrlFIER.
FD-76 FARAMETERS AFFUCUBtJt FIRE mammann gygTEnd 5BGh4ENT.
sepuma et BARRIER es instan==conFmmmw en TWEDcONFIGURADOM(s)
@B AFruCAtt.E O B EVALUATIOru EVALUATED TESTS REF.NO.
MATERIAL Therane4ag 338-1 Prdab Panels Pitfabdcated Panels NEl 2-10 E-2 TYPE V-Rib Tawwet Grade-Exposed side and
+ side Thieser tested MATERIAL Panet = 1" Overall Thick =*== = A NEI2-18 meaterial weeld THICKNESS Trowel Grade (Exposed Side) = 318" A = 1.00 +.25 - 4 bened installed Trowel Grade (Umesposed Side) = 1/4" (Table 5-1)
Overall Diek=*== = I SB" STIFFENER (V-RIB)
Not Used V-Rib panele parallel as tray rails em NEI 2-18 E-2 LOCATION /
top and bessemiaf tray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Both Faces Beeb Faces net 2-10 Samme - N/A LOCATION PAGE F4
1 FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 5
OF 9
m,0 - C.
e e
FARAMETERS O
Ayys rams a ytag mammann 3YSTEng AEchdRM3 gg gg j
BARRIER ec surm==oonymumArum oc 1EsrEncourmummone o c arr u cast.:
ec avaumow EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
0 JOINT TYPE (S)
PreBettered Best Jeims Tray A&B NEI 2-le Sanne - N/A l
Pre-Buttered Butt Joint l
JOINT GAP st/4" 11/4" NEI 2-It Same - N/A Per revice of destrisceive====3-ad==
sample by Fire W Eadmeer.
UNSUPPOR'IED r==d====dy supported and Rued in place 12" net 2-10 InstaMed confipraties BARRIER with stick pies.
beneded by teated SPAMS Average Space <12" configuraties (Table 5-t)
INTERNAL r==d==m-dy
MECliANISMS configuraties (Table 5-1)
{
PAGE F-10
L FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
FERFORMANCE Turma mammamm systawrmonrcran consasoorry -
ro.x PARAMETERS APriar'sas E ytag mARBERE gygTggg REcadEMT; ggggggg gg BARRIER GD mSrAMED(MRCUBATm SD mrancanGURAMS)
GD APPUCABM OD EVA1,UATMMU EVALUATaD TESTS REF. NO.
FASTENER Stick Fins Bands - 1/2" NEl 2-10 E-3 TYPE L
FASTENER
- Vasies, 12" NEI 2-10 E-4 SPACING Average Specing <12" FASTENER Varies 2"
NEl2-10 E4 DISTANCE FROM JOIN 13 FASTENER No No NEI 2-10 Samme - N/A EDGE GUARDS P.tGE F-12
FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 7
OF 9
PERFORMANCE THERS40-IAC RAmm8mm 8YsTEMPROTECTED 00hp400 TTY IDENTIFIEEL FD-M PARAMETERS O
AFFUCABLE Fing mamasan sygTEM mamaswT:
3,ynne et BARRIER GE nesras summuncUmAnon
@E TEsTEDctumcUBADON(5)
GE AFFUCABLE GE EVALUADOPU EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
-l JOINT TrowelGrade N/A NEI 2-10 lastalled configuration REINFORCEMENT bounded by tested MECHANISMS configuration (Table 5.1)
STRUCTURAL No StructuralSupports Total Coverags NEI 2-10 N/A SUPPORT AND Not concerned with INTERVENING
% of heat into STEEL the enclosure PROTECTION I
LOCATION N/A N/A NEl 2-16 Saane - N/A OF ENCLOSURE I* AGE F-I4
l' w.
1.
FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 8
OF 9
PERFORMANCE THERMO-1AG BARRIER SYSTEWPROTECTED COMMODTTY IDENTIFIER:
FD-76 I
PARAMETERS j
O APPUCABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:
Segument et i
BARRIER GF INSTAusn CONRGURADON
@F TESTEDCONMGURATION(S)
GF APPUCABLE GF EVALUATION /-
EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
BARRIER Nome Perforened Hose streama apphed after 36 main.
NEI 2-10 E-6 CONDITION with no openings through the barrier FOLLOWING en the 6" x 4" cable trays..
HOSE STREAM TEST r
PAGE F-16
FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 9
OF 9
4 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-76 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 EVALUATION REL. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5,E-6 EVALUATION (S):
E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resembisace to the instaBed configuration to date. The performance of the material and the comparison of the different parameters wiB be the basis for this evaluation.
E-2 The instaBation is continuously supported from the dausper and/or 16 gauge metal ductwork that the thermo-lag rests on. In addition, stick pies air instaBed to give greater resistance to unsterial sagging. The use of the damper and/or ductwork is comparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Derefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the instaBed configuration.
E-3 Ten gauge galvanized steel encloses the entire *L-z ".sg instaBation which aBows significant protection of the thermo-lag and stick pia fasteners. InstaBed configuration is bounded by tested configuration (Table 5.1).
E-4 He instaBation is continuously supported froaa the damper and/or ductwork that the thermo-lag rests on. In addition, stick pies are instaBed to ensure themno-lag remasias in place. Because the instaBation is supported continuously, the fastener spacing is not significant for this particular installation. InstaBed couraguration is bounded by tested configuration (Table 5.1).
E-5 The evaluation of this therese-lag instaBation is based on structural faBures rather than thermal failures because W3 does not use thermo-lag to protect cable raceways. Therefore, Contentsfrotal Enclosed Mass is not applicable.
i (Table 5-1)
E-6 This instaBation is bounded by the hose stream test because the thermo-lag is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork,10 gauge metal escapsulates the thermo-lag and the overall thickness of the installed thermo-lag is = 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
f PAGE F-Is
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-77 i
i BARRIER / COMMODITY LOCATION DATA: +21 Elev. RAB
~
~
Diesel G' merator Roosa A
~
~
e Fire Area RAB 16 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
FD-76 Segment 01 FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST i
. 86 gain. RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 120 unia.
See RTYPE A9.02 l
Total 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
(OTHER) l APPLICABLE TF51'
REFERENCES:
NEI Test 2-10 REMARKS: nis thermo4ag w=uh is M supported frema the damper and/or ductwat it rests on. Stick pins are in place to ensure theruMag remnaims in place. Ten gauge salvamined seest endoses the emeine therune4ag E==*=mh giving a animammen of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> fire rating. His therune-lag E==a=Ma*3== is based en strucemral failures rasher than thersmal falhares hae-W3 does met mee theruMag to protect cable raceways. Fearthermore, the accepta=ce criteria as famed in UL Standard $55 can be applied hae=== this
.m.as== la part of a fire damsper systema.
a No fire endurance teseing has been perferaned for this type of candigeration. ha a fire are=ario, her==ne ofits locaties, the thermMag anenably will experience a higher degree ofimmpact fruen the plumme generated by thesuaal thrust. However, therune4ag is enclosed with 10 gauge galvanized steet
- 2,it can transfe-heat frean a laemuned heat somree rather gesickly. His property,is conjuncties with its mee==me steel has a higk therent :- '-
1 thermal capacky, enables seeet se act as a heat sink. When the steel has as,, _
'^y to transfer heat to caeler regions,it can take a relatively leeg tiene for a W to reach its critecal valve. A temaperneure of flet*F is mermaally considered to be the esitical tempenture for steet At this temperature, the yield stress in the steel has decreased to aheet 60% of the value at reen temperature, which is the level mermaally used as the desga working stress. Since the le gauge ceclosure has me leads other than it's own weight, k shemid ressais in place at teunperatures well above 1100*F.
i DEEul794/DOMINOl2 PAGE F-2
i FIGURE F INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 2
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM /PROTECFED COMMODFIY IDENTIFIER:
FD-77 SKETCH OFINSTALLED CONFIGURATION:
92"x 92* MULTI-SEr_h0N p
l 3 HR RRRb OAMfER.
<V
, n~x 3 7,.
l PA 7
~
l
/
.j FIRE 6 ARRIER.
j
,, _ _I _ _ _
e I
,4 I
S-l ontu rHILT l a
I I
y
,EE V +4 6 K F.
2 e
l 1
i I
s,
.......w.,..,3-e 7,,,,
,. 4'... + >,.
..,,,, e.,,.'
i y
,y s. o,
l J/dg
't
- 'k
/
l F
CL6 SF I
2
=
L__
__3 y
gg3 g M. 9 vg B/_
10 6AUGE a
L
/
/
/, / 1 anu.
ETEE L
+A TRERma-LAG S36 FIRE bAMPER.
SEC.TioM h-A PLAM \\l l E WI PAGE F-4
FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF 9
PERFORMANCE Tummaan4.AG aAmama gygTEWrgtOTECTED 0004tdODftY 1DENTIMER.
FB M PARAMETERS e
ArrucAma nae =i===== sysrEx -==
w ei COMMODITY GA maraumnamncumAmm
@A wrEDamRCURAMWS)
GA APPUCARE GA EVAMMMON EVALUATED TrfrS REF. NO.
TYPE Mrt Dasaper and Doctwest CaWe Tray NEI 2-10 E-I SIZE 92" x 92" 6" x 4" Cable Tray net 2-14 E-1 24" x 4" CaWe Tray MATERIAL Seest 6" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah NEI2-10 Inesdied steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah beesaded by tested cesraguration alumnemenen I
(Table 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 theILF
~
24" = 2.94 he/tX CONTENTS / TOTAL DoctwerkI44 ts/IE ENCLOSED MASS CaMe Wt. 6" = 3.30 the/tX NEI 2-10 E-5 (Eschedang damsper) 24" =9.38 he/tX Total 6" = 5.65 the/IE i
24" = 12.74 he/IE I
ORIENTATION Vertical Horizestal/ Vertical NEl 2-10 Same - N/A l' AGE F-6
FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGF.
4 OF ____ 9 PERFORMANCE TuRRaeo-Lac mammann sysTEas/FeoTECTED ComasoorrY msNTIFIER.
FD-M PARAMETERS l
AFFE ramt E FIRE manater Ev5TEng ancasmMT:
swel BARRIER eB n.TanimeCOMMURATM
@B MNCONFaGURATAS)
@B AFFUCAsut
@B F.VALUADOPU EVALUATED TESTS ItEF. NO.
MATERIAL
% 330-1 Prdab Pands Prefabdcated Pands NEI 2-10 E-2 TYPE V-Rib TrowelGrade-Exposed side and P des MATERIAL Panel = I" Overau Dick =*== = A NEI2-18 Himmer tested THICKNESS Trowel Grrde (Esposed Side) = 3/8" A = 1.08 +.25 - 8 misterial wemia Trowed Grade (UW Side) = I/4" beemd i=m.m d l
(Table 5-1)
Overam nickness = I-sts" STIFFENER (V-RIB)
Net Used V-Rib panets parauel to tray rails em NEI 2-10 E-2 LOCATION /
top and besseum af tray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Beek Faces Beek Faces NEI 2-10 Sasse - N/A l
LOCATION l' AGE F-8
FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 5
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TauptneO-LAG MAmmEma SYSTE84/ PROTECTED COhit00DrtY IBGUmFIER.
FD M PARAMETERS O
4FruCABUE FIRE RAM 8888 SYSTEhd 55Gh4EM:
asymmet et BARRIER SC merin-CXMMGURADON
@C TESTEDCumCURmm@
OC AFFUCABt.E O C EVA1.U M M EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
JOINT TYPE (S)
Fm-Bessend Bett Joint Troy A&B NEI 2-18 Samme - N/A Pre-Buteend Best Joint JOINT GAP st/4" slls NEI 2-18
~ ase - N/A Fer review of destructive esaadmaties saanple by Design Engineering Fire Frmamenma Eadmeer.
UNSUPPORTED C
", supported and Baed in place Tray AAB 6" NEI 2-10 Installed confipraises
^'
BARRIER with sdek pies.
Tray CAD 24" beneded by n,.n.d SPANS
- Varies, confipraties Average Space <12" (Table 5-1)
INTERNAL Centimmeedy : ;;: M and Baed in place Tray CAD Prebanding NEI 2 Installed confipraties SUPPORT with stick pins.
bounded by tested MECliANISMS coefipration (Tabic 5-1)
PAGE F-10
~
e.
FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TummanLac mamanna sysranermoracTED COnesoorTv tesNrtRsR.
FDM PARAMETERS O
uriacans.= nas mamarum sysrans =mcassarr swen BARRIER SD
==raia== amn=RAmm eD WWCONRWEAm GD arucABLs GD nVALUADOPU EVALUATED TsSTS REF. NO.
FASTENER Sdck Fins Bands 1/2" N El 2-10 E-3 TYPE FASTENER
- Varies, 12" NEl 2-18 E-4 SPACING Average space <!2" FASTENER Varies 2"
NEI 2-10 E-4 DISTANCE FROM JOE" FASTENER No No NEl 2-18 Sanne - N/A EDGE GUARDS l' AGE F-12
FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 7
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TuRanao-tac mARPJER nVETEMF9&TECTED COREm000 TTY EbertWEER:
FD-M PARAMETERS AFFtFAas X FIRg MaERIED SYgTggg REchdENT:
Sagenes et BARRIER GE ewran s== 0VNFIGURAT30M
@E TEsTEDcoMFacURAMONm GE AFFUCAaLE GE EVALUADOPU EVALUATED TESTS RF.F. NO.
JOINT Trowd Grade N/A NEI 2-19 lastalled configuraties REINFORCEMENT beneded by tested MECHANISMS configuraties (Table 5-1)
STRUCTURAL No Structural Supports Total Coverage NEI 2-10 N/A SUPPORT AND Not concerned with INTERVENING coedmetasm of heat inte STEEL the eccleomre.
PROTECTION LOCATION N/A N/A NEI 2-18 Sasse - N/A OF ENCLOSURE PAGE F-14
FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION. PAGE-8 OF 9
PERFORMANCE DIFMt.AG RARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIMER:
FDM PARAMETERS AFFUCABLE FIRE RARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:
Segunaut et i
BARRIER GF INSTAIMD CONFIGURADON
@F TEarEDCONnGURAMON(S)
GF AFFUCABLE GF EVALUADON EVALUATED TErrs REF. NO.
BARRIER Name Perforuned Heee streams appbed after 86 unia.
NEI 2-10 E-6 CONDITION with me openings through the barrier FOLLOWING em the 6" x 4" cable trays.
HOSE STREAM TEST PAGE F-I6
4.
FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 9
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-77 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5,E-6 EVALUATION (S):
E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resemblance to the installed configuration to date. The performance of the material and the comparison of the different parasmeters will be the basis for this evaluation.
E-2 The instaMation is continuously supported from the damper and/or 16 gauge metal ductwork that the thermo-lag rests on. In addition, stick pins are installed to give greater resistance te material sagging. The use of the damper and/or ductwork is coasparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Therefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the installed configuration.
E-3 10 gauge galvanised steel encloses the entire thermo-lag installation which aBows significant protection of the thermo-lag and stick pia fasteners. InstaBed configuration is bounded by tested configuration (Table 5.1).
E-4 The instaBation is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork that the thermo-lag rests on. In addition, stick pins are instaMed to ensure thermo-lag massins in place. Because the instaBation is supported continuously, the fastener spacing is not significant for this particular instaBation. InstaBed configuration is bounded by tested configuration (Tabic 5.1).
E-5 The eva'uation of this thermo-lag instaMation is based om structural failums rather than thermal failures because W 3 does not use thermo-lag to protect cable raceways. Therefore, Contents / Total Enclosed Mass is not applicabic.
(Table 5-1)
E-6 This installation is bounded by the hose stream test because the thermo-lag is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork,10 gauge metal encapsulates the thereso-lag and the overau thickness of the installed thermo-lag is = 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
l l
l PAGE F-18
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-I77 BARRIER / COMMODITY LOCATION DATA: -4 Elev. RAB Boric Acid Concentrator Room A Fire Area RAB 31 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
FD-177 Segment 0I FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST 86 min. RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 60 min.
See RTYPE A9.02 Total 3 HOURS.
(OTHER)
APPLICABLE TEST
REFERENCES:
NEI Test 2-10 REMARKS: This thersewag installation is continuously.. A4 froaa the damper and/or ductwost it utsts on. He thermeMag installation is based on structural faiinres rather than thermal failures been=== W3 does not use thesmo-lag to protect cable raceways. Fnarthermeet, the acceptance criteria as found im UL standard 555 can be applyed because this installation is part of a fire damper system.
No fire endurance testing has beca perfonned for this type of configuration. In a fire scenario, because ofits location (directly above a doorway, therefore negligible counbustibles), the thermo-lag asseeably would not experience a high degree of impact from the plume generated by thermal thnast.
DEE01795/DOMIN012 PAGE F-2
FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 2
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-177 FtRE w ALL SKETCH OF INSTALLED CONFIGURATION:
./
3 - 3" 3,,,, j e A
o.
SE C,MEUT- 0) 4, ^., % b
=
~
3 o
c,#
s 'o. p 3 v
',s.>.
s l '/2.,
q a
gELEV.
i T FBEloVJ i
d CL6.
i i
e
,s i
i h
N('
l
\\lEMT. S'ISHilt E 21 f-i N
d i
i
/
U i
E LE\\l.
I
)Sts" A.EF.
//
tJ 6 " '-
6 g
o...a-st" f p.
o-FIRE DAMfER 3
3', ' l.
A
'. % v '
n S E CT \\B hl A-A
'a'"
i_mggs.me Sggy
=
ELE \\l AT\\6hl V i EVJ PAGE F-4
FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TuRRMO-LAG Eammera gYF2EMPROTECTED COMneODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-lM PARAMETERS O
AFFUCABLE FIRE B RRIER SYSTEM SECMENT:
Seg m ed el COMMODITY GA wrAu Mn MMRAm
@ A w RED M m B a m m GA AFFUCABLE GA EvAtua m EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
TYPE Fire Dasaper and Ductweak Cable Tray net 2-10 E-1 SIZE 12" x 12" 6" x 4" Cable Tray NEI 2-10 E-1 24" x 4" Cable Tray MATERIAL Steet 6" x 4" Cable Tray - Ahi-net 2-10 Installed steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray Ah bonaded by tested ceafiguration alumnieman (Tame 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 he/RJ 24" = 2.94 the/tX CONTENTS / TOTAL Ductwork=10 lbsllJ l
ENCLOSED MASS Cable Wt. 6" = 3.30 lbs/tX NER 2-10 E-4 i
(Encamenes damper) 24" =,.se mettJ l
Total 6" = 5.65 lbs/LF 24" = 12.74 lbs/tf ORIENTATION Horizontal Horizontal / Vertical N El 2-10 Same - N/A l'A G E 134
FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 4
OF 9
PERFORMANCE THEnne4 LAC RARE 88R aYSTEnd/ PROTECTED CORG40DEYY IDENTIMEa.
Ein i
PARAMETERS l
0 ArrucAmLE nas =*===Ea system ammannT.
sw ei BARRIER Ga DWTAH EnCOMMUaAN
@B TESTEDCONRCURATMs)
@B APPUCABLE 60 EVALUATION /
EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
MATERIAL
% 336-1 Prdab Pands Padabncated Pands NEl 2-10 E-2 TYPE V-Rib Trowd Grade - Exposed side and e side MATERIAL Pand =1" Overait Dieta=== = A NEI 2-10 THICKNESS Trowd Grade (Exposed Side) = 3/8" A = 1.00 +.25 - O lastud thickness is Trowd Grade (Umespeeed Side) = 1/8" beneded by tested configuraties Overall Dietr=== = 1-5/8" (Table 5-1)
STIFFENER (V-RIB)
Not Used V-Rib pands paralid to tray rails em NEI 2-10 E-2 LOCATION /
top and betteen of tray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Beth Faces Both Faces NEI 2-10 Sasse - N/A LOCATION PAGE F-N
FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE_5 OF 9
PERFORMANCE THERMLAC MAREMR SYfrEMPROTECTED ComeoDETY IDENnMER.
fem PARAMETERS O
AFF1 Fans a ytag mARBIER gygTEAR SECh4ENT:
SW et BARRIER ec meriumRconnoonAnon ec TEnrEncounconAnone o c ircuciEta oc EVA1UADON EVALUATED TErrP REF. NO.
JOINT TYPE (S)
Pre-Bustered Best Joint Tray AAB net 2-16 Saane - N/A Pre.Buseered Butt Joint JOINT CAP st/2" st/4" NEl 2-10 E-5 Fer review of destructive a-kh semaple by Design Engineering Fire Preseedse sosineer.
UNSUPPORTED 6"
Tray AAB 6" NEI 2-10 Samme - N/A BARRIER Tray CAD 24" SPANS INTERNAL herune-lag hmm =
_", against Tray CAD Prebanding NEI 2-19 E-3 SUPPORT ductwest.
MECliANISMS PAGE F-In
FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TumaneO-LAG mann sen 3YSTEnd/ PROTECTED COBO900ftY IDENTIFIER.
FD-IM PARAMETERS O
AFFuCABLE FIRg n Aaasam gygtgag agChtENT:
Sepamme et BARRIER GD nefas - CON N MAT m SD TEsTmCommURADON(5)
GD AFFUCABLE G D EVALUADON EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
FASTENER Steel Bands Steel Bands NEI 2-16 Saane - N/A TYPE FASTENER O"
12" NEI 2-10 Installed configuration SPACING beended by sessed configuration (Table 5.1)
FASTENER (Net.*;;' "-)
2" NEI 2-19 N/A DISTANCE FROM Jeines de met rue parallei JOIN 13 with fassemers FASTENER Yes No NEl 2-10 Installed configuration EDGE GUARDS bounded by tested configuraties (Table 5.1)
'A G E F-1 l
FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 7
OF 9
PERFORMANCE Tumamus mamaram sysrswrmorscrse rvmamarry smaxrartaa.
re-m l
PARAMETERS l
e 4,,.m.,,
a -mm-m mrs= - w w.i i
BARRIER GE mesr*> >mmooemcumanon SE vasrancorecURADONm GE A,FUCAMz GE EVA1.UATMMU nVALUATsD TESTS REF. NO.
JOINT N/A N/A NEl 2-14 Sasse - N/A REINFORCEMENT MECHANISMS 1
STRUCTURAL No StructuralSupports TotalCoverage NEI 2-10 N/A SUPPORT AND Not concerned with INTERVENING conducties of heat into STEEL the enclemere.
PROTECTION LOCATION N/A N/A NEl 2-18 Saanc - N/A OF ENCLOSURE l' AGE F-14
o.
FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 8
OF 9
PERFORMANCE ntERMo-lac BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-177 PARAMETERS O
AFFLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:
Segmunt et BARRIER GF INsTAMED CONFIGURADON
@F TESTEDCONFICURADON(S)
GF APPUCABLE GF EVALUADONI EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
BARRIER Nome Perforsned Hose streams applied after 86 main.
NEI 2-10 E-6 CONDITION with no openings through the barrier FOLLOWING on the 6" x 4" cable trays.
HOSE STREAM TEST l
l PAGE F-16
i
.o FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 9
OF 9
i TIIERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-177 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5,E-6 EVALUATION (S):
E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resemblance to the instaued configuration. The performance of the material and the comparison of the different parameters wiu be the basis for this evaluation.
E-2 The installation has 16 gauge metal acting as a backing (support) for the entire installation. The 16 gauge metal is comparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Therefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the instaued configuration.
E-3 The continuous backing of the 16 gauge galvanized dactwork will conduct a significant amount of heat in ortler to reduce the rate that the barrier amaterial softens during fire exposure.
E-4 The evaluation of this thermo-lag instaBation is based on structural failures rather than thermal failures because W3 does not use theruno-lag to protect cable raceways. Therefore, Contents /fotal EacIased Mass is not applicable.
(Table 5-1)
E-5 It is reasonable to conclude that the continous backing of the 16 gauge galvanized ductwork and the trowel grade applied to the exposed and urexposed sides of the entire thermo-lag installation wiu bound the 5; 1/2 joint gap.
E-6 The thermo-lag installation is bounded by the hose stream test because the installed thermo-lag is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork and the overall thickness of the instaHed thermo-lag is = 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
PAGE F-18
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-178 l
a 1
BARRIER / COMMODITY LOCATION DATA: -4 Elev. RAB Boric Acid Concentrator Room B Fire Area RAB 31 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
FD-178 Segment 01 FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST 86 min. RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 60 min.
See RTYPE A9.02 Total 3 HOURS.
(OTHER)
APPLICABLE TEST
REFERENCES:
NEI Test 2-10 REMARKS: This 1. __ ".:;;imatanati== is com====dy 7 g :M frem the damsper and/or doctwork it rests on. He t% installation is based ea en structural faikares rather than therusal faikares h===* W3 does met use t% to protect cable raceways. Fartheranere, the acceptance criteria as famed la UL standard 555 can be applyed h===* this aatamaties is part of a fire damper systema.
s No fire enderance testing has beca perfonned for this type of configuraties. In a fire scenario, bee==ne of its locaties (directly above a doesway, therefore negligible ceanbestables), the therW===e==bly wenid met expenence a high degree of inapact froam the please generated by thermaal thrust.
DEEG17%/ DOMINO 12 PAGE F-2
FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 2
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD 173 O
SKETCH OFINSTAIIJR CONFIGURATION:
FlRE w alt _
E*
D6" s'o.',8,b g
4$'#.,
~
i
=
+
4 o
r,*g.
U 6^.p#,,
s o', s b.
N a
7 ELEV.
lYZ,.
- N 7t-6*BElbwl i
i i
O N
CL6.
i i
\\
i MfMT.Tl5TEME~L1Ah
=
i
/
l U
ELE 9.
I 15'--4" A7.F.
// b g 3 ' A. '
l st,
- g o..
o-
- . p. o -
a RKE DAMfER
., ', g, A
-6 O.
+
as S E CT 10 Al A-A
^ ;,, -f"
+
=___r---
4ggg.m g y
ELEV AT\\Bhl V I EW
.._ = = = _
I PAGE F-4
O.
FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF-9 PERroRMANCE Tune ma n-surEursoracnn oonosconY memana.
re-in PARAMETERS e
ArrsFAM2 MBE BRBER 5NIBM anemND SWet l
COMMODITY GA wraummoonnammm SA m moom m uRA m GA AFMJCAMz GA EmUAMON EVAI.UATED TESTS REF. NO.
l TYPE Fire Damperand DuM CaMe Tray NEl 2-10 E-1 l
SIZE 12" x 12" 6" x 4" CaMe Tray net 2-10 E-1 24" x 4" CaMe Tray MATERIAL Steel 6" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah NEI 2-14 Installed steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah bomeded by tested caengurataen h (Tame 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 he/LF 24" = 2.94 he/tX CONTEN'ISITOTAL Ductwerk=lt IbeltX E-4 ENCLOSED MASS CaMe WL 6" = 3.30 the/LF NEI 2-10 (Eschading dasaper) 24" = 9.30 he/lJ Total 6" = 165 the/IJ 24" = 12.74 he/IS ORIENTATION Horuental Hosuantal/ Vertical N El 2-10 Same - N/A PA G E F-6
FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 4
OF 9
PERFORMANCE O
TumLAc names== sysTEwraorEcTFm comesOctTy IDENUFIER:
FS175 PARAMETERS O
AFFtKABEA Fgat mamanym system SECMENT4 sepassa ei BARRIER GB nar^'-= COMMURATM
@E TESTEDCONFIGURADONS)
@E APPUCAaLE OE EVALUADON EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
MATERIAL Therune-tag 336-1 Prufsb Pands Prefabsicated Panels NEI 2-16 E-2 TYPE V-Rib Trowel Grade-Exposed side and.
P side MATERIAL Pamei = 1" Overall Dirk =*.m = A net 2-10 THICKNESS Trowd Grade (Exposed Side) = 3/8" A = 1.00 +.25 - 8 Instaued thickness is Trowel Grade (Umesposed Side) = 118" bounded by tested configuration OveraN park
- 3.SS" (Table 5-1)
STIFFENER (V-RIB)
Net Used V-Rib panels parallel to tray rails em NEI 2-16 E-2 LOCATION /
top and hatesen of tray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Both Faces Both Faces NEI 2-10 Sanne - N/A LOCATION PAGE F-8
FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 5
OF 9
FERFORMANCE e
NLAG =A==E== 5YETEWFROTECTED ConsteoDrIY IDEPfr1FIER.
FD-US PARAMETERS O
Amicans 1 Fins =*===== svarEns==cmmwr.
w on BARRIER ec marin-conncommon ec TusrEDcouncuamone o c APruC M M OC EVA1.UATHWU EVALUATED TENTS REF. N(1 JOINT TYPE (S)
Fre-Battered Best Joint Tray AAB NEI 2-10 Saane - N/A Pm-Buttered Butt Joint JOINT GAP st/2" st/4" NEI 2-10 E-5 Fer review of destructive n==3==a==
saanple by Design EngWFire Protecties Englaeer.
UNSUPPORTED 6"
Tray AAB 6" NEI 2-10 Sasse - N/A BARRIER Tray CAD 24" SPANS INTERNAL Thermes 4ag 3==rm --
- "5 against Tray CAD Prebandaag NEl 2-10 E-3
^'
SUPPORT dactwork.
MECilANISMS PAGE F-In
~~
FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TutansmLAcmAmmarmsysTEnstrauyrEcrIDmnensonsTV DaNTIFIERa FEt7s FARAMETERS APFtJCABLE FIRE RAmmEna system mucaangT:
SW St BARRIER GD msTmconmumATm SD mTEDCOfmGURADON(s)
GD APPUCABLE GD EVA1,UAMOPU EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
e a
e o
e FASTENER Sessi Bands Seest Bands NEI 2-10 Saane - N/A TYPE FASTENER 9"
12" NEI 2-19 InstaHed configurateen SPACING beumded by tested configuraties (Tame 11)
FASTENER (Not ApsdicaMe) 2" NEI 2-19 N/A DISTANCE FROM Joises de met nem paramei JOIN 13 with fe FASTENER Yes No NEI 2-10 Installed configuration EDGE GUARDS hounded by tested configuration (Table it) 1%GE F-12
FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 7
OF 9-PERFORMANCE rumanao. Lac mimosam systmasegurracrza onnamanarry soswrtrism:
re in i
PARAMETERS j
Ayre nraus a ytag naamsma systans macmaant:
s.,m nset i
BARRIER GE nestarimacewrecumArion SE TasrancorecURArms)
GE AFFUCAnt.a GE EVALUATIOPU sVALUATsD TESTS REF.NO.
JOINT N/A N/A net 2-10 Samme - N/A l
REINFORCEMENT MECHANISMS.
STRUCTURAL No SanscemralSupports Total Coverage NEI2-18 N/A SUPPORTAND Not concerned wkh INTERVENING conducties of heat inte STEEL the enclosure PROTECTION LOCATION N/A N/A NEI 2-18 Same - N/A OF ENCLOSURE PAGE F-14
FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 8
OF-9 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYKTEMPROTECIYD WMMODirY IDMr1FIER.
FD 178 PARAMETERS AFFUCARLE F1RE RABRIRE SYSrEM 8ECMMr.
Se pned el l
BARRIER GF IN5rALLED CONMGURADON
@F TEsrEDCONRGURADON(5)
GF AFFUCABLE GF EVALUATION /
EVALUATED TESrS REF. NO.
BARRIER Name Perforsned Hose streams applied after 86 inia.
NEI 2-10 E-6 CONDITION with me openings through the barrier FOLLOWING em the 6" x 4" cable trays.
HOSE STREAM TEST PAGE F-16
4 FIGU'RE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 9
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-178 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5,E-6 2
EVALUATION (S):
E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resemblance to the instaued configuration. The performance of the material and the comparison of the different parameters will be the basis for this evaluation.
E-2 The instauntion has 16 gauge asetal acting as a backing (support) for the entire installation. The 16 gauge metal is comparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Therefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the instaued configuration.
E-3 The continuous backing of the 16 gauge galvanized doctwork wiu conduct a significant amouat of heat in order to reduce the rate that the barrier amaterial softens during fire exposure.
E-4 The evaluation of this thermo-lag instaBation is based on structural faHures rather than thermal failures because W3 does not use thermo-lag to protect cable raceways. Theerfore, Contents /rotal Enclosed Mass is not applicable.
(Table 5-1)
E-5 It is reasonable to conclude that the continous backing of the 16 gauge galvanized ductwork and the trowel grade applied to the exposed and unexposed sides of the entire thermo-lag installation wiu bound the s 1/2 joint gap.
E-6 The thermo-lag installation is bounded by the hose stream test because the installed thermo-lag is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork and the overall thickness of the installed thenno-lag is = 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
PAGE F-18
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
i THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-179 BARRIER / COMMODITY LOCATION DATA: -4 Elev. RAB Waste Concentrator Room Fire Area RAB 31 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES f
i FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
FD-179 Segment 01 1
FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST 86 min. RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 60 min.
See RTYPE A9.02 Total 3 HOURS.
(OTHER) l APPLICABLE TEST
REFERENCES:
NEI Test 2-10 O
REMARKS: This thesum4ag in.n.es-ismy supported femma thea==rer and/or ductwork it itses on. 'Ine therem4ng installation is based i
(
en structural failures rather than therusal failures h==* W3 does met use therano-lag to protect cable raceways. Farthersnost, the acceptance criteria as l
famed in UL een=dard 555 can be applyed her==e* this inessna(imm is part of a fire damper systems.
l l
No fire cadurance testing has been perfonmed for this type of configuration. In a fire are==rio, because of its location (directly above a doorway, therefore
[
megligible cesabastibles), the thersno. lag assembly weeld not experiecce a high degree ofinspect front the plemne generated by thermaal thmst.
DEE01797/ DOMINO 12 PAGE F-2
FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE~ 2 OF 9
THERMO-1AG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-179 O
SKETCH OFINSTALLED CONFIGURATION:
FIRE w ALL
/
y.gn g,_. i p A
_+
SE C,MthiT-Q1 4, #., *,, h.
=
+
8
, p,#
o 3
U b
y p# 'V s o,, s b.
\\
u h ELEV.
l'/2.n
- N 7718"8Etowl
,i e
i 2
CL6.
i
~
s l
'(
li NENT. TETEM D 22. I-h
=
\\
'N u
E LE\\l.
I 15 C43' AE.F.
// 6 g 3'#\\'
..'d-it, j(
o o.s
/
FlKE DAMfER EI o 'g, A
d.
Lb S E CT IQhl A-A
" a 4" 4
_g y
ELE \\lAT\\BN 9 i EVJ PAGE F-4
4 FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF 9
PERFORMANCE Tumanso-Lac minanen svarsaeFa0TECTED COttheOORTY IDEffr1FIER.
F41M PARAMETERS e
- -im,,i mmm..v riu - c
<n
%.i COMMODITY GA minmace maAMM
@A rarrancoNFuaAMS)
GA AFFWCAm:2 GA EVAWATM EVALUATED TENTS REF. NO.
TYPE Mee Dasaper and Ductwerk CaMe Tray NEl 2-10 E-1 SIZE 12" x 12" 6" x 4" CaMe Tray NEI 2-10 E-1 24" x 4" CaMe Tray MATERIAL Seed 6" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah==A====
NEI 2-le I==8.n,d steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah ha==ded by tested configuration alumnimum (Tame 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 Iha/LF 24" = 2.94 he/LF CONTEN'IS/ TOTAL Ductwork= 18 lbs/LF E-4 ENCLOSED MASS CaMe Wt. 6" = 3.30 he/LF NEI 2-18 (Exchading damsper) 24" = 9.88 he/LF Total 6" = 5.65 the/LF 24" = 12.74 lbe/LF ORIENTATION Horizestal HorizontalNestical NEI 2-10 Same - N/A l' AGE F-6
.z FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 4
OF 9
~
PERFORMANCE Tasmaan-lac misman sysraasesoracran annaamrry Inswrtrism.
rn-in PARAMETERS O
Arruriarm runs m*==== sysrans =casawn swen BARRIER 88 n'eriumm ame===amm en vastsaconvicumAriosas, en APPUCABt.E O E EVALUATMMU
"^"'^'**
i MATERIAL 1herne4ag 330-1 Prdab Pands Pufabricated Panels N EI 2-10 E-2 TYPE V-Rib Trowel Grade-Esposed side and.
MATERIAL Pamei = 1" Overau 1Mehme== = A NEl 2-10 THICKNESS Trowel Grade (rwyn d Side)-3is" A = 1.00 +.25 -C Installed thickness is Trowel Grade (Umewpe=md Side) = 12" beended by tested configuraties OveraR 1Weh==== = 1-5/8" (Table 5-1)
STIFFENER (V-RIB)
Net Used V-Rib pemens parallel to tray rails em NEI 2-10 E-2 LOCATION /
top and botasan dtray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Both Faces Both Faces NEI 2-10 Same - N/A LOCATION PAGE F-8
.=
- =
~~
FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 5
OF 9-PERFORMANCE e
Tuman@I.AG BAantEE sYsTEMPROTECTED cobedODrtY IDENTIFIER:
FD-179 FARAMETERS e
AFF1JCABt2 FIRE mAmmann sygTEM sBCR4ENT:
swet BARRIER oc meriu-connconAnoN sc TEsrEDcxmncumAnoms>
ec Arrucin.E ec xvit.uinow EVALUATED TESTS RF#. MO.
JOINT TYPE (S)
Pre-Buttered Butt Joint Tray AC 3 NEI 2-19 Sanne - N/A Pre-Buttered Butt Joint JOINT GAP st/2" st/4" NER 2-10 E-5 3
Per review of destructive emandmaties someple by Design Engineesing Fire Protecties Engineer.
UNSUFFORTED 6"
Tray AAB 6" NEI 2-18 Saanc - N/A BARRIER Tray CAD 24" l
SPANS INTERNAL
% wM -
", against Tray CAD Prebardaag NEl 2-10 E-3 SUPPORT doctwork.
MECHANISMS I
i PAGE F-10
l e
l l
l FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
PERFORMANCE TusRaso-tas mammera sYsTEas/FutortcTED contasootTY nosNTIFIERa FD-lM PARAMETERS AFF1JCARLE MRE manasma SYSTEM SEGMENT:
segueses et BARRIER GD nestau 2n WMMURAMN
@D mTMCOMMURADOMm GD AFFUCABLE GD avA1,UATMMU TESTS REF. NO.
, EVALUATED I
FASTENER Steel Bands Steel Bands NEl 2-10 Samme - N/A
'r TYPE FASTENER 59" 12" NEI 2-10 Installed configurateen SPACING benaded iey tessed configuraties (Table 11)
FASTENER (Not Applicable) 2" NEI 2-10 N/A DISTANCE FROM Joints de met num parauel J0tN13 with fassumers FASTENER Yes No NEl 2-10 Installed configuration EDGE GUARDS beneded by scsted configuration (Table 5.1)
PAGE F-12
w c
FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE
'7 OF 9
FERFORMANCE Tumananuc maansam sysrancescractsD consaconsTV seerrarina.
rn-in FARAMETERS e
A,,ocA
,i
-en-sym.t -
l BARRIER GE serAumDmwricumATaon SE vasrEDCCfWBGURATIOMm GE AFFOCABLa GE EVALUATMW i
svALUATED TESTS REF. Na I
JOINT N/A N/A NEI 2-18 Sanne - N/A l
REINFORCEMENT MECHANISMS l
STRUCI' URAL No Structural Supports Tesal Coverage NEI 2-16 N/A SUFFORT AND Not concerned with INTERVENING conducties of heat imeo STEEL the enciesere PROTECTION LOCATION N/A N/A NEI 2-10 Sanne - N/A 0F ENCLOSURE PAGE F-14
~
FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 8
OF 9
PERFORMANCE DIERMO-IAC BARRIER SYSTEWPROTECTED COMMODrfY IDENTIFIER:
FD-179 PARAMETERS AFFUCABut FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:
Segm edel BARRIER GF INSTARED CONFIGURATION
@F TasTEDCONFIGURADON(S)
GF APPUCABI.a GF EVALUADON EVALUATED TFSTS REF. NO.
BARRIER Nome Perfornoed Hese streams applied after 86 main.
NEI 2-10 E-6 CONDITION with me openings through the barrier FOLLOWING
. en the 6" x 4" cable trays.
HOSE STREAM TEST PAGE F-16
~.
1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ~ PAGE 9
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-179 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 l
EVALUATION REF. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5,E-6 EVALUATION (S):
E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resemblance to the installed configuration. The performance of the material and the comparison of the different parameters wiB be the trasis for this evaluation.
E-2 The installation has 16 gauge metal acting as a backing (support) for the entire installation. The 16 gauge metal is comparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Therefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the installed configuration.
The continuous backing of the 16 gauge galvanized ductwork will conduct a significaat amount of heat in order to reduce the rate E-3 that the barrier material softens during fire exposure.
E-4 The evaluation of this thermelag installation is based on structural failures rather than thermal failures because W3 does not use thersno-lag to protect cable raceways. Herefest, Contents / Total Euclosed Mass is not applicable.
(Table 5-1)
E-5 It is reasonable to conclude that the continous backing of the 16 gauge galvanized ductwork and the trowel grade applied to the exposed and unexposed sides of the entire thermo-lag installation will bound the 5; I/2 joint gap.
E-6 The thermo-lag installation is bounded by the hose stream test because the installed thermo-lag is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork and the overall thickness of the installed thermo-lag is = 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
PAGE F-18
i L
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PRO 12CTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-3HV-B217B j
I l
BARRIER / COMMODITY LOCATION DATA: 21 Elev. Wing Area Fire Area RAB 25 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
Segment 01 FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST 86 mais. RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 60 niin.
See RTYPE 9.02 Total 3 HOURS.
(OTHER)
APPLICABLE TEST
REFERENCES:
NEI Test 2-10 REMARKS CEE01803/DOMINOl3 PAGE F-2
y.
FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 2
OF 9
THERMO-IAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-3HV-B217B SKETCH OF INSTALLED CONFIGURATION:
gi, p
- A
,-- sso 3
=.
._f 3
41" @
F y
x
)
N e.
/
i
=
d J
\\
ua g
g
/
,J i,
y a m..
n mo
\\
/.
i V
c x
.t.
\\ p h y ;'. ;.
g <0 v.~. '. s,o j'
a p.
c.,,,
fDs
~ r.
2
'y
'p
?,
T' '
W g
,e 3
?
7 y
D.#S.
p s
~~
\\
Lvat
\\
n
~
tanut j
PAGE F-4
-e FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF 9
FERFORMANCE NLAG manamm gygTEM/ PROTECTED COhudODETY IDENTIFIER.
FDJHV-5217B FARAMETERS e
AMEABM FIRE RAEMn 5YSTEM SEGMENT:
Segemsus et COMMODITY GA nurin== mNnGURATBN
@A nsrEDCONnGURADONm GA APPUCAsu GA EVAWAUOW EVALUATED TEKr5 REF. NO.
TYPE Mre Damsper and Ductwerk CaMe Tray NEl 2-10 E-1 SIZE 42" dia== der 6" x 4" CaMe Tray NEl 2-10 E-1 24" x 4" CaMe Tray MATERIAL Steel 6" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah===3====
NEI 2-It Innalled steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray - Alumminous ha==ded by tested configurataos alumnissa (Tame 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 Ibe/EJ 24" = 2.94 he/IE CONTENTS / TOTAL Doctwest= 55 lbsAE E-4 ENCLOSED MASS CaMe WL 6" = 3.3e he/IJ NEI 2-10 (Exetuding damsper) 24" = 9.SB Iba/1X Total 6" = 5.65 lbs/IJ l
24" = 12.74 lberIJ l
ORIENTATION Vertical Horizontal / Vertical NEI 2-10 Sanne - N/A PAGE F-6
l FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 4
OF 9
PERFORMANCE Tumtac namanen sysruwenorscrza conesoorry inerrirtaa.
raav-azna PARAMETERS e
Ayyt Fans N FtmE mammann gvfrEng amenamary:
3,ymag et BARRIER es nur4ums-monima en wrm - muniTum,3 es APrWCABLE 00 EVALUADOW EVALUATE.
TESTS REF. NO.
l MATERIAL Hernme tag 336-1 Prdab Pands Prdabricated Pamels NEI 2-10 E-2 TYPE V-Rib Trewd Grade-Exposed side and
______,y MATERIAL Pamei = 1" Overam nacka,a= = A NEI 2-10 Di==er tested THICKNESS Trowei Grade (Exposed Side) = 3/8" A = 1.00 +.25 - e smsterial would Trewd Grade (Usespeeed Side) = 1/8" bened instaued (Table 5.1)
Overalt psek==== =I 1/2" STIFFENER E-2 (V-RIB)
Net Used V-Rib panels parallel to tray rails em NEI 2-10 LOCA'llON/
top and hatesen of tray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Beth Faces Beth Faces NEI 2-10 Saane - N/A LOCATION PAGE F-8
FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BAliRIER EVALUATION PAGE 5
OF 9
FERFORMANCE suvanertLas maamma ersrunsemoracrum rummaamrry seawrman:
roaarv-m:7s PARAMETERS 9
arruciss a nas naaman ersruns amansawr:
swon BARRIER Sc misriuman.ncommon oc wasrunoonnoummonosi ec arruci==
ec ava.umow EVALUATED TEste mEF. NO.
JOINT TYPE (S)
Puh Best Joint Tray AAB NEI 2-14 Samme - N/A Pre-museerd mustJoint JOINT GAP st/4" st/4" NEI 2-10 E-3 Per review of destruceive====i==d==
semeyte by Design Engineering Mre Pr=e=eei== Engineer.
testaned UNSUFFORTED r==an====dy supported 12" NEI 2-18 comHgiaration BARRIER by emetwest W by SPANS tested comHgiarassen (Table 5-1) i Installed l
INTERNAL r==an====dy supported Tray CAD Pnhanding net 2-10 cenEguraties SUFFORT by decework beended by MECHANISMS tested ceanguration (Table 5-I)
PAGE F-10
.. - ~..
a.
FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
PERFORMANCE G
TMNLAG RAEREER SYg[Eb@FROTECTMB cOsesODtTY IDEumflEIb FDJHV. BIDS PARAMETERS O
AFFUCAngz ping panmens SYSTEnd MasaMT:
s p w et BARRIER eo meriumaconFicumATm eD MNCONFIGURATMW)
GD AFFUCABUL OO EVALUATKWU EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
FASTENER Bands - 1/2" Bands - 1/2" NEl 2-18 Samme N/A TYPE lastalled FASTENER s s" s 12" NEI 2-10 conEpration SPACING beended by tested coenpraties (Table 5-1)
FASTENER Net Applicable 12" NEI 2-14 N/A DISTANCE FROM Joints de est run paraEst J0tN15 with fassemers Installed FASTENER Yes No NEl 2-19 comEpraties beended by EDGE GUARDS tested confipration (Table 5-1) l i
l PAGE F-12
l FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 7
OF 9
FERFORMANCE TuReaso. tac minnma sysrEastraoracrED mensoorry inEwrsy Em.
raaa:V.azt7s FARAMETERS ArruCABLE FIRE RAREMB SYsrEhi 8ENRMT:
segusme et BARRIER GE paraumamNescumamn SE TEsrEDCONelGURAM8)
GE ArrWCABLs GE EVAL.UADOPU EVALUATED TESr8 REF.NO.
JOINT TroweiGrade N/A net 2-le Installed configuraties REINFORCEMENT beended by sessed MECHANISMS cenEguraties (Tame 5-1)
STRUCTURAL No StrucesralSupports Total Coverage NEI2-10 N/A SUPPORT AND Not concerned with INTERVENING condecties of heat into STEEL the esclamare PROTECTION
'l i
LOCATION N/A N/A NEI 2-10 Same - N/A OF ENCIASURE I* AGE F-14
FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 8
OF 9
PERFORMANCE THERMo-Lac BARRIER SYFTEM/ PROTECTED COMMODITY IINENTIFIER:
FDJHV-B117B PARAMETERS AFF1JCABLE FIRE BARRIER SYNTEM SEGMENT:
Segpasstel BARRIER GF INsrAU RD CONFIGURADON
@F TurrEDCONFICURADON(S)
GF AFFUCABLE GF EVALUADONI EVALUATED TFATS REF. NO.
BARRIER Nome Perfonned Hose streast applied after 86 main.
NE12-10 E-5 CONDITION with no openings through the barrier FOLLOWING en the 6" x 4" cable trays.
HOSE STREAM TEST PAGE F-16
l l
i l
FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 9
OF 9
l l
l THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-3RV-B217B APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4,E-5 i
EVALUATION (S):
1 E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resemblance to the instaHed configuration. The performance of the material and the comparison of the different parameters will be the basis for this evaluation.
E-2 The installation has 16 gauge metal acting as a backing (support) for the entire instaHation. The 16 gauge metal is comparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Therefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the instaHed configuration.
1 E-3 The majority of this installation is made up of grooved / scored thermo-lag is order to facilitate instsuation around the 42" diameter duct. Grooved / Scored instaHations appear to be a betterjoint configuration than butt joints because the inner stress skin remains continuous and serves as a reinforcement or ties.
E-4 The evaluation of this therme-tag instaHation is based on structural faBures rather than thermal failures because W3 does not use thermo-lag to protect cable raceways. Therefore, Contents / Total Enclosed Mass is not applicable.
(Table 5-1)
E-5 The thermo-lag instaHation is bounded by the hose stream test because the instaHed thermo-lag is continuously supported from the damper and/or ductwork and the overall thickness of the installed thermo-lag is = 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
PAGE F-18
FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 1
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-3HV-B218A BARRIER /COMI'9DITY LOCATION DATA:-4 Elev. Wing Area Fire Area RAB 32 REQUIRED RATING:
1-HOUR X
3-HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENTS EVALUATED:
Segment 01 FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:
X BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST 86 mis, RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED 60 mia.
See RTYPE A9.02 Total 3 HOURS.
(OTHER)
APPLICABLE TEST
REFERENCES:
NEI Test 2-10 REMARKS: This t% imenMati-is contimmensly suppated fam the dv and/or doctwork it rests om. The ther% installatsen is based em structural faihares rather than thermaal failures h== W3 does met use thersse4ag to protect cable raceways, hrtherunere, the acceptance criteria as famed im UL standard 555 can be applied because this installaties is part of a fire dasaper systema.
DEE01805/DOMINOI3 PAGE F-2
FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 2
OF 9
THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-3HV-D218A
. g.,
, g,,
SKETCH OFINSTAILED CONFIGURATION:
Y
[
FIEE LLEV
_.yg bfiRRitR.
\\
.421s' \\
n
. __ E E 4
O, - m,.
a
- awa,,
m
, 4,4 a'
- f. -
p, ' '
,/,-!s
/y
- 4*,
- J ~a j q r
- 4
~
,,,.**.a "p.
l
-h see's,'; a
.,, 4, 'a 4 f
N.
A t
\\
- '(.
\\
N ua J L I
gA r
N r#
3
/
N in 6 f'y' k
r 3
b y
==
(
\\
a1 w
g
\\,
p;
--- h yg.
j/ /l/f QFiM?@s
.(
f' Q
TIRRrno-th 6 Ei5B 5f CT10M 4 h" litVAIiDM 'lltVJ PAGE F-4
s FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 3
OF 9
FERFORMANCE psammus ma mmMa sverzamorEcran ooMMoorry msmmaa.
m HV-RuaA PARAMETERS Ayys Ef'ABf a FRE mAREMR SY5 REM emmmer s y,,mg og COMMODITY GA marinnamncummm
@A rusrantwncURAMomo GA AFFUCAN.a GA EVALUNHOW EVALUATED TENTS REF. NO.
TYPE Fise Dansper and Ductwork CaMe Tray NEI 2-19 E-1 SIZE 41"m m 6" x 4" CaMe Tray NE12-10 E-1 24" x 4" CaMe Tray MATERIAL Steet 6* x 4" CaMe Tray - Ah NEI 2-19 Installed steelis 24" x 4" CaMe Tray - Ahassimum beended by tested -
configuaration ahnami-s=
(Tame 5-1)
Raceway 6" = 2.35 he/tX 24" = 2.94 he/IE CONTENTS / TOTAL Ductwerk= $5 heJIE ENCIASED MASS CaMe WL 6" - 3.38 te/IE NEI 2-19 E-4 (Escanding Damper) 24"-s.se as/nJ Total 6" = 5.65 lbs 24" = 12.74 the ORIENTATION Vertical Herisestal/ Vertical NEI 2-10 Same - N/A PAGE F4
FIGURE F-4 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 4
OF 9
FERFORMANCE THEmneo-LAG RaBRIER SYFFEnd/ PROTECTED CORGeODrrY EDENEWlER:
FD-3HV-5218A PARAMETERS AFFucans = ynaE mamasum sYrrEna n==m4T.
swet BARRIER Ga narran=nCOMMGUBADON
@B TESIEDCOMMGURAMS)
@B AFFUCABLE
@B EVM.UATMM/
EVALUATED TENTS REF. NO.
MATERIAL 1herusa4ag 336-1 Prdab Pands Pedabricated Pands NEI2-10 E-2 TYPE V-Bib Trowd Grade-Exposed side MATERIAL Panet = 1" Overau'shk=*e= = A NEI 2-18 Da==er tested TitICENESS Trewd Grade (Esposed Side) = 3/8" A = 1.00 +.25 - 8 maaterial would Trowel Grade (Umesposed Side) = 1/8" bound instaHed (Table 5-1)
Overalt Thk=*e= =1 1/2" STIFFENER E-2 (V-RIB)
Net Used V-Rib pands parauel to tray rails em NEI 2-18 LOCATION /
top and bestema of tray ORIENTATION STRESS SKIN Beth Faces Both Faces NEI 2-10 Samme - N/A LOCATION 1
- PAGE F-8
- 1 FIGURE F-5 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 5
OF 9
PERFORMANCE Tusaneo-m aAnamm systsheemoracrap maammerv naarrrman.
rnauV-musa FARAMETERS AFFt ranE 2 MBE PAmafEm SY5rEWernamfr.
Sepuma et BARRIER ec meriu-m00MMGURATMM
@C TESTEDCOMMGURmOM@
@C AFFUCAs u OC EVAWADON EVAWATED TESTS REF. NO.
JOINT TYPE (S)
Pre-Buttered Best Joint Tray AaB NEi 2-10 Sanne - N/A Pre-Battered Bett Joint JOINT GAP st/4" 51/4" NEI 2-10 E-3 Fer review of destructive essaminados anemple by Design Engineering Fire Prh Engineer.
Inst ned UNSUFFORTED C==ai====dy supported 12" NEI 2-18 coengerades BARRIER by doctwork beended by SPANS tested caengurassee (Table 5-1)
Installed C ^
fy -- ;;:14 Tray CAD 7.-
NEI 2-10 coeHguraties by ductwest beneded by tested configuration (Tabic 5-I)
PAGE F-In
FIGURE F-6 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 6
OF 9
FERFORMANCE tw=mw maamsma syrransenoracrza rvinamanarrY Iperrarina.
raatsv-matar l
FARAMETERS O
Arre acans a rims mammina sversu smaassan sw on BARRIER GD neri>>== oonymumm
@D munanemumme SD AFFUCABt2 GD mm.UATM EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
FASTENER Bands - 1/2" Bands - 1/2" NEI 2-10 Saane N/A TYPE FASTENER
_< 3" 12" NEI 2-10 Installed SPACING configuraties beended by tested coengurataea (Table 5-1)
FASTENER Not Applicable 12" N EI 2-10 N/A DISTANCE FROM Joints de not rue paraBel JOINTS with fasteners FASTENER Yes No NEl 2-10 Installed EDGE GUARDS coenguration bounded by tested ceafiguration (Table 5-l)
PAGE F-12
FIGURE F-7 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 7
OF 9
FERFORMANCE TuaRaso-lac maansam sYarmasmtorscran canansootTY IDEUmFIER.
FDJHV-321sA PARAMETERS AFFUCABt2 Flag mAmmann sYrrEng ancasagt:
sege maog BARRIER GE narraumacxmnGURADON
@E TasTsocoNnGURATMS)
GE ArrucABLE GE EVALUADON EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.
JOINT Trewd Grade N/A NEI 2-14 Installed configuratase REINFORCEMENT beeinded by tested MECHANISMS confaguraties (Tame 5-1)
STRUCTURAL No StmeteralSuppests TotalCoverage NEI 2-10 N/A SUFFORT AND Not concerned with INTERVENING condmetism of heat into STEEL the esclamare PROTECTION l
LOCATION N/A N/A NEI 2-10 Saane - N/A OF ENCLOSURE l
PAGE F-14
a FIGURE F-8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 8
OF
-9 PERFORMANCE THERMO-IAG BARRIER SYSTEWPROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIMER:
FDJHV-B218A PARAMETERS O
AFFUCAB12 FIRE RARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT.
Segment et BARRIER GF INNTAumn CONMGURADON
@F TasrEDCONMGURADOMS)
GF APPUCABLE OF EVA1,UADON/
EVALUATED TEKTS REF. NO.
BARRIER Nome Perforuned Hese streams applied after 86 main.
NEl 2-10 E-5 CONDITION with me openings through the banier FOLLOWING en the 6" x 4" cable trays.
HOSE STREAM TEST PAGE F-16
c 6
FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION PAGE 9
OF 9
~
THERMO-IAG BARRIER SYSTEM / PROTECTED COMMODITY IDENTIFIER:
FD-3HV-B218A APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):
Segment 01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S):
E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5 EVALUATION (S):
E-1 Test NEI 2-10 is the closest resemblance to the instaued configuration. The performance of the material and the comparison of-the different parameten wiB be the basis for this evaluation.
E-2 The instaBation has 16 gauge metal acting as a backing (support) for the entire instaHation. The 16 gauge metal is comparable to the V-ribs (stiffeners). Therefore, test NEI 2-10 would bound the instaued configuration.
E-3 The majority of this instaMation is made up of gewoved/scoerd thermo-lag in order to facilitate installation around the 42" diameter duct. Grooved / Scored instaBations appear to be a betterjoint configuration than butt joints because the immer stress skin renamins continuous and sesves as a reinfortement or ties.
E-4 The evaluation of this thermo-lag instaustion is based on structural failures rather than thermal failures because W3 does not use thermo-lag to protect cable raceways. Therefore, Contents / Total Enclosed Mass is not applicable.
(Table 5-1) l E-5 The thermo-lag instauntion is bounded by the hose stream test because the instaued thermo-lag is continuously supported from the dansper and/or ductwork and the overau thickness of the instaBed thermo-lag is su 1/4" to 1/2" thicker.
l l~
PAGE F-18
. ;i,7
=-
ATTACHMENT B TO W3F1-94-0220 COMBUSTIBILITY VALUES FOR THERM 0-LAG
0" l
k 4;;.
-ATTACHMENT B C'OMBUSTIBILITY VALUES FOR THERM 0-IAG
^
Thermo-lag combustibility values have not yet been determined. The ~
following heat content value and density for thermo-lag is based on NUMARC Combustibility Evaluation Guide a FIRE DAMPER TOTAL THERM 0 -
WEIGHT OF TOTAL WEIGHT COMBUSTIBILITY TOTAL BTU LAG PER FIRE THERMO-LAG OF THERM 0-LAG VALUE PER FIRE DAMPER PER FIRE DAMPER DAMPER cubic ft.
lbs./cu.ft.
lbs.
btu /lb.
btu FD-76 58 126 731 7.000 5,117.000
~
FD-77 5.8 126 731 7,000 5.117,000 FD-177 1.08 126 137 7,000 959.000 FD-178 0.66-126 83 7,000 581,000 FD-179 1.29 126 163-7.000 1.141,000 FD-3HV-217B 4.14 126 522 7,000 3.654.000 FD-3HV-218A 4.95 126 624 7.000' 4.368,000
r' f
ATTACHMENT B (CONT.')
FIRE SEVERITY FOR FIRE AREAS CONTAINING THERMO-LAG FIRE DAMPER BTU'S PER TOTAL TOTAL BTU'S FIRE AREA FIRE AREA FIRE AND FIRE FIRE AREA BTV'S PER PER FIRE SEVERITY AREA FIRE AREA PER i'RE DAMPER AREA btu btu btu sq. ft.
btu /sq.ft.
min.
FD-76 RAB15 238,013.679 5.117.000 243.130.679 1.988 122.299 92 FD-77 RAB16 221.631.900 5.117,000 226.748,900 2,000 113.374 85 FD 177 RAB31 959.000 FD-178 RAB31 581.000 FD-179 RAB31 1,141.000 TOTAL RAB31 762,993.281 2.681,000 765.674.281 10.997 69,625 53 FD-3HV-217B 157,658,290 3,654,000 161,312,290 2.525 63,886 48 RAB25 FD-3HV-218A 268,273,506 4,368.000 272,641,506 15,715 17,349 13 RAB32 3
9
d-
.f ATTACHMENT C TO W3F1-94-0220 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THERM 0-LAG INSTALLATIONS FOR FD-77 FD-179 FD-3HV-B217B
e'
]
s 1
.M g.
i i
.4 I
> p..
y,:
.s
,_.,,n----
y.
p.W
.e.
f t
.g',,
g
?s, I?
~.
s o,#
w:
.:,;. y. )s
+,e g u-.
F RE Onm pe A. F 0 '"Il Y t c e o n n' P '"
PD-Y e g c, aoo m A-EOG goas a
r
,g y;-
~a 3
L ]_4,,
p; 1
- t.
1 4
I t,
q h '.
\\-
\\t
.)
,y a3..
- }
......h _,1....
(
t
.)&{';3;)pkY?An a,
det,% "
C + L e. b Q.
Finn on~cen 70-77 Fme D%eem )=D-n E o c c oe,m R EDG NWA" l
t r
=
4 r
[
]
l,j N
D Y,
/r r
t 4
i A
{
i.,- ;
e_.
Fteu DRmeen f o-yj E O c., R o o u 4 F sa e D 6-g a m F b-71 E D 6 R oo M A
}
i
)
i k
-,nn-
,.e.
--m--,.,
t' h
i 4l%%U v
qa 1 w
W~ -
.h ew-e
.\\
g t
I 4
p I
Fggs Dupem F O - 17 4 Fic.s O n~p en F D - 179 l
p m t E co s cs.s Te. g o n, W AstE conc Sd M ATo A Bot w r, u s ew u s-sT V i s a
- n.,__.
J Y
^ N. ? p'y
.s g
.Y
~'
"5
.i,,,.
$[
c
't
.t..
t V
h w
,a
..Y
\\
as Fing C a m p g c.
p g, gg p gan B ng e c_ t 0- 119 W A s1 E Ces c.c.ainATos b3 A3 T E Co N c %ma w R R ST VIEW i
i
,.n
.,.,.,n.
'k j
(
i, E
~
I p
F in e D am p e n. F D - nq 0 6%TE Coac.8wTan M L
s_
TO P V I E M s
3 i
4 4
l
l
< ',,5 W
a
- 6 g
a il t-f I
T j
l
?
t u
~
g E-g
'n. h.
o DR M em-3 H V-8 2 n g D R N peg. 3 H V-6 2 R P, NoMh E AST S ib E l(fy' x-
,vY
- Ii 'l i
e,a l
g D A H PEG 3 R V_ g g g g D RM Ua W-8 217G gogg sy gp_
M o fLTH S IDE l
1
[
W J
4 e.
's y.
g.' -
h
.d w
..e j
..._ ;.;h
.:.,p.
e4 t D A M 9 5E C 3 Ft V-8 2 618 we<sT sloe.
F les OA~f ro 3 n u - e,2 ng, ll
- l s
4, I
l l
)
l l_