Text

Rev 2 to Engineering Justification for Non-Std Placement of Automatic Sprinklers at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Plant
	ML20107E302
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/12/1985
From:	Dungan K, Olaughlin R, Wahl W; PROFESSIONAL LOSS CONTROL, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20107E288	List: ML20107E302;
References
	NUDOCS 8502250507
	Download: ML20107E302 (50)
	v • d • e

o o

l PROPERSIONAL LOSS CONTROL, INC. 1 l

i i

ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-STANDARD PLACEMENT OF AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY

! Submitted by: Kenneth W. Dungan, P.E.

l Robert J. O'Laughlin, P.E.

William F. Wahl Revision 2 '

Date: February 12, 1985 0 45 PDR _

P. O. Box 446 e Oalt Ridge, Tennessee 37831 * (615) 482-3541

s TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page 1.0 Introduction.................................................... 1 2.0 Sp ri nkl e r Sy stem Desi g n 0bj ecti v e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 System Description - Existing Automatic Sprinkler / Spray Systems. 4 4.0 Non-Standard Sprinkler Placement................................ 6 5.0 Techni cal Justi fi cati on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1 Fire Properties of Cable Insulation and Jacket Materials... 8 5.2 Fi re Scenario for Cable Ignition - Fi re Si ze.. . . . . .. .. .. . .. 9 5.3 Ctstructions............................................... 12 5.4 Protected Area per Sp ri nkler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.5 Cabl e Tray Wate r Sp ray Protecti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.0 Conclusion...................................................... 14 Appendix A Plume and Radiant Heat Flux Calculations Appendix B " Experiments with Sprinkler Heat Canooies" Report Y-JA-96 Appendix C CPSES Unit 1 Fire Areas with Non-Standard Automatic Sprinkler Placement

~.

ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-STANDARD PLACEMENT OF AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report examines the installation of the automatic sprinkler / water spray systems provided in safety-related areas of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1. Specifically, this report evaluates the "non-standard" aspect of the installation of sprinkler placement. The gov-erning document for the engineering / design and installation of automa-t tic sprinkler systems for fire protection is the National Fire Protec-tion Association. Standard 13, entitled " Standard for the Installation

' of Sprinkler Systems." This standard gives det21!cd guidance in the Chapter 4 for the spacing, location, and positioning of sprinklers.

This chapter addresses:

- maximum protection area per sprinkler minimum interference to water discharge patterns from beams, girders bracing, pipe, ducts and light fixtures, and the location of sprinklers with respect to the ceiling config-uration.

1

2.0 SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN OBJECTIVE :

The purpose of the automatic sprinkler / water spray systems addressed in this evaluation is to protect safe shutdown equipment, components, and systems such that the plant can be safely shutdown in the event of a fire. The NRC establishes the rules for fire protection of safe shutdown capa6111ty in 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III G. Fire protection features for safe shutdown must be capable of- limiting fire damage so that:

a. One train of systems necessary to achieve and main-tain hot shutdown conditions from either the control room or emergency control station (s) is free of fire damage; and

b. Systems necessary to achieve and maintain cold shut-down from either the control room or emergency con-t-

trol station (s) can be repaired within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months .

To achieve these goals, one of the following means must be used to protect redundant trains free of fire damage per Section III G:

a. Separation of cables and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of redundant trains by a fire .

barrier having a' 3-hour . rating. Structural steel L forming a part of or supporting such fire barriers shall be protected to provide fire resistance equiv- .

alent to that required of the barrier.

b. Separation of cables and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of redundant trains by a hori-zontal distance of more than 20 feet with no inter-vening combustible or fire hazards. In addition, l fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression.

system shall be installed in the fire area; or

c. Enclosure of cable and equipment and associated non-- 7 safety circuits of one redundant train in a fire barrier having. a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months rating. . In addition, . fire detectors and an - automatic fire . suppression system shall' be installed in the fire area:

2

~'

Two of these methods require automatic suppression systems; b above, with redundant trains separated by horizontal distance of more than 20 feet with no intervening combustibles or fire hazard; and c above, with redundant trains separated by at least a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months fire barrier.

The design objective of the area sprinkler protection provided at the Comaache Peak plant is to suppress a floor level exposure fire prior to the ignition of overhead cables. This is based on the critical assumption that electrically initiated propagating cable fires in IEEE 383 qualified cables are not a credible event. In order to determine

" equivalent performance" as referred to in NFPA 13, the existing sys-tem must be capable of meeting this design objective.

4

$ O 3

a

'4 3.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION - EXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER / SPRAY SYSTEMS The automatic suppression systems which are installed in areas of the plant co'ntaining safe shutdown systems, are designed and installed to comply with Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1. The systems installed are a combination wet pipe system and closed nozzle water spray system.

Generally, area coverage is provided by sprinklers and specific cable tray protection is provided by the closed water spray nozzles. The equipment in the suppression system is UL listed or FM approved.

Each system is hydraulically designed such that a uniform water den-sity is provided over a specific area. The water flow / pressure demands of these fire suppression systems are less than the available water supply.

9 The sprinklers used in the systems are UL listed with a temperature rating of 212*F. Both pendent and upright sprinkler heads providing area coverage are Grinnell "duraspeed" heads. The size of the sprink-1er orifice varies from 3/8 inch to 1/2 inch. The non-standard.

sprinklers have a pintle attached to the deflector. The water spray nozzles are the quartzoid bulb directional type wh4h have a 175*F temperature rating. The directional nozzles are positioned immediate-ly adjacent to cable trays to prevent fire propagation from. spreading along the exposed cables. These are provided where more than four trays are installed.

The position of sprinklers relative to the ceilings varies with the specific plant areas. Generally, sprinklers which are provided _ in rooms, are located just below the ceiling. However, sprinklers in hallways and corridors are generally positioned below obstruction, such as from piping, conduit,_and HVAC ducts. These corridor sprink-lers are located 6 to 8 feet above the floor.

The sprinklers which are located some distance from the ceiling are, in most cases, spaced less than 10 feet between branch lines and . less than 10 feet between sprinklers. _ Many sprinklers which are not adja-4

cent to the ceiling are provided with heat collector pans above the sprinklers.

5 A

/

4.0 NON-STANDARD SPRINKLER PLACEMENT f

NFPA 13 gives specific guidance with respect to the clearance between sprinklers and the ceiling construction. The ceiling construction in the majority area of the plant is considered " Smooth Ceiling Construc-tion" per NFPA 13. Section 4-1.3.1 defines smooth ceiling construction as " continuous smooth bays formed by wood, concrete, or steel beams spaced more than 7-1/2 ft. on centers - beams supported by columns, girders, or trusses." Another type of construction used in the plant is " Beam and Girder Construction." Section 4-1.2.3 defines this as "the term beam and girder construction as used in this standard inclu-des noncombustible and combustible roof or floor decks supported by wood beams on 4-inch or greater nominal thickness or concrete or steel beams spaced 3 to 7-1/2 ft. on centers and either supported or framed into girders."

t Relative to these two definitions, Section 4-3.1 defines the position-ing of sprinklers for smooth ceiling construction.

" Deflectors of sprinklers shall be located 1-inch to 10-inches below combustible ceilings or 1-inch to 12-inches below noncombustible ceilings."

Section 4.3.2.1 defines the positioning of sprinklers in beam and girder construction.

" Deflectors of sprinklers in bays shall be located 1-inch to 16-inches below combustible or noncombustible roof or floor decks."

In general, the sprinklers located in the corridors areas of the plant do not comply with these section of NFPA 13.

One reason for the non-standard sprinkler placement is obstructions in the upper portion of the corridor. These obstructions include con-l duit, cable trays, light fixture, piping, seismic hangers, etc. If l

6 f

'j

sprinklers are located at the ceiling level and obstruction are loca-ted between the sprinklers and the floor, then the adequacy of water distribution patterns may be jeopardized.

t t

h I

L f

e 7

i t-5.0 TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION This technical justification addresses the location of sprinkler rela-tive to the ceiling. Section 4-1.1.5 of NFPA 13 states:

" Clearances between sprinkler and ceiling may exceed the maximum specified in Section 4-3 provided that, for the conditions of occupancy protected, tests or calcu-lations show comparable sensitivity and performance of the sprinklers to be installed in conformance with Sec-tion 4-3."

Paragraph A-4-1.1.5 further states:

"In determining equivalent performance through analyti-cal or experimental methods, the sprinkler's sensitivi-ty, spray distribution, fire size and droplet size pen-etration should be considered. Condition of occupancy, such as height of storage, building or equipment con-figuration, obstructions, etc.,which may effect sprink-1er sensitivity should also be considered in evaluating both tests and calculation."

The purpose s of this evaluation is to establish if the. existing automa-tic sprinkler / water spray system will achieve its design objective, as outlined in section 2 of this report. Specific areas evaluated include:

Fire properties of cabling insulation and jacketing materials Fire scenarios for cable ignition (Fire size)

Obstructions

- Protected area per sprinkler Cable tray water spray protection 5.1 Fire Properties of Cable Insulation and Jacketing Materials The cables installed at Comanche Peak are IEEE 383 qualified cab-les. Power cables have EPR insulation and hypalon jackets. . Con-trol Cables have cross linked polyethylene (XLPE) insulation and hypalon jacket. Instrumentation, cables have cross linked' poly-d 8

i d

i o

ethylene (XLPE) insulation and chlorinated polyethylne jacket.

Although these cables are combustible, tests conducted at Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC) sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) verified the ignition resistance of these cables.

Tests indicated that pyrolysis of the jacketing material occurs at about 850*F. Auto ignition of these types of cables did not occur until' about 1100 F. Based on these temperature criteria, fire sizes, necessary to ignite cables in ladder type cable trays can be assessed using plume calculation.

5.2 Fire Scenarioe ' c Cable Ignition - Fire Size Emperical plume correlation can be applied to determine the size of floor level exposure fires causing pyrolysis and/or ignition of cables installed various distances above the floor. Likewise, these plume correlations can be used to estimate the reaction of sprinklers within the plume. Figure 2 shows the relationship of height above the fire and fire size for two temperatures criter--

ia; increase of 200*F and increase of 800*F (See Appendix A). It is obvious that a sprinkler rated at 212*F, within the plume of a growing fire will fuse well before cables in the same plume reach tneir autoignition temperature.

For sprinklers not directly in the fire plume, thermal radiation will be the dominant mode of heat transfer. For these sprink-i lers, radiation heating from luminous . flames will raise the sur-face temperature of the fusible element until melting occurs.

Mathematical ralationships have been developed to quantify the intensity of such radiant heat in terms of a heat flux. This flux information has been used to determine if materials will ig-nite or if structural steel will be damaged. Few specific tests have b;en conducted to determine the critical radiant flux neces-sary to actuate a sprinkler or to establish a relationship betwe-en operating time and radiant flux. Tests conducted by Nash and 9

/

Young in the UK exposed sprinklers to radiant panel tests to develop a comparison of operating times for various radiant fluxes. (See Figure 1) These limited data can be compared with

, calculated radiant plumes for potential exposure fires to verify the actuation of sprinklers. These calculations are shown in Appendix A.

-ifi-lf! 1

!.L . .

i. t . .

tidi.l.ii.,4 . , ,

,, i p t, 4;p L. ,. .a 4:q q

- .i

. ;}.

GCASS~~8ULB SPR;NKLEns.1

- SOLDERED + STRUT

. - . . 4 , t 4 . . . . ,,,

4,7F. a.+.. $ . - ~i ~ . - . .

qp 34,7{ q + : 9..- _.7

..O,YCKE ARMS:t PERPRNDICULAR. SPRINKLER.TO PANE boa.2 .. _

. .,g\ .;. q;. , .; YOKE ARME PARAd.EL~T0; PANEL. a . _

n-+3..,;,l

>++o.4 r

r.

.\

.\ p.-

. ,, p ,.

t. .g.. -

, u-4.

.-4 F, . _.

t' ---

t--+ - -- .- -

1- --

, '*tNN

'M -

' i Mo'N'i i -

NOTE [ OPERATING 31ME 0E SPRINKLER _WITH_ YOKE '

ARMS PERPEN0lCUt,.AR :TO' PANEL AT-Iilh II; i; I

,l N , . ': INTEhSITY

~

'OF O.48 w/cm2:wAs 47 min.'38s:

ttt

}.4 j

.-.,! i 6 yi 1

,' . .I%

i

!. '._ .N h g 4 i'

m._

_ q' .' _ . _ - . .

y .t _ .i

i

u , j ,; , s , . ... .. . 1

~.e, .r 3 , , , ., .. ..

r ,M L46I

}. 4 .t ~ 44- i l I ,;

.N . \ ,,,.. 4,,

j}

l -

"H Z 4 -

t-t- j ii pi t 4 .. + -. . . - - . . . -.i e4, ,,,; u.. , . . .

-.+ . - - . - . . . . .

p. ., +, o, -v . . y. y. wN._. , .. . . . - . -

._...t....

7 . .

','+-

I_4 2i+.

et7 ...

,, 1' , , + ,. .

- - .v s .3 s u. , . . t.---.-

.a ..

d --i--t I

-*---+-+---*l--+ ~-N ~ %~ NN - --

f @I t. g t-t

- + + ,L+- * - - - - - + -+-

{ +L ; . . ,6 ,f ,'

, . - - t.. 1' i iF ,.

. +. t..+**

.% r%% % .4 +.

L - Q .. oO.4 i M4

..j ;; , o i.. -

L.. ..; o r .

.. 5,, i L. . . . .

i.f .- g . { si . ,, . j t . . . . 1 j.+-..-.._.% .'.

9 . . . . . .

.y n: t ; n!

. , ; 6-4 .

W . .- ..

.;,s -, 4 1 y& . .. .- : ,,- . - - - . ~ . . - . , .

.4 .

. . ,- t *

'3* I T- + + *** ~-- + + * - - * * - - * +-- --

,4

,..r

, 1+.,

.-. s .

9 j s

iA., ..._e...l-. + .' A .4

, s . t .

.-4... ; s.-.-.~._s n .. . , . .

,_ .y - - . . . . , . ,

n....+ 7

. . ., . . . . . , t.t ++ "E +> - + - - -

_. a . ... i. , 4

+ - -

i g. . - ;g 1

4 2

.;(-

4

.i .4 ; m

-.t-

.r.i.

.1

.r-

.L

.m a

+.J--._.

.- a..

ilN.lI..

o, t , [, . { l ' ' t h. Qh, , t. . -.'

,1..

. , , ,1,

!.,y' j NIi..ti j ' N.- .;:." -+.!f1!Ch , , . - . . - ;..h, l

. m-.Elb ^ :ll' ' '

p- *

tr,+ ,

t, - - - -

t w,-

ea,

. --. ; i

. + . - ,

t7 L ~,i

-+

..- .- t.._- _ .. . . . .

i 44 i+ ,44 i

.t i;l;ia.4, it

,j l{t

. .i ei.; . ,,

4

. , 1,ji, I. .

. . t-r-.--. .... ,+.. +

-<e . .

! - - c!;; i 't OPERATING: TIMES OF SPRINKLERS AT VARI S RADIANT- i j a. . , , . ,i INTEN5ITIES~(NASW5iYolJNGl. .- c ,.... . . . . -_ .

i

,f l !

n.

I'i , ;

j ! f i.

ii l,ll I .i , .

lll

1. 1 , 1 ji' FIGURE:l '

, , : i ,., ni.i ;,'l

~

. 1.

4 It would be expected that the "durospeed" type sprinklers used at Comanche Peak would operate faster than the soldered strut sprinklers used in the above tests by Nash and Young.

10

o

~'

The worst case configuration for the actuation of the sprinkler systems would be the case when the cable tray is exposed to con-vective heating from direct plume impingement while the sprinkler heads are exposed only to the radiant heating frra the fire. Two questions address the adequacy of response of the sprinkler.

]

J First and most important, is the fire size required to yield the radiant heat flux necessary to actuate the sprinkler head less than or equal to the fire size necessary to heat cables to their autoignition temperature? Second, is the fire size required to yield the radiant heat flux necessary to actuate the sprinkler I

head less than or equal to the fire size necessary to actuate ceiling level sprinklers? To develop quantitative answers to these questions, design (geometry) variables such as height of

cable trays above floor exposure fire, ceiling height, sprinkler head spacing (below trays), and sprinkler head heights above floor, must be known. Additionally, specific relationships be- ,

i tween radiant heat flux and time to head actuation for the types and rating of heads installed and specific _ relationship between heat input and time to ignition for the cables installed must be~ l s known. Although the specific relationship for the actual i sprinkler heads and actual cables referenced above are not avail-able, the ' test data from Nash and Young (8) regarding sprinkler U heads and EPRI/FMRC (4) regarding cable ignition can be used- as conservative representation of the plant _ installation. Based on

~

these data and using the calculation _ in ' the Appendix, it _ can be '

.. concluded that the sprinkler system as designed will ~ actuate prior to cable ignition.

-Additional limited tests conducted by Union Carbide Corporation--

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in July.1973, demonstrated that sprink- -

'lers on a 6 ft by 8 ft spacing, 5 ft. to 7 ft.~ above the ' floor, actuated outside the plume from the radiant heat' of :a - kerosene I

'c ,

, + ' '

d 11

.a

l

/

pan fire (see Appendix B).

These tests support the conclusions above.

In response to the second question, for the ceiling heights at the plant, a comparison of the plume calculations shown in Figure 2 and the radiant heat flux calculations shown in the appendix -

indicates similar sensitivity of the lower heads to ceiling level heads. The effects of- the numerous obstruction to the rising plume would tend to favor the response of the lower heads.

5.3 Obstructions One of the primary principles for providing proper protection with automatic sprinklers system is minimizing interference to the water discharge pattern. Sprinklers are designed to provide a uniform water density over the protected floor area. Develop-ing a uniform water distribution from actuated sprinklers is not obtainable if the space below the sprinklers is congested with plant equipment. These obstructions are quite noticable at the ceiling levels in the most areas of the plant. Water spray pat-terns from sprinkler located at the ceiling would be disrupted by piping, conduit, cable trays, HVAC ducts, light fixtures, seismic hangers, etc. In lieu of positioning the sprinkler at the ceil-ing level in the corridor, the existing installation has the sprinklers located below these obstruction. Upon actuation of these sprinklers, a uniform water discharge pattern will be _ob-tained. This is a significant advantage over obstructed ceiling sprinklers since a higher percentage of water discharged from the sprinklers will actually reach the seat of the floor level expo-sure fire.

5.4 Protected Area per Sprinkler l

The specific occupancy classification for a facility, where the primary fire hazard is combustible cable insulation would be con-sidered ordinary hazard. Ordinary hazard being defined as having 12 L_

. Y

'~

a moderate. amount of combustible and having a moderate rate of heat release. Based upon this type of occupancy, the standard permits a maximum protected area of coverage per sprinkler head to be 130 ft 2. Even for a hazardous occupancy, the standard allows 90 ft2 coverage per sprinkler. (Refer to Sections 4-2.2.2 and 4-2.2.3 in NFPA 13.)

The coverage provided by sprinklers in corridors with the place-ment of the sprinklers 6 to 8 ft. above. the floor will enhance the sprinklers performance. In general, the spacing of sprink-1ers on branch lines ranges from 6 ft. on center to 9 ft. on cen-ter. Distance between branch lines also range from 6 ft. on cen-ters to 9 ft. on center. With the closer spacing of the sprink-1ers, the response time for sprinklers in a given fire situation 1 will be improved, since sprinklers will be close to the fire source (flame and plume). '

5.5 Cable Tray Water Spray Protection The purpose of the -water spray nozzles is to provide fire sup-pression capability for groups of cable trays. The water spray.

nozzles are connected to the automatic wet pipe sprinkler sys-tems. The directional nozzles are UL listed for the protection of special hazards.' .These nozzles are - the closed type with -a .

175'F quartzoid bulb actuating mechanism. The nozzles are instal--

led to impinge water spray 'on the upper surfaces ' of group . cable trays. Actuation of these nozzles will mitigate fire; propagation along ; vertical and horizontal; cable trays. The corridors that

- contain - the - non-standard sprinkler . placement have > water ' spray nozzles protecting the cable trays above the sprinklers for. cable -

tray arrays-of greater than four (4) trays.

i t

a r _

6.0 ~ CONCLUSION Based upon the above justification, the installed automatic wet pipe /

water spray nozzle systems with non-standard sprinkler placement, des-cribed in section 3.0 of this report can achieve its intended objec-tive as well as or better than ceiling level sprinklers.

This conclusion is based upon:

The postulated fire scenarios in the areas of the sprinkler protection - the' sprinklers and water spray nozzles will actu-ate prior to'the ignition of the IEEE 383 qualified cables in trays.

The sprinklers are installed below physical obstructions - the sprinklers will deliver a uniform water density on the fire ,

area with minimal interference with the discharge pattern.

The decreased protected area per sprinkler reduces sprinkler operation time - the decreased protected area per sprinkler will enhance the sprinkler performance.

' Cable tray water spray protection - in addition to sprinkler area protection water spray protection is provided for accumu-lation of grouped electrical cable trays.

r 14

n i

n H

h.

30. AT = 200

F W

E LL W

> 20.

O G3

<C h

I -

O AT 800' F E 10.

x 0 ,

8000 2000 3Mo f g FIRE SIZE - Q(8TU/sec)

FIGURE 2 15

< !t

'I REFERENCES

1. NFPA 113 " Standard for. the . Installation of Sprinkler Systems",

National Fire Protection" Association, Quincy, Massachusetts.

2. 10.CFR 50.98, Appendix R " Fire Protection Program for Operating Nuclear

., Power Plants, November 19,1980, USNRC.

t

3. _ NUREG 0800, " Standard Review Plan 9.5.1 Fire Protection Program", Rev.

-3,- July 1981, USNRC.

4. EPRI NP-1881, " Categorization of Cable Flammability - Intermediate -

Scale Fire Tests of Cable Tray Installing", August 1982, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

5. David D. Evans and Daniel Madrgykowski, " Characterizing the Thermal Response of Fusible Link Sprinklers", NBSIR 81-2329, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, August 1981.

n .

6. Gunner Heskestad, " Engineering Relations for Fire Plumes", SFPE Tech-nology Report 83-8, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, Mass- .

achusetts.

7. _ Ronald L. Alpert and E.J. Ward, " Evaluating Unsprinklered Fire Hazards, SFPE - Technology Report 2, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, Mass.

8. P. Nash and R.A. Young, "The',. Performance of the Sprinkler in Detecting n Fire," Building Research Establishment, Fire Research Station, Boreham-

, , wood,' Hetfordshire, United Kingdom.

9. J.R.cDeMonbrun and J.W. McCormick, " Experiments with Sprinkler Head Canopies:for Fire Protection", Y-JA-96, USAEC July 2, 1973.

s er File Ref: CP-01-001-09

~ .

16 4

1

-s Appendix A Fire Exposure Calculations Plumes Correlations for predicting plume temperature above a fire area well esta-blished and have provided the input for design of detection systems. These correlations can be used to quantify the size of exposure fire necessary to ignite cables. They, likewise, can be used to evaluate sprinkler system response.

The correlation commonly used relates fire size, Q, height above the fire, H, and plume temperature above ambient,/i f, as follows (in British units).

& T = 300 (k Q) 2/3 H S3 f

-This- equation was used to develop Figure 2, a plot of height above the fire (in feet) vs. -fire size (in BTU /sec) for temperature increases of 200 F and

'800*F. Table A.1 shows the points plotted in Figure 2.

I k

1 4

A '1 I

I Appendix A Cont'd '

Fire Exposure Calculations Radiant Heat Flux Class A (Wood)

The radiant heat flux from a fire involving stacked wood was calculated using Equations 4 and 5 from Alpert and Ward's report entitled " Evaluating Unsprinklered Fire Hazards."7

, qr = 2 tan-1 I Yh T 2

( 2R ; Ar Ap = Df Ht 2

1+ 1 + 4[H)t 2

( ( ofj )

Hf=.011(Kh).4 Ht"Hf+Mp where:

gr_ = radiant flux received at sprinkler (kW/m2)

R = minimum straight line distance from flame zone to sprinkler head .

(m)

A-2

A Appendix A Cont'd Fire Exposure Calculations Radiant Heat Flux Class A (Wood)

Df = equivalent diameter of fire obtained from floor area of stacked wood (m)

Ap = Flame area projected onto a flat surface (m2)

Y =

Fraction of total heat release that appears as radiation 0.4 per ,

Alpert and Ward Q =

heat release rate of stacked wood: 3387 kW of stacked wood m2m height obtained by multiplying 3387 x Hp x floor area of wood stack Af = Total surface area of flame outer envelope (m2)

Hf = Flame height above wood (m)

Hp = Height of wood stack (m)

Ht = Total height of flame above floor (m) .

i

-These calculations were performed varying the wood stack height and the ,

distance from the fire to the sprinkler.

4 d

A-3

i

~

Appendix A Cont'd Fire Exposure Calculations Radiant Heat Flux

-Class B (Pool Fire - Combustible Liquid)

The radiant heat flux from a pool fire was calculated using Equation 6 from Alpert and Ward's report entitled " Evaluating Unsprinklared Fire Hazards."7 gr = tan-1 [D f} 2 yg 2

(2R ; 25tDr ,

where:

gr = radiant flux received at sprinkler (kW/m2)

Df = diameter of pool fire (m)

R = minimum straight-line distance from flame zone to sprinkler head (m)

Y = fraction of total heat release that appears as radiation is 0.4 per Alpert and Ward 4-Q = total' heat release rate of burning fuel (kW) obtained by multiplying area of pool fire by heat release rate of fuel: i 3291 kW/m2 for kerosene Calculations were performed varying the pool diameter and distance from the _ ;

fire to the sprinkler.

File Ref: CP-01-001-09 A-4

TABLE A-1 T (of) 11 (feet) Q (BTU /sec)_

~

2610 200 U.0547YYHHV12 100 12.bO2b523464 300 200 15.3384800094 200 500

' 17.5494290202 700 200 19.4062940525 200 900 21.029072003 1100 200 22.403032332 200 1300 23.8001953476 1500 200 25.0311275804 200 1700 26.1704955658 1900 200 27.239980329 200 2100 28.2499859 2300 200 29.200573476 200 2500 30.1221893244 2700

, 200 30.9960558096 200 2900 31.8344759704 3100 200 32.6410434942 3300 200 33.4187950398 3500 200 34.1703231054 3700 '

200 34.8978612148 3900 200 35.6033492806 4100 200 36.288484501 4300 200 36.9547614734 4500 200 37.603504224 4700 200 38.2358920372 4900 000 3.50605529032 100 800 5.442051994 300 000 6.6764646804 500 000 7.63883265972~ 700 000 8.44708010944 900 800 9.15343523872 1100 000 9.78630823048 1300 000 10.3631189357 1500 800. 10.8954311076 1700 000 11.3913690283 1900 000 11.8568935922 2100 000 12.2965205699 2300 000 12.713770046 2500 800 13.1114444418 2700 800 13.4918169224 2900 800 13.9567604934 3100 800 14.2078394003 33Q0 800 14.5463754235 3500 800 14.8734970137 3700 000 15.1901763687 3900 800 13.4972570059 4100 800 15.7954803119 4300

-800 16.0854942085 4500 000 16.3678758915 4700 800 16.6431386754 4900 to T=200 20 Q=100 30 H=(300*0^.667/T)^.6 40 PRINT T,H,0 50 PRINTER IS 7,1 60 Q=Q+200 70 IF U(5000 THEN 30 00 IF T=UDD THEN 100 90 T=000 91- C010 20 100 310P

d STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

*

x x

x x * *

x- * -x * * * *

x x x * * * * * * *

x * * *

x x x x x x * * * * * * *

x x x -x-

x x x x *

x x x *

x x x x *

x x x x x *

x FLOOR AREA HElGHT OF DISTANCE FROM HE AT GU TPUT R ADI ANT HEAT OF PALLETS PALLETS FIRE TO SPKLR, OF PALLETS FLUX AT SPKLR, (ft2) (ft) ( l' t ) (kW) (kW/m2)

* * * * * *

x x * * * * * * * * * *

x *

x * * * * * *

x- *

x x x * * *

x x x * * * * * * * *

x * *

x *

x

x

x x *

x x x x x *

x *

12 2 1 2303 233.62 12 2 2 2303 114.83 12 2 3 2303 56.49 12 2 4 2303 32.41 12 2 5 2303 20.86 12 2 6 2303 14.52 12 2 7 2303 10.60 12 2 8 2303 8.18 STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

- - - - x**********xxxx*************x****************xx******xxx*******

FLOOR AREA HEIGHT OF DISTANCE FROM HEAT OUTPUT R ADI ANT HEAT OF PALLETS PALLETS FIRE TO SPKLR, OF P AL.LETS FLUX AT SPKLR, (ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/n2)

- - - - -xxx*****xxxx**x***************x***x****xx*******x****xx**xxxx***xxx 12 3 1 3454 319.55 12 3 2. 3454 185.98 12 3 3 3454 90.10 12 3 4 3454 57.31 12 3 5 3454 37.00 12 3 6 3454 25.06 12 3 7 3454 19.03 12 3 8 3454 14.50 STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

* * * * * * *

x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

x

x. * * * * * * * * *

x x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

x x x *

x *

x *

x x x FLOOR AREA HEIGHT OF DISTANCE'FROM HEAT GUTPUT RADIANT HEAT OF PALLETS PALLETS FIRE TO SPKLR, OF PALLETS FLUX AT SPKLR.

(ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/m2)

u****************************************x***********************x************

12- 4 1 4605 302.22 12 4 2 4605 248,14 12 4 -3 4605 139.93 12 4 4 4605 83.47 12 4 5 4605 54.30 12 4 6 4605 38.01 12 '

4 7 4605 20.01 12 4 0 4605 21.47

1 STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

- - - - xxx***x*x*xxx*****x*w*xxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxx****x****x*****xyx**xxxxxxxxxxxxw FLOOR AREA HEIGHT OF DISTANCE FROM H!ial OUTPul R ADI Afdl HEAT OF PALLETS PALLETS FIRE TO GPKLR. OF PALLETS FLUX AT SPKLR, (ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/n2)

- * * *

x x **

x * * * * ** x x x x x x x x * * * **

x * * * * *

x x ** x * * * **

x x*

x * *

x x x x x x *

x x x x x e x

x x * *

12 5 1 5757 429.57 12 5 2 5757 300.57 12 5 3 5757 179.95 12 5 4 5757 109.33 12 5 5 5757 72.11 12 5 6 5757 50.56 12 5 7 5757 37.30 12 5 0 5757 28.62 STACKED WOOD FIRL RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

- - - - xx****************x*********xxxxx***x*x****x*****xxxxxx**xxxx****

FLOOR AREA HEIGHT OF DISTANCE FROM HEAT GUTPUT RADIANT HEAT OF PALLETS PALLETS FIRE TO SPKLR. OF PALLETS FLUX AT SPKLR.

(ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/n2)

- - - - x*****************xx*****xx**xx******************x**********xxxxxxx 15 2 1 2870 250.31 15 2 2 2078 131.94 15 2 3 2878 66.55 15 2 4 2870 38.42 15 2 5 2870 24.77 15 2 6 2878 17.25 15 2 7 2070 12.69 15 2 8 2070 9.72 ll STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

* * * *

x * * *

x * * * * * * *

x * * *

x x x * * * * * * * * *

x x *

x * * * * *

x x x x x * * * *

x x * * * * * * * *

x- * *

x * * *

FLOOR AREA HEIGHT OF DISTANCE FROM HEAT OUTPUT

RADIANT HEAT OF PALLETS PALLETS FIRE 10 SPKLR. OF PALLETS FLUX AT SPKLR.,

(ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/m2)

- - - - x**********x******e*******xx**x****x*****x**x****x*****x**xx*xxxxxx 15 3 1 4317 343.17 15 3 2 4317 212.17

3. 15 3 3 4317 115.82

> 15 3 4 4317 68.36 15 3 5 4317 44.30 15 3 6 4317 30.90 15

3 7 4317 22.01 15 3 0 4317 17.40

4 STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLi1X CALCULATIONS

X x x

x x x x x

X x x X- x x x x X -X X x X

x x x x

x x x -X x

x x x X M x X

X *

X

x t X * * *

x x

Y X X x M *

x x X X % X X x

X X X A FLOOR AREA HEIGHT UF DISTANCE FROM HEAT GUTPUT R ADI AN T HEA T OF PALLEIS P ALL ET S' FIRE TO SPKLR. OF PALLETS FLUX Al SPKLit .

(ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/m2)

xxxxxxx**x *xxxxxxx*****x**x***xxx xx*****x*xxxxxxx x x**xxxx x xx*** xxx xx x x x x x*x xxx 15 4 1 5757 411.98 15 4 2 5757 231.46 15 4 3 5757 165.08 15 4 4 5757 99.92 15 4 5 5757 65.41 15 4 6 5757 45.81 15 4 7 5757 33.78 15 4 8 5757 25.91 STACKED WOOD FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS .

xxx*xxx***********x******xx***********xx***xxxxxx**x*xx****xx*xx***xxxx*x*xxxxx FLOOR AREA HEIGHT OF DISTANCE FROM HEAT GUTPUT RADIANT HEA1 0F PALLETS PALLETS FIRE TO SPKLR. OF PALLETS FLUX AT SPKLR.

'(ft2) (ft) (ft) (kW) (kW/M2)

- - - - xx**x****xxx***x*******x************x************xxx**

15 5 1 7196 464.56 15 5 2 7196 339.43 15 5 3 7196 211.77 15 5 4 7196 131.65 15 5 5 7196 87.03 15 5 6 7196 61.19 15 5 7 7196 45.20 15 5 0 7196 34.70 l

r POOL FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

*

x * *

X x *

X x -X * * *

x * * *

x -X * *

X- X x * * -X- *

X * * * * *

x * *

x x *

K * *

x

X X X

X

X *

X x POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAT GUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FIRE TO SPKLR, OF POOL FIRE FLUX AT SPKLR, (ft) (kW) (kW/m2) xxxxxxxx***x*********x*****x**************xxx***************xxxx****

.5' 1 60 3.12 1.0 1 240 23.25 1.5 1 540 63.51 2.0 1 961 111.06 2.5 1 1501 153.12 3.0 1 2161 203.45 3.5 1 2942 247.33 4.0 1 3842 290.10 4.5 1 4863 332.30 5.0 1 6003 373.90 POOL FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS xxx**x****x**x************************x*x*******xx*X*********xxx*x**

POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAT GUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FIRE TO SPKLR. OF POOL FIRE FLUX AT SPKLR.

(ft) (kW) (kW/n2)

- - - xx**xxxx*********xxx**********x****************xx***xxx*******xx

.5 2 60 .70 1.0 2 240 6.24 1.5 2 540 20.63 2.0 2 961 46.51 2.5 2 1501 83.16 3.0 2 2161 127.02 ,

3.5 2 2942 174.19 4.0 2 3042 222.12 4.5 2 4863 269.61 5.0 2 6003 316.25 POOL FIRE RADIANT HEAT. FLUX CALCULATIONS

- - - - xxxxxxxx********xxxxxxx****X**xx****X****X******Xxx*******

POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAT OUTPUT RADIANT HEAT I

(ft) FIRE TO SPKLR, OF POOL FIRE- FLUX AT SPKLR, (ft) (kW) (kW/n2)

- - - - xxx**********xxx***xxx************x***x*****x******xxxxxxxxxxx

.5 3 60 .35 1.0 -3 240 2.70 1.5 3 540 9.36 2.0 . 3 961 21.93 l

2.5 3' 1501 41.90 3.0 3 2161 69.76 3.5 3 2942 104.90 4.0 3 3042 145.70 4.5 3 4063 190.52 5.0 3 6003 237.43

)

POOL FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

xx x** xx x xx *x x x** x

x x x-x x x x x xx x x x ** * ** x x x x x x** x x xx v xx x xxxxx x x x x xx*

xx POOL DIA. DIftTANCE FROM HEAT OUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FINE TO SPKLR. OF POOL FIRE FLUX AT SPKLR.

(ft) (kW) (kW/n2) xxxx***xxxxxxxxxxxx**xx**xxxxxxx*****x**xxxxxx*x*xxxx***xxxxxxxxxxxx

.5 4 60 .20 1.0 4 240 1.57 1.5 4 540 5.28 2.0 4 961 12.47 2.5 4 1501 24.19 3.0 4 2161 41.25 3.5 4 2942 64.10 4.0 4 3042 93.02 4.5 4 4863 127.34 5.0 4 6003 166.31 POOL FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS x x x x x x x x-x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x *

x x x x x x

x x x * * * * ** x x x x x x u x x x

x x x xx x x

x

x x x x x POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAT OUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FIRE TO SPKLR, OF POOL FIRE FLUX AT SPKLR, (ft) (kW) (kW/n2) xxxxx*****xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx****xxxx**x**x*xxxxxx**xxx**xxx**xxx****

.5 5 60 .13 1.0 5 240 1.00 1.5 5 540 3.38 2.0 5 961 8.01 2.5 5 1501 15.59 3.0 5 2161 26.00 3.5 5 2942 42.18 4.0 5 3042 62.13 4.5 5 4063 86.05 5.0 5 6003 116.27 POOL FIRE RADI ANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS

- nxxxxxx******xxxxxxxx***xx******xx************xx****xxxxxxx*xx*xxx POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAT OUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FIRE TO SPKLR, OF POOL FIRE FLUX AT SPKLR.

(ft) (kW) (kW/n2)

O x x D x x x x

M W x x x x

k x * * * *

M x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x M x x x *

x x * * *

x *

x M x h-

.5 6 60 .09 1.0 6 240 .70 1.5 6 540 2.3S 2.0 . 6 961 5.57 2.5 6 1501 10.06 3.0 6 2161 10.71 '

3.5 6 294P '9.50 4.0 6 3042 43.07 4.5 6 4063 61.00 5.0 6 6003 83.01

c

- POOL FIRE RADIANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS xx**x x x**

x x xx*x *** x xx x x x xx x x*x x* **x** x x*x x x *** x*x xx** xxx x x x xx xx x**x POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAT GUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FIttE TO SPKLR . OF POOL FIRE FLUX A'l SPKLR.

(ft) (kW) (kW/M2)

x x x x x x. *

x x x x x x x * * *

x x x x

x * * *

x * * * * *

x x x x *

x x

x x x x x x x x x x * * * *

x * * * * * *

.5- 7 60 .06 1.0 7 240 .51 1.5 7 540 1.73 2.0 7 961 4.09 2.5 7 1501 7.99 3.0 7 2161 13.VO 3.5 7 2942 21.83

.4. 0 7 3842 32.47 4.5 > 7 4863 45.99 5.0 7 6003 62.64 l

4- POOL FIRE RADI ANT HEAT FLUX CALCULATIONS xx***xxxx**xx***xxxx**xxxxx*xxxxxx***xvxx*******xxxx*xxx*******xxxxx POOL DIA. DISTANCE FROM HEAL OUTPUT RADIANT HEAT (ft) FIRE TO SPKLR. OF POOL FIRE FLUX Al_SPKLR.

(ft) (kW) (kW/n2) xx**x**************x****xx********xx***xx**********x*xxxx*xxxx***x*x

.5 8 60 .05 1.0 0 240 .37 1.5 8 540 1.32 2.0 8 961 3.13 2.5 8 1501 6.12 3.0 0 2161 10.56 3.5 8 2942 16.75 4.0 8 3842 24.95 4.5 8 4063' 35.41 5.0 0 6003 48'.37 r

i 9

9 0

APPENDIX B

4

)

i ..-

i i .s I

-JA-96

%)

9 1 .i' 1

.V t. - . :.

n. v&. , ~ . .

<.): m.. ...: ~ ,

. rl. -.l ; , . ,

c,.a. .~., ; , 4.es ;Wr.t. 4 . -

! .e

[ @. y.h .~. y!.',1, .,- ' 7f r.'i.%, 8.. p. ? nj, .

\ j E -l . &xi Q n.c . . . .;, =~

,m.g.h:. Q.',cm ;:.l%T .a<;h .W,s*. .$ ,:+. 1 ; l

t-8, .. _, ,:,, . .

g+- .m. ~- .

. v,. - .

I ; p.n:4. . ;J . :. - . c.

'.+ ..

j i .s '. -M,,."" * *'

f: .

3 .

i .

} 4 v.%',g. .

+ %

is.. .i,t.k.

e -.. s*

e. s.. .. . ,.

EXPERIMENTS WITH SPRINKLER HEAD CAN0 PIES

,s 1 L.: y?.. ~ ,.h.

6. , 3 .*

i e+,. .

FOR FIRE PROTECTION y'.~.

,b. ,..#

e .

r*

'(

1

, ,c ?<..

', g. *t e

a

f. -

l

. ..,., iA'-

. yj ..

'Ve 4 :.w-o . w

, w .1. ,- .

'd..

' l.ir;.' .a:,4;

. c .. . . =.; .

, t.;;;.y .- t.

c.- vp .. .

...r*-

r t p. -

, . m .; . .

c .c - .

..e ,

..: .. ; 3. - t o: : .

ge t .,

e .v bz - ,. ,e ' ~ . n, ' t - ..

L ; n * * -r e, . p.. o. .. . ,d , ; *,y.:.y;* z. . .

. , .i,-; ,,";,w,v(

2 >.?' ,

v. ..Q . . .: .., - . ; . s

.~i o

. . . -~ m, -

6 y;%,. - .. .

.. a;: .: ,. :., r. ./

g f*g,,jp g .: y.A: %:-f..;

[ PM.k;w%@2M

n.:.; :

j d.$ y p, .

h,, .-> M.., : ~..r.O$k @? , m{.. . .. .

rJ .

s,f-l.v .U. .

6. ,%,,,$.y:'xns;pg? f,3:g,,4 2.."F. I., '-

J. R. DeMonbrun

J. W. McConnick i - .. .a

! . yipp tn;.. ' QAK RiOGE Y t2 Pt ANT i4'r +=~w y ,Q:;UE'y..'fl& ,;p.

.n .:.r ..A.e,1

,f . * ' > ~ . * - '

t. e 3 .np h ff * . 31- .g . . .. *:

k .;r,' ;;;y:. .::'fe '. .c?; +; 8 <.s.,s.'-y; 5 v. u,.c:. ^W ;?r; w;.w y,3

% d,6 , y "i y~

M>'A p<*rered I., eh. U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMI55f 0N

( f.!!$M,'g$bfkh,M9P

~

Y ~ f+D4N)@.x '

Ihhf .

wee wn 3

7.Q i. . .sw h

w< hp.,

pr.t...., w 5 :k,$gfr,"e?

' m.

ib$ . m ..<. g.

.N,4.

s.

",e, .Dffs!ydh.

. . .n , 7 2 .* ;c. . w. ;.,, ,n,: -

V

p -

, . <* .p . .,, .(;..- .

. .c g . .

T' ')

$'y' ,

f. . .

fh

!5 '

'J:

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUME

/

i

' l

.iU.

Y-JA-96 1 i

EXPERIMENTS WITH SPRINKLER llEAD CANOPIES FOR FIRE PROTECTION i

e e

J. Re DeMonbrun Je W. McComick i

NOTICE we ,e,e,. .c e ee,e4..,eUi.e. --e4 Sieto.. c.se,

.. . e no..e, t e United eU c --insio.Seeeee

. .e, , .et er i.nited f e. Statesy Atomas Energy

., .c t elt contractere, este.agreetere, er t.ees. ett empt.yees.

/ snakes eAF We,reaty, especes et ismplied, et sessenes say local Estdely et feep.nelDGity for time aseteresy, c.es.

poe t

! . .e..-

.,,..enc.es w,i .es et esofobn.ees e .,lse.ione oir .e-..fea.ny

. .,w.ts.

o.

e. aslafeestesloe, eso epparates.

i e

l July 2, 1973

. MASTEK 1

DISTRIC'JTION OF TillG DOCtJMCPIT IS IJtlUMrTrn

'"s

f,. :. n .

Table of Contents Test I - Setup and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tes t I - Con cl us i ons - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Test II - Setup and Procedures ................. 1 Ta b l e I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Test II - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, 2 Summary . . . . . . . .,,. &

................. 2 '

i t

Figure I

............................ 3 F i g u re I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure III . . . . . . '.- . . .

................. 5 Figure IV . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9

a e

1

, e 4

) .

, 1 t

EXPERIMENTS WITH SPRINKLER HEAD CAN0 PIES FOR FIRE PROTECTION Test I - Setup and Procedures Kerosene was placed in a 30-gallon trash can to a level of about 7 inches above the bottom of the can. The sprinkler heads with or without canopy were placed 3 feet above the rim of the can. The canopy was installed between the sprinkler and the elbow fitting that the sprinkler screwed into. The sprinklers were supported on a length of 1-inch pipe and elbow.

The test procedure was to light the kerosene in the can and place the different pendant sprinklers in conbination with the canopy over the rim of the container. The time required to actuate the sprinklers was re-corded. This procedure was repeated 70 times with different combinations of sprinklers and canopies. See Figure I for types of canopies. The results of Test I are shown in Figure II of this report. The painted black sprinklers were sprayed with black paint to determine the effects of heat absorption upon actuation.

.. Test I - Conclusions

1. The presence of a canopy installed immediately above the sprinkler had a significant effect on the time of sprinkler actuation as opposed to sprinklers without canopies.

2. Canopies II and I produced the shortest actuation times.

3. Sprinklers that were painted black had shorter actuation times than normal (unpainted) sprinklers.

4. Grinnell 135' Quartzoid bulb sp:inklers had shorter actuation times P than Grinnell 165' Duraspeed sprinklers.

Test II - Setup and Procedures

, The actual installation, shown schematically in Figure III, to be simulated basicalli consisted of an enclosure with a 3-foot wide opening in the ceil-ing running the length of the enclosum. Due to a complex of piping, fix-tures and structural interfemnces, it was realized that it would be expen-sive and probably ineffective to install sprinklers near the ceiling as per code. Therefore, it was necessary to determine if sprinklers could be in-stalled 3 feet below the ceiling'and still actuate in a reasonable period of time. It was felt that canopies placed immediately above the sprinkler :

should be an effective heat bank. In the simulated enclosure, sprinklers were placed at higt and low positions to determine the difference, if any, in the actuation times. The simulated enclosure and test setup were ar- f

) ranged as shown in Figure III.

i

t

B

..)

The procedure was to install various conibinations of canopies and sprinkler positions. The fire was ignited, and the times of actuation were recorded.

Tests A-M were run with the results shown in Figure IV. Table I below shows the sequence of operation in the tests. Note that not all positions were tested in the later tests. All sprinklers were 135' Grinnell Quartzoid bulb sprinklers.

l Table I

Test, Sequence Test Sequence A 3-4-1-2 H 1-2 B 3:1-2-4 I 1-2 4

0 3-1-4-2 '

J 1 E 3-4-2-1 K 1 F 1-3-4-2 L 1 !

G 1-2 M 1

Test II - Conclusions

1. In most cases, the sprinklers installed under canopies actuated sooner than those not under canopies.

t

2. Canopies III and I had the shortest actuation times. -

Sununary Test I demonstrated that the installation of canopies had a significant effect on sprinkler actuation times. Test II did not demonstrate this so conclusively, probably due to the high heat source used. Test II did dem-onstrate that the sprinkler position in this specific case had little effect on sprinkler actuation times. Not all fires envisioned in this occupancy will begin as rapidly as that in Test II. Any slow butidup of heat due to smaller fires, which would msult in a delay of sprinkler actuation, should be compensated for by the canopies. In this instance, the heat from such a fire will predominately rise through the opening in the ceiling. Them-fore, any residual heat must be collected as efficiently as possible to actuate the sprinklers. Test I showed the advantage of canopies in such a limited fire situation.

-) -

i 4

e - . . . , , _ - , - . - --.,-..,,..w.,.,...~,.-,,--, - . , , - - , . . - - , . - -

- , . , . - - - - - - . , nn-, , - . , . . - - . . - .

l RGUE ::

,.;;;g PLAN CROSS- SECTION f /o" )

i o / \

= /2 >

et 6-t O

e e b

eem. _ _

O V \0 CA\03Y

s

, ;- ~A~

}

FIGURE II 165*

GRINNELL DURASPEED A

8 Normal Painted Black I II III IV I II Iy III A 9-4:49 A 7-2:52 *820-6:00+. *86-7:00+ A29-2:10 ~ A24-1:44 A11-6:20 *823-6:00+ *8 9-7:00+

A 8-3:33 821-5:50" **B7-7:00+ A25-1:22 824-2:45 A12-3:56 A10-1:14, 822-4:00 *810-7:00+

88-7:00+ AVE-2:10 A26-1:51 825-2:25 *812-7:00+

A15-2:41 A13-1:05 A27-1:50 A16-4:46 A14-1:17 AVE-4:55+ AVE-7:00+ A28-0:55 AVE-2:30+ AVE-7:00+

A17-2:33 B17-1:04

. AVE-4:30 A22-1:51 833-2:04 8 1-2:40 -.

8 2-2:46 AVE-1:33 8 3-2:15 8 4-1:54 8 5-1:28 811-1:20 816-2:02 AVE-2:03 135' GRINNELL DUARTZ0!D C D Normal Painted Black I !! III IV I II III IV A23-1:20 A18-1:18 800-8:00 *813-7:00+ A35-1:45 A30-1:13 832-1:34 *815-8:00+

A19-1:05 827-1:50 114-9:00+ A31-0:55 834-4:17 AVE-1:20 818-6:24 A20-1:45 *828-9:00+ AVE-1:45 A32-1:13 835-1:37 *819-7:00+

A21-1:36 830-6:28 AVE-7:00+ A33-1:04 829-1:37 831-5:30 A34-1:21 AVE-2:29 AVE-7:00+

)~ AVE-1:28 Avt-6:09 AVE-1:10

Did not actuate

/

FIGrVRE :I:

4 . ray: ;

s' : : ,f'u i i 1 -

i a O I I i O

+- s ' : = a' ~ s' > i

\

l 1

a i l

s I I

f* l I g i

" 9 9 s I

l

~ 2 2 ? l i i l i i

- i !

o l l

. i i l l .

m i l

' O I i O

.. .'. . ; .. . . . : . ., . . .~.

, . -. ; , ,, ~ ~. : : -

I -

l, i

ELE VATI ON . . PLAN

. ACTUAL INSTALLATION ACTUAL INSTALL ATION

< a' : : s' > - <a%

M ! 4 > ,' % l I

'f Low l lHIGH 9 8 e g A I ! !

3 o i

, PAN l 1 a i

' or , ,

s .

. s',

'w Hl6H I ,

Low 2 l l ^

u 1

PAN of I l -

v KinostNE u l l l

....: . .. u

. ....,.. ....c.......,..

u- - - - - - -

l l

} ELEVATIO N TEST slTc PLAN Tesi SITc i

1 -.

I ..

',s

FIGURE IV U

?o' -

i Position Position Position Position (1) (2)

(3) (4)

Canopy

.I 8 0:58 1

A 1:21 L 0:35 AVE 0:46 II A 1:21 G 1:09 8 1:04 I.p:39 H 1:02 K Ot44

' AVE 1:05 AVE 0:54 III H 0:30 1 0:55 8 0:50 A 1:14 J 0:34 -

AVE 0:32 IV 0 1:00 8 1:02 0 1:34 0 1:17 E 1:25* 0 1:38 o

E 1:00 .

E 1:07 F 0:40 E 1:11 F 0:57 F 0:57 G 0:44 F 1:02 AVE 1:10 AVE 1:07 AVE 0:48 AVE 1:1.3

, . , . 5. . , , _ , , 0_ s -

1 APPENDIX C CPSES Unit 1 Fire Areas with Non-Standard Automatic Sprinkler Placement FIRE AREA FIRE ZONE ROOM NO. - ROOM NAME LOCATION AA 21a 175 - CCW Ht. Exch. Aux. 790 179 - Boric Acid Tran. Pumps & Corridor Aux. 790 180 - Corridor Aux. 790 AA 21b 207 - Corridors Aux. 810 AA 21d 226 - Corridor Aux. 852 AA 38 241 - Mechanical Equipment Room Aux. 873 AA 43 113 - Mechanical Area Aux. 778 SB 4 71 - Corridor SG - 790 70 - Corridor SG - 790 64 - Chemical Additive Tank SG - 790 SB 8 79 - Corridor SG - 810 82 - Corridor SG - 810 SB 15 94 - Corridor. SG - 831 95 - Personnel airlock corridor SG - 831 SB 144 88 - Non-Rad. Piping Pen. Area SG - 831 O

L. . _ . . __ _____._.__._.___..._____..___._________a

Deviation 2g-1

Subject:

Partial Sprinkler Coverage Location Building: Auxiliary Elevattion: 822'-0" Room: 209 Fire Area: AA Fire Zone: 21c

References:

080-SY-1 Rev. 3 FHA 15 Rev. CP-3 Grinnel Fire Protection Drawing 18 Rev. 6, Drawing 151 Rev. 3 Deviation: 10CFR50 Appendix R Section III.G.2

Description:

The Train A Centrifugal Charging Puup power cables are routed through Fire Zone AA 21c and are protected by a one hour barrier installed around the conduit carrying tthese cables. Automatic suppression is not provided in this valve operating room at Elev. 822'-0". The area contains negilible combustible materials and automatic water sprinkler systems are installed in Fire Zone AA216b adjacent to this room.

Justifications:

1. An area-wide early warning smoke detection system is installed for assuring early detection and response by the plant fire brigade ensuring early fire extinguishment. Manual suppression is available using hose stations and portable extinguishers.

2. Automatic sprinklers are provided in Fire Zone AA21b in the corridor adjacent to this room.

3. This area contains negligible combustibits.

4. Essential redundant cables are protected within this fire zone with a one hour rated barrier.

5. The installation of an automatic suppression system in Fire Zone AA21c would not significantly enhance the fire protection provided by the current configuration.

Deviation 4e

Subject:

MSIV/ Turbine Stop Valve Separation Location Bldg. Safeguard / Turbine Elev. 873'-6"/830'-0" Room 108/ Turbine Deck Fire Area SK17/ Outdoors Colmn.

References:

DB0 SY1 Rev. 3 Drwg FHA-5 FHA-26 Deviation: 10CFR50 Appendix R Section III.G.2

Description:

The operation of the Turbine Stop Valve (TS), Steam Dump to Condenser valves (SOC), and Feedwater Pump Turbine Stop valves (FPTS) are relied on for safe shutdown in the event of the failure of Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV). The MSIV's have 20 feet of separation from the TS, SOC and FPTS valves but do not have suppression or detection in the entira area.

Justifications:

1. Main Steam Isolation Valves are located inside the Safeguard building (Fire Area SK) at elevation 873'-6". This area is protected by an automatic water suppression system and ionization detection.

2. The Turbine Stop (TS) valve, Feedwater Pump Turbine Stop Valves (FPTS) and Steam Dump to Condenser (SOC) Valves are located in the Turbine building in the deck at Elevation 830'-0" and are horizontally separated from the outside wall of the Safeguard building by 120 ft.

3. The T.S., FPTs and SDC valves and associated control circuits are separated from Fire Area SK by three hour barriers and 20 foot of open air that does not contain intervening combustibles.

4. The open air space and separation distances provide adequate assurance that a fire will not affect both paths for maintenance of Secondary System Pressure Boundary integrity.

I L j

.. - jy 0

2 OOg g

=:, m_n __

j g I

1

_ g

1 m =

.: : = : = 5, j 3d 1

ir -

- n l

]tN Ins d

- v I

C:thL-eu

-_s w >

j

'.M d ,

%. w -

n- 5 3 .:

1

[ : [

d.*-. <

~.

w f ElliiG m n 1 3 ,

a u Jv LL *ime.

]

L q ,.

2 e ,

_ _ _ 'efse; 9 ,

cy M oxi 4 ,

, i ,

O is W - 4 - H

\1\ (c' f=mb<>

b 0 48 i h

}i-)

o $-9 d.

IM O

- w l

l

1_ _.e , - --_ ..s _. .. - . _ . - .-m .

._w .,.2 -- - n _ _

a 4 .

Ys N 4

Y 0

. . s U

d..

,, 7 7 r r , , mv i

4 d

\

/.r

. g P' 1

-- =

~

E i J [ ===tb '

MSlVi p- -- -

% 188 9 I

"4 E I I Q .

ee .

U 1E ., ,. ,,,

-y ,

, 4 m. ,. _ _

g -

. ~J 1* . =

i A

q v 7

at : se qn ins ses 7

etees _ _ _ _ -

movemens w -s* um . . , ,

-g i i q

lM l E M M l

c=s o g n

i / f l l l.=

cm e-e.no-o Seleguagesuasble Censusumentmuniang ,

I 1

i 1

4

..w,..._,_-,,_--_-r-__.m,_.,_,,,.... .__..-. . - . --. , ,...,, ~,._ __,,,._.,,,......,.....~.---..._...--m- . . . -... - -

o .~

Deviation 5b

Subject:

Valve Isolation Tank Room -

F.A. SB2e Location Bldg. Safeguard Elev. 790-6 Room 65 & 67 F.A. SB2c Col. N-S Systems Path A E-W Path B Reference Drawings: SK-TFHA-0601-01 SK-TFRA-0601-03 Exception: Appendix R to 10CFR50 Section III.G.2

Description:

Redundant essential raceway is protected by a one hour rated envelope system, but general area sprinkler coverage is not provided.

Justification: 1. This area is a low hazard with a fire duration of less than 6 minutes.

2. General area ionization detection is provided.

3. Enclosures of cable and associated circuits of one safe shutdown path in a one hour rated barrier is provided.

4. Hose stations and portable fire extinguishers are provided in nearby areas.

Page 1 of 1

,aa w . - -- - - - - , . . _ - , -_

l .

e

. .~

c- . .# -_ , ;

h f f

-L.k.J

!- s o-L..a 8 : !!j!!

n ..

s i i l

, E E 0:,* 5 ,I

$'s #8hE!

i ' '

1 '

I i:@:(8;llee

== ,. e - >+

summe '

Y

~

+ - s @ t _ ak_t E @ f @ A '

y ~ ~ ~ ~

..!!= .

y( -

s *a i s t'!_j U Ss 8

" e I

.r_

'+PE.,s)aBi?

>; o . 2 es l

e C7 4

i 4 .

o ad m,

=

1 8 d $e 5=

s 11

.(.3 3 s ,

l .

% E S

g O $

j s {a b 5 s

' E i**=1. + E. m+

i lii31 1581 l el o ag

- t ;g""-

ELEE!ill 2 a.-- 5 4 !! r. ,

(r- i l .

i I i -

l

Deviation 6c

Subject:

Turbine Building 821'-8" slab Location Bldg. Turbine Elev. 821'-8" Rooms 11 thru 23, 25 thru 30, 32 thru 37, 41, 43, 43A Fire Areas TA .

Fire Zone III Col . N-S E-W

References:

Deviations 10a-14,10a-15 D8D-SY-1, FHA 27-01 R. CP-2, FHA 29 R. CP-3, FHA 30 R. CP-2, Grinnell Fire Protection Dwg. 30 R.6 and Dwg. 31 R.8 2323-S1-408 R. 8 2323-S1-428 R. 2 2323-El-2011, R. 8 El-2012 R. CP1 2009, R. 8 E2-2009, R. 6 Deviation: Turbine Building slab at 821'-8" elevation is not a three hour rated slab construction.

Description:

1) Deviations 10a-14 and 10a-15 are for HVAC penetrations between the Turbine Building, the Cable

- Spreading Room and the Auxiliary Building. These deviations referenced the fire rating of the 821'-8" elevation slab as three hour rated. While this barrier is adequate to provide protection against the fire hazards present on both sides it is not a three hour rated design.

2) Construction of Floor slab / ceiling

a. Slab supports: The slab is supported by 6W12 beams, spaced at no greater than 8 ft. intervals.

The beams are suspended from the 830'-0" elevation _of the- Turbine Building by lateral 11" 0 steel rods. These rods are protected by fire-proof material such that they can withstand the

- effects of fire for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ,

b. Slab construction: The slab in constructed of 4" thick reinforced concrete utilizing #4 rebar at the top and bottom running in both directions and spaced at-12" intervals in the slab.. The rebar.

-is installed at the upper and lower surfaces of.

the concrete.

c. Suspended ceiling: Below the slab is a non-rated suspended ceiling of perforated metal pan

construction. . Each pan contains approximately 1" of fiberglass installation contained within a.

b - -.- - - -.

,.6 polyethelene bag. The insulation does not present a significant combustible hazard,

d. Space between suspended ceiling and slabs: The space between the suspended ceiling and slab contains no significant quantities of combustibles. All enclosed duct work is of steel construction.

3) Fire Area

Description:

The areas under the subject slab are either laboratories, locker rooms, showers, restrooms, small storage areas or office areas. The i

combustible loading of these areas are all light with

, an equivalent fire severity of less than 15 minutes.

Justification:

1. Fuel Loading: Due to the low combustible loading and the nature of the combustibles contained in the area, only a fire of low severity can be expected.

2. Fire resistance of the suspended ceiling: The non-rated suspended metallic ceiling will act as an effective radiant energy shield and

restrict the flow of hot gases, decreasing the exposure of the structural supports to the effects of fire.

3. Thermal inertia of structural supports: The 6W12 structural supports have a significant thermal inertia which can withstand the effects of a low severity fire without any additional protection.

c

4. . Fire Detector installation: Portions of this area are provided ionization smoke detectors under the suspended ceiling. Other

} , portions are continually occupied or have frequent personnel tra ffic. This ensures prompt fire detection, allowing a timely i- response from the fire brigade or other plant personnel, limiting fire damage. Hose stations and portable extinguishers are provided

for this purpose.

~

5. Slab Construction: The slab construction is significantly stronger l than a number of if sted three hour rated constructions. Several l designs call for a 21" thick slab instead of tne-4" design p rovided. The listed'oesign reinforcement is either Q-deck forms g beneath or welded wire reinforcement instead of the two layers of

i. perpendicular 34 rebar reinforcement provided in. the- top and the i

bottom of the slab.

6 '. Sprinkler Protection: The portion of the slab closest to 'the Turbine Building and the 803'-0" elevation of the Turbine Building are protected by a wet pipe sprinkler system. This will limit the exposure of the slab from a Turbine Building Fire.

For the above reasons, it is not considered credible for a fire originating in Fire Area' TB105 (The Turbine Building) to penetrate the slab and propagate in+o Fire Area TAlli.

I r

L _

n Deviation 6c-1

Subject:

Turbine Building 821'-8" slab over Hot Shop Location Bldg. Turbine Elev. 821'-8" Room 39, 42' Fire Area TA Fire Zone 112 Col . . N-S E-W

References:

Deviation 10a-16 D8D-SY-1 FHA 27-01, R. CP-2; FHA 30 R. CP-2, 2323-S1-408 R. 8 2323-S1-428 R. 2 2323-E2-2011 R. 3 E2-2012 R. CP1 Deviation: Turbine Building slab at 821'-8" elevation is not a three hour rated slab construction.

Description:

1) Deviation 10a-16 is for an HVAC penetration between the Turbine Building and the Auxiliary Building.

This deviation referenced the fire rating of the 821'-8" elevation slab as three hour fire rated.

While this barrier is adequate to provide protection against the fire hazards present on both sides it is not a three hour rated design.

2) Construction of Floor slab and fire protection features

a. Slab supports: The slab is supported by 6W12 beams, protected by a fire barrier applied to the steel, spaced no greater than 8 ft. intervals.

The beams are suspended from the 830'-0" E elevation of the Turbine Building by lateral 11" l 0 steel rods. These rods are protected by fire-proof material such that they can withstand the effects of fire for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months .

b. Slab construction: The slab in constructed of 4" thick reinforced concrete utilizing #4 rebar at j

o the top and bottom running in both directions and spaced at 12" intervals in the slab. The rebar is insta11ed'at the upper and lower surfaces of

the concrete.

l c. Combustible loading: The combustible loacing of l the hot shop is a light hazard. The flammable materials are ordinary combustibles and some lube oil with a' total fire severity of 23 minutes.

, d. Area Detection: This area is provided with spot p type heat detectors which ensures rapid fire l de tection.

l E -

r: -

e. Suppresion capabilities: Hose stations and extinguishers are provided for manual fire suppression activities.

Justification:

1. Fire originating in the Hot Shop: Considering the substantial construction of the slab and the three hour rated protection afforded the 6W12 beams and the light fire severity, it is not considered credible for a fire originating in the Hot Shop to breach the slab separating the hot shop from the turbine building.

In addition, the fire detectors installed in the Hot Shop will ensure a rapid fire detection, ensuring a prompt response from the plant fire brigade or other plant personnel, ensuring that the fire will be suppressed by a manual means prior to significant degradation of the barrier.

The slab is constructed of 4" thick reinforced concrete utilizing

4 rebar top and bottom spaced at 12" intervals in the slab. The rebar is installed at the upper and lower surfaces of the concrete.

The resulting design provides significantly greater strength than a number of listed designs.

]

ML20107E302

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Subject:

References:

Description:

Subject:

References:

Description:

1 m =

Subject:

Description:

Subject:

References:

Description:

Description:

Subject:

References:

Description:

Navigation menu

Search