Residential Sprinkler Fire Tests with Steeply Pitched ... · A sloped ceiling having a 12 over 12 pitch was used to provide an assumed worst case condition as compared to ceilings

A Technical Analysis:Residential Sprinkler Fire Tests

with Steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

James GolinveauxDavid LeBlancRoger Wilkins

Research & Development Tyco Fire & Building Products

© 2007 Tyco Fire & Building Products

The products and specifications published herein are for general evaluation and reference purposes only and are sub-ject to change by Tyco Fire & Building Products without notice. For the most up-to-date information, please visit www.tyco-fire.com. The information provided in this technical analysis should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice concerning specific applications. ALTHOUGH TYCO FIRE & BUILDING PRODUCTS HAS ENDEAVORED TO ENSURE ITS ACCURACY, ALL INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. Without limiting the foregoing, Tyco Fire & Building Products does not warrant the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any such informa-tion. All users of the information provided herein assume the risk of use or reliance on such information and Tyco Fire & Building Products shall not be liable for any damages for such use including, but not limited to, indirect, special, inci-dental or consequential damages.

Contents

IntroductIon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

the.challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

residential.Sprinklers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Great.room.Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sprinkler.Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

tenabILIty.anaLySIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

tenability.criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

dIScuSSIon.of.reSuLtS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

recessed.Sprinklers.versus.concealed.Sprinklers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

carbon.dioxide.concentration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Loft.opening .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 35

Sprinkler.Location .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 35

fire.Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

about.the.authorS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

appendIx.a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

test.1.through.18.tenability.analysis.observation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

appendIx.b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

technical.report.underwriters.Laboratories.Inc..project.05ca14764,.ex4991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

� Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

IntRoduCtIon

the ChallengeGenerically, “great rooms” are the larger spaces found within residential dwelling units. They are typified by being multi-story in height and often having sloped ceilings and beams. These spaces have presented chal-lenges when trying to place sprinklers and determine hydraulic design while attempting to meet the intent of installing residential fire sprinklers. The challenge is further complicated with the absence of third party approvals (i.e., UL Listing) for such installations. NFPA 13D suggests that guidance should be obtained from the sprinkler manufacturer. The information contained in this technical analysis is not a part of the UL Listing of the sprinklers referenced in this document and does not constitute recommendations from UL. Tyco Fire & Building Products ran a series of eighteen fire tests, using Tyco® Rapid Response™ Residential Sprinklers, involving sloped ceilings with beams. The resulting data is outlined in the attached Appendix A (Tenability Analysis Observation) and Appendix B (UL Test Report). The technical analysis is presented in a manner allowing a system designer or authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) to readily derive guidance for a sprinkler layout similar to those used in this test program.

Residential sprinklersTyco® Rapid Response™ Residential Sprinklers are fast response automatic sprinklers. They are to be used only in wet pipe residential sprinkler systems for one-and two-family dwellings and mobile homes per NFPA 13D; wet pipe residential sprinkler systems for residential occupancies up to and including four stories in height per NFPA 13R; or, wet pipe sprinkler systems for the residential portions of any occupancy per NFPA 13. For the purpose of providing guidance, this technical analysis provides an overview of the observations made during the investigation of the Series LFII Residential Sprinklers outlined in Table A installed in sloped ceil-ings with beams. Residential fire sprinkler systems should only be designed and installed by those compe-tent and completely familiar with automatic sprinkler system design, installation procedures, and techniques. Several criteria may apply to a given installation and usage of each sprinkler. Consequently, the sprinkler sys-tem designer is recommended to review and develop a working understanding of the complete list of criteria prior to initiating the design of a residential fire sprinkler system.

SPRINKLER/MODEL IDENTIFICATION

NUMBERTYPE

TECHNICAL DATA SHEET

NUMBER

TY2234 Pendent and Recessed Pendent, K=4.9 TFP400

TY2596 Concealed Pendent Flat Plate, K=4.2 TFP440

TY3596 Concealed Pendent Flat Plate, K=4.9 TFP442

TABLE A, SERIES LFII RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS USED DURING INVESTIGATION

�Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

8'-0"4'-0"

9'-0"

9'-0"

24'-0"

19'-0"

30'-0"

11'-0"

17'-0"

8'-0"

5'-0"

OPENDOOR

OPENDOOR

LOFTOVERHANG

OPENDOOR

12

12

7'-0"

OPENLOFT

OPEN LOFT& OVERHANG

1'-0"

7'-0"

1'-0" LOFTOVERHANG

24'-0"4'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"

22'-0"

8'-0"7'-0" 7'-0"

22'-0"

OPENLOFT

Great Room GeometryInterior Space. Figure A illustrates the “great room” interior dimensions used during the investigation. Results obtained within this geometry are anticipated to be extrapolated as necessary. The space was provided with an open door to provide an assumed worst case condition of a ventilated compartment.

Ceiling Slope. A sloped ceiling having a 12 over 12 pitch was used to provide an assumed worst case condition as compared to ceilings that are sloped to a lesser degree.

Loft OpeningThe loft opening, where applied during certain tests, is assumed to be the worst case with respect to time to sprinkler operation, since it was vented to an open space (i.e., creating a chimney affect vs. a dead ended con-nection to an adjacent compartment).

FIGURE A GREAT ROOM INTERIOR DIMENSIONS

USED DURING INVESTIGATION


25-1/2"

14"

22'-0"

24'-0"

OPEN DOOR

24'-0"

22'-0"

OPEN LOFT(OPTIONAL)

4'-0"

2'-0"

TYP.

14"

12"

RIDGEBEAM

PRIMARYBEAM

PRIMARYBEAM

CHANNEL

PRIMARY BEAM6" x 14"

RIDGE BEAM12" W x 25-1/2" D

OPEN LOFT(OPTIONAL)

4'-0"

2'-0"

TYP.

CHANNEL

PRIMARY BEAM6" x 14"

RIDGE RIDGE

OPEN DOOR

Ceiling Configuration. There were three basic geometries investigated – primary beams (with and without ridge beam) and primary and secondary beams (without ridge beam). Figure B illustrates the primary beam layout where the 6" x 14" cross-section beams run perpendicular to the ridge. Investigations were performed with and without a ridge beam for the primary beam layout. Figure C illustrates the primary and secondary beam layout where 6" x 6" secondary beams run parallel to the ridge. Investigations were only performed without a ridge beam, since it is assumed that the results gained with the beam pockets would be similar with or without a ridge beam.

Sprinkler Mounting Locations. There were principally two sprinkler mounting locations – “in beam” and “in bay”. The “in beam” location had the sprinklers mounted on the bottom of the beam surface. The “in bay” location had the sprinklers mounted on the ceiling between the beams. In all cases, the centerline of sprinkler waterway is installed per-pendicular to the mounting surface. The installation dimensions with respect to escutcheons/cover plates that are provided in the respective Technical Data Sheet referenced in Table A apply. Sprinkler layouts used in the

FIGURE B CEILING CONFIGURATION — PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY



3'-0"3'-0"TYP.

24'-0"

22'-0"

4'-0"

2'-0"

TYP.

PRIMARYBEAM

6" x 14"

6"

6" 14"

PRIMARYBEAM

SECONDARYBEAM

SECONDARYBEAM

6" x 6"

RIDGE

POCKET

OPEN DOOR

OPEN LOFT(OPTIONAL)

test provided symmetrical and asymmetrical layouts. The sprinkler locations; however, were not necessarily chosen on the best location for heat sensitivity or to prevent cold soldering (guidance for heat sensitivity and spacing to prevent cold soldering should be obtained from Technical Data Sheet TFP490). The chosen sprin-kler locations were intended to provide continuity from test to test so that observations could be made as to opening sequence and so that guidance might be derived for the best sprinkler location (i.e., in beam vs. in bay; symmetrical spacing vs. asymmetrical spacing; locations above the top of loft opening elevation vs. below the top of loft opening elevation; etc.).

Number Of Design Sprinklers. The number of opened sprinklers observed during each test was documented so as to help provide guidance in determining the required number of design sprinklers for a given situation.

FIGURE C CEILING CONFIGURATION — PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BEAMS



sprinkler LayoutTable B provides a Selection Tree from which a system designer or AHJ can more readily obtain test obser-vations from Appendix A (Tenability Analysis Observation) and Appendix B (UL Test Report). For exam-ple: if we assume “sloped ceiling with beam”, “without loft opening”, “primary beams only”, and “without ridge beams”, and “sprinklers in bay”, we would be directed to Figures 1A and 1B that show “symmetrical” and “asymmetrical” sprinkler layouts. From these Figures we obtain the Tenability Analysis Reference Test Numbers found in Appendix A. And, for example if we look at Test 6, we will see references to the UL Report Figure found in Appendix B.


SLOPEDCEILING

WITHBEAMS

WITHOUTLOFT(1)

OPENING

WITHLOFT

OPENING

SPRINKLERS IN BAY (REF. FIG. 1A/B)

SPRINKLERS IN BEAM (REF. FIG. 2A/B)PRIMARY (2)

BEAMSONLY

PRIMARY(2) &SECONDARY (3)

BEAMS

PRIMARY(2)

BEAMSONLY

PRIMARY(2) &SECONDARY (3)

BEAMS

WITHOUTRIDGEBEAM

WITHRIDGEBEAM

WITHOUTRIDGEBEAM

WITHRIDGEBEAM

WITHOUTRIDGEBEAM

WITHRIDGEBEAM

WITHRIDGEBEAM

WITHOUTRIDGEBEAM


SPRINKLERS IN BEAM (REF. FIG. 4A/B)

SPRINKLERS IN BAY (REF. FIG. 5)

SPRINKLERS IN BEAM (REF. FIG. 6)











1. THE LOFT OPENING SHOILD BE CONSIDERED WHEN THERE IS AN OPENING TO AN ADJOINING COMPARTMENT. 2. PRIMARY BEAMS (6” x 14” MAX.) RUNNING PERPENDICULAR TO RIDGE. 3. SECONDARY BEAMS (6” x 6” MAX.) RUNNING PARALLEL TO RIDGE.

TABLE B SELECTION TREE


TENABILITY ANALYSISREFERENCE TEST NUMBER IN APPENDIX A

DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION

REVIEW ALL REFERENCED TESTS

6 & 7

11, 12 & 13 - These testsrepresent a more severecase with open loft

PRIMARYBEAM

SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

CHANNEL

CEILING SLOPE12 OVER 12MAXIMUM

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

4'-0"

8'-0"

4'-0"

FIGURE 1A INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY

WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


17 - This test representsa more severe case withopen loft

SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

8'-0"

11'-4"

11'-4"

2'-0"

2'-10"

8'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

FIGURE 1B INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY

WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS

10 Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


1, 2 & 8

9 & 10 - These testsrepresent a more severecase with open loft

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS

11Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


8, 9 & 10 - These testsrepresent a more severecase with symmetricalsprinkler spacing havingsprinklers located furtherfrom peak

18 - This test representsa more severe case withopen loft

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

11'-4"

4'-0"

7'-2" 7'-2"

2'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS

1� Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


6 & 7 - These testsrepresent a similar casewithout a ridge beam


RIDGEBEAM

SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

11'-4"

5'-8"

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

4'-0"

8'-0"

4'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS

1�Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


17 - This test representsa similar case without aridge beam

SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

8'-0"

11'-4"

11'-4"

2'-0"

2'-10"

8'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


1, 2 & 8 - These testsrepresent a similar casewithout a ridge beam

9, 10 & 14 - These testsrepresent a more severecase with open loft

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION




SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

11'-4"

4'-0"

7'-2" 7'-2"

2'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


5

SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERIN POCKET

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

2'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

8'-0"

2'-10"

4'-0"4'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


FIGURE 5 INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS AND SECONDARY BEAMS

WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


3 & 4

SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

PRIMARYBEAM



WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION



SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERIN POCKET

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

2'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

8'-0"

2'-10"

4'-0"4'-0"

PRIMARYBEAM


RIDGEBEAM


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS



DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION



SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

PRIMARYBEAM


RIDGEBEAM


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITHOUT LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS

�0 Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


11 & 12

SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

4'-0"

8'-0"

4'-0"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS

�1Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


17

SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

8'-0"

11'-4"

11'-4"

2'-0"

2'-10"

8'-0" LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS

�� Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


9 & 10


SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS

��Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


18


SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

11'-4"

4'-0"

7'-2" 7'-2"

2'-0"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL


WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS


OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION



SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

11'-4"

5'-8"

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

4'-0"

8'-0"

4'-0"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM

FIGURE 11A INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING

SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS


OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION



SPRINKLERIN CHANNEL

8'-0"

11'-4"

11'-4"

2'-0"

2'-10"

8'-0" LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM

FIGURE 11B INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING

ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS


OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


14


SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM

FIGURE 12A INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING

SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS


OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


15 & 16


SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

11'-4"

4'-0"

7'-2" 7'-2"

2'-0"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


CHANNEL

RIDGEBEAM

FIGURE 12B INVESTIGATION WITH PRIMARY BEAMS ONLY WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING

ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS


OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


5 - This test representsa LESS SEVERE caseand may not be applicable

SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERIN POCKET

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

2'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

8'-0"

2'-10"

4'-0"4'-0"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM



WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS


OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


not be applicable

3 & 4 - These testsrepresent a LESSSEVERE case and may

SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM



WITHOUT RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS

�0 Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

OPENLOFT


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


5 - This test representsa LESS SEVERE caseand may not be applicable

SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERIN POCKET

8'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

2'-0"

11'-4"

5'-8"

8'-0"

2'-10"

4'-0"4'-0"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


RIDGEBEAM


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING ASYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BAYS

�1Residential sprinkler Fire tests with steeply Pitched Beamed Ceilings

OPENLOFT

SECONDARYBEAM

POCKET

SPRINKLERUNDER BEAM

11'-4"

5'-8"

11'-4"

5'-8"

7'-2"

3'-2"

7'-2"

3'-2"

LOFTSPRINKLER

PRIMARYBEAM


RIDGEBEAM


DIRECTCORRELATION

INDIRECTCORRELATION


not be applicable

3 & 4 - These testsrepresent a LESSSEVERE case and may


WITH RIDGE BEAMS — WITH LOFT OPENING SYMMETRICAL SPACING OF SPRINKLERS IN BEAMS


tenaBILIty anaLysIs

One of the challenges posed by this test series was developing criteria able to concisely describe the ability of the systems and configurations evaluated to meet the life safety objective of residential sprinklers. The combi-nation of the great room geometry and the use of real furniture for the test fuel package did not allow ready application of the performance criteria typically used in 3rd party approval protocols such as Underwriters Laboratories Standard 1626 – Residential Sprinklers for Fire Protection Services. The principle performance objective of Residential Sprinklers as defined by the National Fire Protection Association is to provide ten minutes of safe egress for home occupants in the event of a fire. To determine if this objective had been met, a tenability analysis was performed for each of the scenarios included in this project.

tenability CriteriaTo determine if conditions within the test compartment remained tenable, it was necessary to determine the levels at which effects from the fire posed the most significant threat to human life. During each test, up to 40 thermocouples were installed in various locations throughout the space. Additionally Oxygen, Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide concentrations were measured 60 inches above the floor of the test compart-ment, and at the level of the loft opening. Both of these locations were selected to represent approximately eye level on the first floor and second floor, respectively, of the simulated great room. From this collection of data, the following tenability criteria were evaluated. • Temperature • Carbon Dioxide Concentration • Carbon Monoxide Concentration • Radiant Heat FluxThe limiting tenable values for these parameters were selected from standard references and reflect a prem-ise that building occupants will generally attempt to avoid evacuating through a burning compartment, and when faced with no other alternative, will move through the burning compartment as quickly as possible. Tenable limits were selected as follows:Carbon Monoxide – A tenable limit of 2500 ppm was selected as the maximum permissible concentration of Carbon Monoxide. A continuous exposure at this concentration will result in incapacitation within approxi-mately a 10 minute exposure duration in an “average” human at rest. To deal with variations in concentration over time, a second criteria of a maximum carboxyhemoglobin concentration of 30% (an incapacitating dose) was also imposed.Carbon Dioxide – Carbon Dioxide is not toxic up to a concentration of 5%, but at 3% CO2 will increase respiration rates, which will impact the absorption rate of Carbon Monoxide and other irritants. 5% was selected as the maximum permissible value for Carbon Dioxide.Temperature – Exposure to hot environments can lead to incapacitation due to Hyperthermia or heat stroke independent of direct exposure to fire flames. While the exact impact of this parameter is highly dependent upon many factors, including physical condition, clothing, and relative humidity, it is typically reported that humans can withstand 250°F (120°C) in dry air for significantly longer than 10 minutes. It is reported that victims exposed to temperatures exceeding 250°F (120°C) for more than a few minutes are likely to suffer skin burns at a minimum, and an individual subject to this exposure has a significant chance of developing fatal hyperthermia. On this basis, 250°F (120°C) was selected as the maximum permissible value for temper-ature. Additionally, high humidity can significantly exacerbate the lethality of elevated temperatures; there-fore, successful tests should include rapid cooling of the compartment to a temperature below approximately 140°F (60°C) after operation of the residential sprinklers.


Radiant Flux – Another potentially lethal hazard associated with fire is the radiant flux from both the actual fire, and from the accumulated products of combustion. A radiant flux value of approximately 2.5 kW/m2 has been shown to cause pain to exposed skin nearly instantaneously, and at a flux value of approximately 1.5 kW/m2 exposed skin will become painful after several minutes of exposure. A value of 2.5 kW/m2 was selected as the tenability limit for this parameter, but it is also noted that values as low as 1.5 kW/m2 may represent an impediment to evacuation. There are many other limiting factors to tenability that were not included as part of this analysis, including both the impact of irritating or toxic products of combustion such as Hydrogen Cyanide, and limited visi-bility. It is believed that generally the tenability limits of these parameters will not be exceeded without also exceeding one of the parameters that are included in the analysis.

MethodologyData from 25 to 40 thermocouples and six gas sampling meters were recorded for each test, and this data used to perform a tenability analysis for each test scenario. Tenability was evaluated on two levels, the “floor” level, which corresponds to the lower portion of the test structure and represents the bottom level of a residence, and the “loft” level which represents the second story or loft level of a residence. For each level, the following methods were used to evaluate the tenability of the space.

Carbon MonoxideThe Carbon Monoxide concentration was measured 60 inches above floor level (approximately eye level) and at the loft opening. For each test, the direct readings were analyzed to determine if values exceeded the con-centration limits described above. Further, the Purser method for determining carboxyhemoglobin concen-tration was used to estimate the time to incapacitation for a person performing light work, such as evacuating the space. Both of these parameters were compared and were presented in graphical format.

Carbon DioxideThe Carbon Dioxide concentration was measured 60 inches above floor level (approximate eye level) and at the loft opening. For each test, the direct readings were analyzed to determine if values exceeded the concen-tration limits described above.

TemperatureThe bulk average gas temperature in each level was estimated by averaging all of the thermocouples that were not wetted by sprinkler spray impingement or located directly above the fire. The spatially averaged time series values were compared to the tenability critiera described above and presented in graphical format. This analy-sis was done for both the “floor” and “loft” levels.

Radiant FluxRadiant flux was not directly measured during the tests, but was estimated by using a grey body approxima-tion of the “hot” gas layer with an emissivity of 0.9 and an average upper layer temperature as determined above. This approach ignores many critical variables such as soot concentration and temperature gradients within the upper layer. Radiant flux from the flaming fire was not included in the analysis, and no differen-tiation between radiant flux at the floor level versus radiant flux at the loft level was made. As a result of these assumptions, this portion of the analysis should be treated as approximate values, and not an exact representa-tion of the radiant exposure.


Fuel Package ComparisonThe fuel package used for this series was not the standard fuel package typically used to evaluate residential sprinklers, such as the fuel package described in UL 1626. To evaluate the relative severity of the fuel pack-age used in this test, composed primarily of commercially available furniture, compared to the standard fuel package, two fire tests were conducted under an 8’ high smooth, flat ceiling. In the first fire test, the fuel package was located between two concealed residential sprinklers, which represents a preferred location with respect to water application density, but a non-preferred location with respect to fire size at sprinkler opera-tion. In the second test, the fuel package was located directly under a concealed residential sprinkler, which represents the preferred location with respect to fire size at sprinkler activation, but a non-preferred location with respect to water application density.The following graph compares the upper layer temperature from Test 1 and Test 2, with the tenability limita-tions selected for the great room test indicated.The results of the two tests demonstrated that the fuel package used for this test series represents a challenge to the sprinklers at least comparable to that presented by the UL1626 fuel package. The relatively short time period that the water droplets from the sprinkler were within the heated products of combustion, combined with the much smaller volume of the standard test compartment compared to the great room tests, resulted in compartment temperatures that were generally higher than those measured during the great room tests.

Upper Layer Gas Temperatures - Smooth , Flat Ceil

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (sec)

Tem

per

atur

es(F

)

Between Two Upper Layer Temperature

Under One Upper Layer Temperature

Approximate Tenability Limits - Short Duration Exposure

= 1st Sprinkler Operation


dIsCussIon oF ResuLts

Overall, the great room geometry that was evaluated exhibited complex behavior with regards to sprinkler operation and fire suppression performance. While guidance on specific, prescriptive requirements for resi-dential sprinklers in these types of spaces would be premature, some general observations can be made that may be useful in determining appropriate design parameters for these systems. These observations and general recommendations are as follows:

Recessed sprinklers versus Concealed sprinklersIn all tests where the only change to the scenario was the use of recessed sprinklers versus concealed sprin-klers, the concealed sprinklers resulted in larger fire sizes at first sprinkler operation. This is not unexpected, as the thermal sensitivity of concealed sprinklers is less than the thermal sensitivity of recessed sprinklers.

Carbon dioxide ConcentrationThe Carbon Dioxide concentration did not reach dangerous concentrations in any of the tests.

Loft openingWith the loft closed, heat and products of combustion accumulated in the compartment to a greater degree than with the loft open. This generally resulted in faster sprinkler operations, but higher carbon monoxide concentrations when the loft was closed as compared to the loft open case. The loft open case was not entirely physically realistic, as the loft opening discharged to a fully vented space (the test hall) as opposed to an area of limited volume such as the upper floors of a home.

sprinkler LocationWith the loft closed, installing the sprinklers in every pocket versus installing the sprinklers in the bottom of the beams made very little difference in fire size at first sprinkler operation, or the total number of sprinklers operated. With the loft open, installing the sprinklers in the pockets generally resulted in a much larger fire size at sprinkler operation and a significant increase in the total number of sprinklers that operated compared to installing sprinklers in the bottom of the beams.

Fire LocationUsing the test package selected for this test program, fires located in corner of the test compartment were always easier to suppress than fires located in the center of the space using the fuel package selected for this test program. This is generally a preferred outcome, as fires located along compartment boundaries typically represent a greater likelihood of progressing to flashover as the compartment lining becomes involved. Fires not adjacent to the compartment lining cannot typically spread in a vertical direction, which is typically the fastest route of fire propagation in residential fires.


aBout the authoRs

James E. Golinveaux Senior Vice President, Research & Development

James Golinveaux’s areas of interest include the research, design and applications of automatic fire sprin-klers, as well as their history. With over twenty-five years of experience in the fire protection industry, James Golinveaux is currently Senior Vice President, Research and Development for Tyco Fire & Building Products located at the Global Technology Center in Cranston, Rhode Island.In addition to the support to the industry through his numerous NFPA technical committee memberships (13, 88A, 101, and 5000), James has contributed his time as a presenter for multiple national education sem-inars sponsored by organizations such as the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Universities, and Highly Protected Risk (HPR) Insurance Companies. James has also authored many technical papers, provided expert subject matter for the 18th and 19th editions of the Fire Protection Handbook, and contributed to editorial text for the 2002 and 2007 NFPA 13 Handbooks.

David J. LeBlanc Director of Engineered Systems, Research & Development

David LeBlanc is the Director of Engineered Systems, Research and Development for Tyco Fire & Building Products located at the Global Technology Center in Cranston, Rhode Island. A graduate of Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s Mechanical and Fire Protection Engineering programs, Dave has worked in roles of increasing responsibility at Tyco’s fire suppression R&D center for nearly ten years. Over that period he has primarily been involved in the development of new suppression technologies, with an emphasis on special hazards, storage, and residential applications.He is a regular speaker at industry conferences and events around the globe, a member of several NFPA techni-cal committees, a fire suppression advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the International Maritime Organization, and a member of the board of advisors for the WPI Department of Fire Protection Engineering.

Roger S. Wilkins Director of Engineering Services, Research & Development

Roger Wilkins is Director of Engineering Services, Research and Development for Tyco Fire & Building Products located at the Global Technology Center in Cranston, Rhode Island. During his thirty plus years of service in Tyco’s fire protection research and development department, Roger has principally been involved in product development through the preparation of technical literature – working with Engineering, Manufacturing, and Marketing. In addition, Roger has been extensively involved in offering technical sup-port and providing product training. While employed at Tyco, he received his Associates Degree in Mechanical Engineering Technology from Roger Williams College.


�� appendix a tenability analysis of Great Room Fire test data

aPPendIx a

test 1 through 1� tenability analysis observation

��appendix a tenability analysis of Great Room Fire test data

tenability analysis observations test 1 - test Code: �1�0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY3596Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 17

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 3Flow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 39 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Not Applicable

ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlUpon sprinkler activation the fire was rapidly brought under control.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monox-ide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire dura-tion of the test. Floor level gas tem-peratures were not measured, but are likely to be significantly less than loft temperatures.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monox-ide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire dura-tion of the test. Gas temperatures approached, but did not exceed, ten-ability criteria applicable for short exposure duration.

Carbon Monoxide Toxicity

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

Frac

tio

no

f In

cap

acit

atin

gD

ose

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

nM

ono

xid

e C

onc

entr

atio

n(p

pm

)

Loft CO Fractional Dose

Floor CO Fractional Dose

Loft CO Concentration

Floor CO Concentration


14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

Time (sec)

1st Sprinkler Operation

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

50

100

150

200

250

300

Upper Layer Temperature and Radiant Flux

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)

Upper Layer Temperature (F)

Estimated Radiative Heat Flux


Fire Size at Sprinkler Activation

�0 appendix a tenability analysis of Great Room Fire test data

tenability analysis observations test � - test Code: �1�0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 17


Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose


Time (sec)

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)


14000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4Loft CO Fractional DoseFloor CO Fractional Dose Loft CO ConcentrationFloor CO Concentration


Time (sec)

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)





0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0.5

400 600 800 1000 1200 14000

0 200

ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlThe sprinklers were able to bring the fire under control in less than two minutes after first sprinkler opera-tion. For this test only, the simu-lated large table did not include legs, but was supported using the back of the chair and couch. This resulted in a more severe fire scenario, as the region between the couch and the chair was fully obstructed from water discharge.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion remained within tena-ble limits for the entire duration of the test. Floor level gas temperatures were not measured, but are likely to be lower than loft temperatures and well within tenability limits. Carbon monoxide concentrations remained at a level that could result in an inca-pacitating dose after an exposure duration of more than 20 minutes, well beyond the 10 minute evacua-tion period provided by residential sprinklers.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and gas temperatures remained within tenable limits for the entire duration of the test. Gas temperatures approached, but did not exceed, tenability criteria appli-cable for short exposure duration. Carbon monoxide concentrations remained at a level that could result in an incapacitating dose after an exposure duration of more than 20 minutes, well beyond the 10 minute evacuation period provided by resi-dential sprinklers.


�1appendix a tenability analysis of Great Room Fire test data

tenability analysis observations test � - test Code: �1�0�0�Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Box Beams UL Report Figure 8Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 18


ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlUpon sprinkler activation, the fire was rapidly brought under control.


Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monox-ide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire dura-tion of the test. Gas temperatures approached but did not exceed ten-ability criteria applicable for short exposure duration.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

n M

ono

xid

e C

onc

entr

atio

n (p

pm

)

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Frac

tion

of I

ncap

acita

ting

Do

se



Loft CO Fractional Dose


Loft CO Concentration


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

per

atur

e (F

)



10000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Rad

iant

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Time (sec)






tenability analysis observations test � - test Code: �1�0�0�Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Box Beams UL Report Figure 8Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 18


500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

14000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose



Loft CO Fractional DoseFloor CO Fractional Dose Loft CO ConcentrationFloor CO Concentration


300 3


1

1.5

2

2.5

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0.5

600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

00 200 400

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)




ObSeRvaTIONS



Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and gas temperatures remained well within tenability lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide concentrations at the closed loft opening remained at a level that could result in an inca-pacitating dose after an exposure duration of more than 20 minutes. However, this is well beyond the 10 minute evacuation period residential sprinklers are designed to provide.



tenability analysis observations test � - test Code: ��10�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Box Beams UL Report Figure 8Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location In Bays UL Report Figure 20


ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlUpon sprinkler activation, the fire was rapidly brought under control.Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monox-ide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire dura-tion of the test. Floor level gas tem-peratures were not measured, but are likely to be significantly less than loft temperatures.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, gas temperatures and carbon monoxide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire duration of the test.

Loft CO Fractional DoseFloor CO Fractional DoseLoft CO ConcentrationFloor CO Concentration


2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

14000

500

1000

1500

2000

00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose



1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0

0.5

1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)







tenability analysis observations test � - test Code: ��10�0�Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location In Bays UL Report Figure 19


14000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

nM

ono

xid

eC

onc

entr

atio

n(p

pm

)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Frac

tio

no

fIn

cap

acit

atin

gD

ose




14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)






ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monoxide concentrations remained within ten-able limits for the entire duration of the test. Floor level gas temperatures were not measured, but are likely to be significantly less than loft tem-peratures and well within tenable limits.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, gas temperatures, and carbon monoxide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire duration of the test.




Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location In Bays UL Report Figure 19


ObSeRvaTIONS



Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monoxide concentrations remained within ten-able limits for the entire duration of the test. Gas temperatures exceeded tenability criteria applicable for short exposure duration for approximately 40 seconds.


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Frac

tio

no

fIn

cap

acit

atin

gD

ose

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

Loft CO Fractional DoseFloor CO Fractional Dose

Loft CO ConcentrationFloor CO Concentration


1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

nM

ono

xid

eC

onc

entr

atio

n(p

pm

)

0

500

0.5

1.5

2.5

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

2

3

1

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)


00 200

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)







tenability analysis observations test � - test Code: ��0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Closed UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 19


0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

nM

ono

xid

eC

onc

entr

atio

n(p

pm

)

00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Frac

tio

no

fIn

cap

acit

atin

gD

ose




1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0.5

140000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)






ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion reached tenability lim-its for a short duration, and exceeded the level necessary to cause severe pain to exposed skin for approxi-mately 45 seconds. Floor level gas temperatures were not recorded but are likely to have been at or near tenability limits. Carbon monoxide concentrations remained within ten-able limits for the entire duration of the test. Sprinkler activation quickly reduced gas temperature and radiant exposure to within tenability limits.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion reached tenability lim-its for a short duration, and exceeded the level necessary to cause severe pain to exposed skin for approxi-mately 45 seconds. Gas temperatures exceeded tenability limits for more than 90 seconds, and the overall combination of radiant flux and gas temperature resulted in heat induced incapacitation approximately 5 min-utes from ignition. Sprinkler activa-tion quickly reduced gas tempera-ture and radiant exposure to within tenability limits.




Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 17

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 4+ LoftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 65 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – 1st

ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlSprinkler activation was signifi-cantly delayed due to the loft open-ing. The sprinklers were unable to suppress the fire and the fuel pack-age was fully consumed. Activation of the sprinklers did result in rapid cooling of hot products of combus-tion significantly improving the ten-ability of the compartment.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in under two min-utes. Floor level temperatures were not measured, but are likely to be less than loft temperatures. Floor level temperatures likely exceeded 200 °F, a temperature that would impede evacuation, particularly when considering the radiant expo-sure. Carbon monoxide concentra-tions did not reach dangerous levels, likely due to the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in under two min-utes. Gas temperatures exceeded very short duration tenability lim-its for approximately 50 seconds. Carbon monoxide concentrations did not reach dangerous levels, likely due to the venting effect of the loft opening.



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Frac

tio

no

fIn

cap

acit

atin

gD

ose

14000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

nM

on

oxi

de

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n(p

pm

)Sampling ProbeDirectly in Flame

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)


14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)







tenability analysis observations test 10 - test Code: ��0�0�Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 17

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 3+ LoftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 52 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes- Within 3 secs. of 1st


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

Frac

tio

n o

f In

ca

pac

itat

ing

Do

se

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

entr

atio

n (p

pm

)




00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)



50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)




ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlSprinkler activation was significantly delayed due to the loft opening. Upon sprinkler activation, the fire was rapidly brought under control.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux levels from the prod-ucts of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in less than two min-utes. Floor level gas temperatures were not measured, but are likely to be significantly less than loft tem-peratures and remained within short duration tenability limits. Carbon monoxide concentrations remained very low, likely due to the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux levels from the prod-ucts of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in less than two min-utes. Gas temperatures slightly exceeded tenability limits for approx-imately 10 seconds. Sprinkler activa-tion quickly resulted in gas temper-ature reductions to tenable levels. Carbon dioxide concentrations were not recorded due to an instrumenta-tion error.



tenability analysis observations test 11 - test Code: ��0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location In Bay UL Report Figure 19

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 11 +1 in loft openingFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 156 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Not Applicable

ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlSprinkler activation was significantly delayed due to the loft opening. The sprinklers were unable to suppress the fire and the fuel package was fully consumed. Activation of the sprinklers did result in rapid cooling of hot products of combustion, sig-nificantly improving the tenability of the compartment.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in under two minutes. Floor level temperatures were not measured, but are likely to be less than loft temperatures. However, temperatures likely exceeded 200 ºF, a temperature that would impede evacuation, particularly when consid-ering the radiant exposure. Carbon monoxide concentrations did not reach dangerous levels.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in under two minutes. Gas temperatures exceeded very short duration tenability limits for approximately 2 minutes. Due to an instrument malfunction, carbon monoxide concentrations at loft level were not recorded.

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose





1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0.5

600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)


0 200 4000

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)



Upper Layer Temperature (F)Estimated Radiative Heat Flux


�0 appendix a tenability analysis of Great Room Fire test data

tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: ��0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location In Bays UL Report Figure 19

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 1Flow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 13 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated No

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Car

bo

nM

ono

xid

eC

onc

entr

atio

n(p

pm

)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Frac

tio

no

fIn

cap

acit

atin

gD

ose




Layer Temperature and Radiant Flux

300 3


1

1.5

2

2.5

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)Upper Layer Temperature (F)

Lower Layer Temperature (F)Estimated Radiative Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)

0.5

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)


0 200

ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monoxide concentrations remained within ten-able limits for the entire duration of the test. Floor level gas temperatures were maintained at tenable levels for short duration exposure. Gas con-centrations remained very low due to the loss of products of combustion through the vent opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monox-ide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire dura-tion of the test. Gas temperatures approached but did not exceed ten-ability criteria applicable for short exposure duration. Gas concen-trations remained very low due to the loss of products of combustion through the vent opening.


�1appendix a tenability analysis of Great Room Fire test data

tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: ��0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location In Bay UL Report Figure 19

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 10 +loftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 143 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – 1st

ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlSprinkler activation was significantly delayed due to the loft opening. The sprinklers were unable to suppress or control the fire, and the fuel pack-age was fully consumed. Activation of the sprinklers did result in rapid cooling of hot products of combus-tion, significantly improving the ten-ability of the compartment.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion; gas temperature, and carbon monoxide concentra-tions remained within tenable lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide remained very low, likely as a result of the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion; gas temperature, and carbon monoxide concentra-tions remained within tenable lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide remained very low, likely as a result of the venting effect of the loft opening.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)


1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0.5

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)


00 200

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)



Upper Layer Temperature (F)Estimated Radiative Heat Flux



tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: �0�0�0�Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Channel & Ridge UL Report Figure 6Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 17

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 5 + LoftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 78 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – 1st


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec)

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)



14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)



Upper Layer Temperature (F)Lower Layer Temperature (F)Estimated Radiative Heat Flux


ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, gas temperature, and carbon monoxide concentra-tions remained within tenable lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide remained very low, likely as a result of the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, gas temperature, and carbon monoxide concentra-tions remained within tenable lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide remained very low, likely as a result of the venting effect of the loft opening.



tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: 0�0�0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel & Ridge UL Report Figure 6Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 21

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 2 +loftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 39 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – Within 6 secs. of 1st

ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, gas temperature, and carbon monoxide concentra-tions remained within tenable lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide remained very low, likely as a result of the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, gas temperature, and carbon monoxide concentra-tions remained within tenable lim-its for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide remained very low, likely as a result of the venting effect of the loft opening.

14000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose




14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)




tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: 0�0�0�0�Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel & Ridge UL Report Figure 6Sprinkler Type Concealed SIN: TY2596Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 21

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 3 + LoftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 52 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – Last

14000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)




Sampling Probe Directly in Flame

14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)



Floor Level TC nearly immersed in fire

ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux levels from the prod-ucts of combustion reached levels high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in less than two min-utes. Floor level temperatures were recorded, but registered abnormally high due to the proximity of the thermocouple to the fire location. However, it is likely that floor gas temperatures approached or exceeded tenable limits. Carbon dioxide con-centrations did not reach dangerous levels, likely due to the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux levels from the prod-ucts of combustion reached lev-els high enough to cause severe pain to exposed skin in less than two minutes. Loft level tempera-tures exceeded tenability limits for a period of approximately 60 sec-onds. Carbon dioxide concentrations did not reach dangerous levels, likely due to the venting effect of the loft opening.



tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: �0�0�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Center UL Report Figure 12Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location In Bays UL Report Figure 22

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 12 +loftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 169 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – 1st

ObSeRvaTIONS

Fire ControlSprinkler activation was significantly delayed due to the loft opening. The sprinklers were unable to suppress the fire, and the fuel package was nearly fully consumed. Activation of the sprinklers did result in rapid cooling of hot products of combus-tion, significantly improving the ten-ability of the compartment.

Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, floor level gas temper-atures and carbon monoxide con-centrations remained within tena-ble limits for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide concen-trations were likely impacted by the venting effect of the loft opening.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, loft level gas temper-atures and carbon monoxide con-centrations remained within tena-ble limits for the entire duration of the test. Carbon monoxide concen-trations were likely impacted by the venting effect of the loft opening.

14000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose






300 3


14000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F) Upper Layer Temperature (F)

Lower Layer Temperature (F)Estimated Radiative Heat Flux



tenability analysis observations test 1� - test Code: 0�110�01Test Parameters

Parameter Value ReferenceLoft Open UL Report Figure 4Fire Location Corner UL Report Figure 11Ceiling Configuration Channel Beams UL Report Figure 7Sprinkler Type Recessed SIN: TY2234Sprinkler Location Bottom of Beams UL Report Figure 23

Test ResultsNumber of Sprinkler Operations 3 + LoftFlow Rate per Sprinkler 13 gpmTotal Flow Rate 52 gpmLoft Sprinkler Operated Yes – 13 secs. after 1st


1.2

1.4

Fra

cti

on

of

Inc

ap

ac

ita

tin

g D

ose

3000

3500

Ca

rbo

n M

on

oxi

de

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (p

pm

)

Loft CO Fractional DoseCO Fractional Dose FloorLoft CO ConcentrationFloor CO Concentration


10000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Time (sec)


300 3


10000

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Ra

dia

nt

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

F)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Time (sec)



ObSeRvaTIONS


Floor Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion, carbon monoxide con-centrations and floor level tempera-tures remained within tenable limits for the entire duration of the test.

Loft Level TenabilityRadiant flux from the products of combustion and carbon monox-ide concentrations remained within tenable limits for the entire dura-tion of the test. Gas temperatures approached, but did not exceed, ten-ability criteria applicable for short exposure duration.



�� appendix B underwriters Laboratories Inc., technical Report

aPPendIx B

Residential Sprinkler Fire Tests With Beamed Ceilings Having a 12 in 12 Slope

Technical ReportUnderwriters Laboratories IncProject 05CA14764, EX4991

for

Tyco Fire & Building ProductsFebruary 7, 2006

Copyright © 2006, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Technical Report Underwriters Laboratories Inc Project 05CA14764, EX4991

forTyco Fire & Building Products

February 7, 2006

February 7, 2006

ii

Executive Summary

Tyco Fire & Building Products requested a series of fire tests to generate data relative to the performance of residential sprinklers installed to protect fires originating in rooms having steeply sloped, beamed ceilings. The residential sprinkler installations described in this report were beyond the limitations currently referenced in the UL Listing for these products. For pitched configurations, Listed residential sprinklers are currently available for smooth, flat ceilings having a slope up to and including 8 in 12.

This report describes a total of eighteen tests conducted in a 22 ft. by 24 ft. by 30 ft. high-test room having a 12 in 12 slope incorporating 14-inch deep simulated beams installed down the slope. Also, some of these tests utilized 6-inch deep beams installed perpendicular to the 14-inch beams to create a box-beam type appearance. The fuel packages utilized during these tests incorporated commercially available furniture.

Eight tests were conducted with no opening near the top portion of the enclosure and ten tests were conducted with an opening in the top portion of the enclosure to provide venting. While it is likely that this opening vented hot gases generated by the fire at a rate greater than would occur in a loft type room configuration, this opening was intended to simulate other rooms connected to the sloped ceiling test room.

Ten tests were conducted with residential style, recessed sprinklers installed in various locations within the ceiling and eight tests were conducted using residential style, concealed sprinklers installed in various locations within the ceiling.

The number of operated sprinklers and gas temperatures as well as O2, CO, and CO2measurements were used to evaluate sprinkler performance.

February 7, 2006

iii

Notes:

This Report was prepared for, sponsored by, and under the direction of Tyco Fire & Building Products. UL did not select the test parameters utilized during the investigation described in this Report. In no event shall UL be responsible for whatever use or nonuse is made of the information contained in this Report and in no event shall UL, its employees, or its agents incur any obligation or liability for damages arising out of or in connection with the use, or the inability to use, information contained in this Report.

February 7, 2006

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 11.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 1

2. PURPOSE.............................................................................................................. 2

3. TEST FACILITY .................................................................................................. 23.1 TEST FACILITY ................................................................................................. 2

4. EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION ....................................................... 24.1 SIMULATED GREAT ROOM ................................................................................ 24.2 FUEL PACKAGE ................................................................................................ 7

4.2.1. Details of Furniture Fuel Package ........................................................... 74.2.2. Characterization of Fuel Package............................................................ 9

4.3 INSTRUMENTATION......................................................................................... 104.4 SPRINKLER SYSTEM........................................................................................ 12

4.4.1. Sprinklers............................................................................................... 12

5. FIRE TESTS........................................................................................................ 225.1 TEST PARAMETERS......................................................................................... 225.2 TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................ 23

6. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY ....................................................................... 456.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 456.2 GAS MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................................... 456.3 SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX A-1

February 7, 2006

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Isometric View – Channel Beam Ceiling Configuration ................................. 3Figure 2 – Isometric View – Box Beam Ceiling Configuration........................................ 4Figure 3 – Loft Wall – Elevation View............................................................................ 4Figure 4 – Ridge Detail – Tests 1-13, 17, 18.................................................................... 5Figure 5 – Ridge Detail – Tests 14, 15, 16....................................................................... 5Figure 6 – Channel Beam Ceiling Configurations............................................................ 6Figure 7 – Box Beam Ceiling Configuration.................................................................... 6Figure 8 – Chair .............................................................................................................. 8Figure 9 – Couch............................................................................................................. 8Figure 10 – Corner Furniture Configuration .................................................................... 8Figure 11 – Center Furniture Configuration..................................................................... 8Figure 12 – Center Furniture Configuration..................................................................... 8Figure 13 – Furniture Fuel Package Heat Release Rate.................................................. 10Figure 14 – Instrumentation Plan View ......................................................................... 11Figure 15 – Instrumentation –Front Elevation View ...................................................... 11Figure 16 – Instrumentation – Side Elevation View....................................................... 12Figure 17 – Sprinkler Location on Beams in Channel Ceiling – Tests 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 14.. 14Figure 18 – Sprinkler Location on Beams in Channel Ceiling – Tests 3 and 4 ............... 15Figure 19 – Sprinkler Location in Bays on Channel Ceiling – Tests 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 ...... 16Figure 20 – Sprinkler Locations in Bay on Box Ceiling – Test 5 ................................... 17Figure 21 – Sprinkler Locations in Beams on Channel Ceiling – Tests 15, 16, 18.......... 18Figure 22 – Sprinkler Locations in Bays on Channel Ceiling – Test 17.......................... 19Figure 23 – Loft Sprinkler Location .............................................................................. 20Figure 24 – Location ID – In Bay with Box Beam for Tests 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 14 ................ 21Figure 25 – Location ID – In Beam with Box Beam for Tests 3, 4................................. 21Figure 26 – Location ID – In Bay with Channel Beam for Tests 6, 7, 11, 12, 13........... 21Figure 27 – Location ID – In Beam with Channel Beam for Test 5............................... 21Figure 28 – Location ID – In Beam with Channel Beam for Tests 15, 16, 18 (top

sprinklers above loft opening)................................................................................ 22Figure 29 – Location ID – In Bay with Channel Beam for Test 17................................ 22Figure 30 – Photo sequence of fire progression with furniture in corner of room. .......... 25Figure 31 – Photo sequence of fire progression with furniture in center of room............ 26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Summary of Sprinkler Tests without Loft Opening......................................... 23Table 2 - Summary of Sprinkler Tests with Loft Opening.............................................. 24

February 7, 2006

1

1. Introduction

1.1 GeneralAdvances in construction techniques and materials, along with trends in architecture to develop larger spaces or “great rooms” in some residential occupancies have presented challenges to authorities having jurisdiction charged with enforcement of residential sprinkler codes in certain localities. For many single-family dwellings, the authority having jurisdiction is responsible for making a determination as to the appropriate design criteria for the sprinkler system since the installation falls outside the scope of the current UL Listings.

In some of these communities, including the mountainous American west, heavy beam and timber construction techniques, along with steeply sloped roof designs have been incorporated into residential property designs. In many of these communities, the construction materials are locally available which facilitates frequent use of these construction techniques.

The development of these unique room configurations within the residential unit has introduced design parameters that are beyond those which have been investigated with regard to residential sprinkler systems. Currently, the design basis and installation criteria for residential sprinkler systems in single-family dwellings is described in the Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One-and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, NFPA13D. There is little technical guidance provided in this standard with regard to establishing appropriate design criteria for these types of residential construction.

The fire tests described in this report were conducted in a 22 ft. by 24 ft. by 30 ft. high test room having a 12 in 12 slope incorporating 14-inch deep simulated beams installed down the slope. Also, some of these tests utilized 6-inch deep beams installed perpendicular to the 14-inch beams to create a box-beam type appearance.

While consideration was given to conducting tests in larger size rooms having connecting corridors, the test sponsor chose to proceed with conducting the fire tests in a room that had been used for analyses of heat movement within the enclosure. During these tests, the test sponsor selected the sprinkler installation locations and the test parameters associated with each test.

This report describes fire tests that were conducted with commercially available furniture.Preliminary exploratory tests, including those conducted with a fuel package similar to the that used to evaluate the performance of water mist systems in public spaces as described in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Assembly Resolution A 800 (19), were also conducted but not described in this report. The tests using the IMO public space fuel package did not generate sufficient energy to cause operation of the sprinklers.

February 7, 2006

2

2. Purpose

The purpose of this test program was to develop data for use by Tyco Fire & Building Products regarding the installation of residential sprinklers in “great room” type spaces within a residential dwelling unit.

3. Test Facility

3.1 Test FacilityUnderwriters Laboratories Inc. fire test facilities are located in Northbrook, Illinois. The tests described in this report were all conducted in one of the test cells in the large-scalefire testing facility. The test cell, which is open to atmosphere, has nominal measurements of 48 ft. by 43 ft. with a 40 ft. ceiling height. The ventilation system is capable of removing 45,000 ft3/minute from the room through a regenerative thermal oxidizer system used to remove particulate and volatile organic compounds from combustion products generated within the cell. During all tests, initial fire growth was accomplished in static conditions and the system was set to remove 45,000 ft3/minutewhen the first sprinkler activation occurred.

4. Equipment and Instrumentation

4.1 Simulated Great RoomThe simulated great room was constructed within the previously described test cell. The great room plan measurement was 22 ft. by 24 ft. with a 12 in 12 sloped ceiling. The height from the floor of the room to the bottom of the slope was a nominal 19 ft. and 30 ft. to the interior peak; see Figure 1 and Figure 2. The great room was framed with lumber and sheathed with ½ in. plywood for the walls and ceiling.

Gypsum wallboard was attached on the inside of the corner of the room where some of the fires was initiated to protect the sheathing from ignition during the tests.

An entrance opening, measuring 48 in. wide by 96 in. tall was located on one of the 22 ft. wide walls. A loft opening, not used for all tests, measuring 96 in. by 96 in. with the top sill 5 ft. below the ceiling peak was located on the 22 ft. wide wall opposite of the entrance; see Figure 3.

Sheet metal was formed into simulated beams that were attached to the ceiling in two basic configurations. In one configuration, channel beams were formed into 6 in. wide by 14 in. deep profiles and were installed perpendicular to the ridgeline on 48 in. centers, to create the channeling ceiling obstructions; see Figure 1 and Figure 6.

In the second ceiling configuration, the channel beams were used with box beams that were formed into 6 in. wide by 6 in. deep profiles and installed on 36 in. centers parallel to the ridgeline to create the boxing channel obstructions; see Figure 2 and Figure 7.

February 7, 2006

3

A simulated ridge beam was fabricated from gypsum board and attached to the interior peak in the great room for three of the tests as described in this report; see Figure 5.

Figure 1 – Isometric View – Channel Beam Ceiling Configuration

February 7, 2006

4

Figure 2 – Isometric View – Box Beam Ceiling Configuration

Figure 3 – Loft Wall – Elevation View

February 7, 2006

5

Figure 4 – Ridge Detail – Tests 1-13, 17, 18

Figure 5 – Ridge Detail – Tests 14, 15, 16

February 7, 2006

6

The two ceiling configurations with channel beams only and with channel and box beams are illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 6 – Channel Beam Ceiling Configurations

Figure 7 – Box Beam Ceiling Configuration

February 7, 2006

7

4.2 Fuel Package

4.2.1. Details of Furniture Fuel Package

The fuel package used for these tests primarily consisted of commercially available furniture. Two basic arrangements were used depending upon whether the fire originated in the corner or center of the room.

During tests involving the furniture fuel package located in the corner of the room, the distance from the back of the furniture to the wall was 3 in. Plywood sheathing having a nominal thickness ¼ in. was positioned on the walls behind the couch assemblies in the corner of the room to cover an 8 ft. wide by 16 ft. tall area on each wall joining at the corner; see Figure 10 and Figure 11 for additional information on the furniture.

During tests involving the furniture fuel package located in the center of the room, the distance from the back of the chair to the back of the sofa was 24 in. The components of the furniture fuel package are described as follows:

ChairA nominal 35 in. wide by 38 in. tall by 33 in. deep upholstered armchair with an interior wood frame and metal spring construction with back and bottom cushions was used. Thefabric and cushioning was 100% polyurethane and the chair was covered with a cotton cover. The total weight of the chair was 67 lb.

CouchA nominal 77 in. wide by 37 in. tall by 35 in. deep upholstered couch with an interior wood frame and metal spring construction with back and bottom cushions was used. The fabric and cushioning was 100% polyurethane and the couch was covered with a cotton cover. The total weight of the couch was 120 lb.

Small TableThe table was 22 in. by 22 in. by 18 in. tall with four 2 in. by 2in square legs. The table surface was 2 in. thick particleboard with a wood veneer covering. The total weight of the table was 13 lb.

Waste BasketA cylindrical steel container measuring 16 in. tall by 11 in. diameter filled with 1.5 lbs. ofshredded paper.

Simulated Large TableA 60 in. long by 18 in. wide by 28 in. tall horizontal plywood barrier having a nominal thickness ¼ in. with four 1.75 in. by 3.5 in. rectangular legs was used to simulate a table and facilitate the transfer of the wastebasket fire to the couch and chair. In Test 2, a simulated plywood table top was placed directly on top of the sides of the couch and chair, but subsequent tests were conducted with the plywood supported by legs (i.e. simulated large table) so that a clearance between the couch and chair could be

February 7, 2006

8

established to allow water discharge from the sprinklers to reach the burning sides of the furniture.

Figure 8 – Chair Figure 9 – Couch

Figure 10 – Corner Furniture Configuration Figure 11 – Center Furniture Configuration

Figure 12 – Center Furniture Configuration

February 7, 2006

9

4.2.2. Characterization of Fuel Package

A test was conducted to characterize the heat release rate (HRR) for the fuel package used for the fire tests located in the center of the room. These tests were conducted in a fire test cell equipped with a 25 ft. diameter collection hood. Four inlet ducts provided make-up air in the test facility and are located at the walls approximately 5 ft. above the test floor. All products of combustion from the tests were processed through a regenerative thermal oxidizing system.

The calorimeter consists of a 25 ft. diameter collection hood connected to an exhaust system capable of vacating gases at a rate of 60,000 SCFM.

The calorimeter is equipped with instrumentation to measure convective and total heat release rates. The convective instrumentation calculates the heat release rate from the energy increase of the products of combustion entering the calorimeter. The total heatrelease instrumentation calculates the heat release rate using oxygen consumption techniques.

The heat release calorimeter is calibrated up to a 10 MW fire size. As illustrated in Figure 13, the maximum total and convective HRR generated by this fuel package exceeded 4.5 and 2.5 MW, respectively.

The test under the calorimeter was conducted for the purpose of characterizing the heat release rate for this particular fuel package. However, the actual heat release rate fromthe fuel package when placed in the center of the simulated great room would be influenced by the room geometry and ventilation, and would likely be different from the measurements taken in the large open area under the calorimeter.

Heat Release Rate of Fuel Package Located in the Center of the Room

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time (seconds)

Hea

t Rel

ease

Rat

e (k

W)

Convective Heat Release Rate

Total Heat Release Rate

February 7, 2006

10

Figure 13 – Furniture Fuel Package Heat Release Rate

4.3 InstrumentationThe instrumentation used in the testing consisted of the following devices:

• Eleven type K beaded end thermocouples were located every 1 ft. on a vertical tree suspended below the ridge line for a distance of 10 ft.

• A test dependent number of 1/16 in. diameter, Type K Inconel sheathed thermocouples were located below the ceiling adjacent to each sprinkler to record ceiling temperatures for fire tests

• Two 1/16 in. diameter type K Inconel sheathed thermocouples were attached to instrument stands, one located 60 in. above the floor and one located 60 in. above the bottom of the loft opening.

• Two Gas probes were used during the testing. One was located 60 in. above the floor and one located 60 in. above the bottom of the loft opening

• A Siemens Ultramat 22p gas analyzer with a 0-3% CO range and a 0-20% CO2range was used to evaluate the gas samples.

• A Siemens Oxymat 6 oxygen analyzer with a 0- 25% 02 range was used to evaluate the gas samples.

• Calibrated flow measuring devices were used to measure water flow rate for each test.

• Stopwatches and timing devices located within the data acquisition system were used to monitor and record significant events during the fire tests.

• Video and Infrared cameras were used to capture and record images of the fire tests.

• Channels 1-25 correspond to sprinklers 1-25 (see Figure 24 through Figure 28 for exact locations)

• Channels 26-36 correspond to thermocouples located in a tree at the center of the room (see Figure 14 through Figure 16 for exact locations) ** Note: On tests dated 7/28/2005 until 8/12/2005, channel 36 was removed from the tree and was located 60 in. off the floor with the gas analyzers near the center of the room

• Channels 41 and 42 were the CO2 and CO gas measurements, respectively, located 60 in. above the bottom of the loft opening

• Channels 43 and 44 were the CO2 and CO gas measurements, respectively, located 60 in. off the floor in the center of the room

• Channel 45 was the O2 gas measurement located 60 in. above the bottom of the loft opening

• Channel 46 was the O2 gas measurement located 60 in. off the floor in the center of the room

The instrumentation layouts shown in Figure 14 through Figure 16 illustrate the locations of data collection devices used in the testing, in addition to the thermocouples located near the sprinklers.

February 7, 2006

11

Figure 14 – Instrumentation Plan View

Note: For the center furniture placement, thermocouples in the tree were moved slightly off center as a result of the connection of the tree to the thermocouple located on the floor.

Figure 15 – Instrumentation –Front Elevation View

February 7, 2006

12

Figure 16 – Instrumentation – Side Elevation View

4.4 Sprinkler SystemThe piping network used to provide the water supply to the sprinklers in the great room was constructed of CPVC pipe and associated fittings. The piping systems were routed internally and externally to the ceiling of the great room to allow for the positioning of the sprinkler for the desired test configuration. The piping system was connected to a water control valve and flow-measuring device(s) to provide water flow control and flow measurement during the course of the test.

For each test, a target water flow per sprinkler was established prior to the test and the flow control valve was adjusted to obtain a total flow that corresponded to the number of operated sprinklers multiplied by the target water flow per sprinkler.

4.4.1. SprinklersThe sprinklers utilized in the test program were provided by Tyco Fire & Building Products and were positioned in various configurations in the ceiling for this investigation as illustrated in Figure 17 through Figure 23.

February 7, 2006

13

During the tests conducted with the sprinklers located in the bay with a simulated loft opening, the top rows of sprinklers were positioned above the top of the opening. In addition, Test 16 was conducted with a single row of sprinklers located at a higher elevation, which was within 3 ft. vertically of the ceiling peak.

Tests 9, 10 and 14 were conducted with the top rows of sprinklers installed in the bottom of beam at approximately the same elevation as the top of the loft opening. To evaluate sprinkler performance with sprinklers positioned above the opening, Tests 15, 16 and 18 were conducted with a single row of sprinklers installed in the beam closer to the peak at an elevation higher than the top of the loft opening.

The sprinkler locations within the ceiling were not necessarily indicative of what may be considered an appropriate installation relative to heat sensitivity and minimum sprinkler spacing. The size of the test structure was not conducive to installing sprinklers at their maximum permitted spacing. The locations referenced in Figure 17 through Figure 23facilitated the use of similar sprinkler locations from test-to-test for the various ceiling configurations. The installation of the sprinklers in close proximity to each other and to the top of the structure may have created challenging conditions relative to limiting the number of sprinkler operations.

The sprinklers supplied by Tyco Fire & Building Products for this investigation were as follows:

• Tyco Fire & Building Products concealed residential sprinkler having a nominal K-factor of 4.9 and 160oF temperature rating with a 135oF cover (TY3596)

• Tyco Fire & Building Products concealed residential sprinkler having a nominal K-factor of 4.2 and 160oF temperature rating with a 135oF cover (TY2596)

• Tyco Fire & Building Products recessed residential sprinkler having a nominal K-factor of 4.9 and 155oF temperature rating (TY2234)

February 7, 2006

14

Figure 17 – Sprinkler Location on Beams in Channel Ceiling – Tests 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 14

February 7, 2006

15

Figure 18 – Sprinkler Location on Beams in Channel Ceiling – Tests 3 and 4

February 7, 2006

16

Figure 19 – Sprinkler Location in Bays on Channel Ceiling – Tests 6, 7, 11, 12, 13

February 7, 2006

17

Figure 20 – Sprinkler Locations in Bay on Box Ceiling – Test 5

February 7, 2006

18

Figure 21 – Sprinkler Locations in Beams on Channel Ceiling – Tests 15, 16, 18

February 7, 2006

19

Figure 22 – Sprinkler Locations in Bays on Channel Ceiling – Test 17

February 7, 2006

20

Figure 23 indicates the position of the sprinkler located immediately outside the simulated loft opening for the tests conducted with this opening. The sprinkler was installed 12 in. away from the outer wall of the enclosure and 12 in. above the top of the opening in the center of a 2 by 8 ft. shelf ledge positioned outside and above the 64 ft2

opening in the wall.

Figure 23 – Loft Sprinkler Location

February 7, 2006

21

The illustrations presented in Figure 24 through

Figure 29 indicate the identification numbers assigned to the sprinkler locations in the ceiling assemblies.

Figure 24 – Location ID – In Bay with Box Beam for Tests 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 14

Figure 25 – Location ID – In Beam with Box Beam for Tests 3, 4

Figure 26 – Location ID – In Bay with Channel Beam for Tests 6, 7, 11, 12, 13

Figure 27 – Location ID – In Beam with Channel Beam for Test 5

February 7, 2006

22

Figure 28 – Location ID – In Beam with Channel Beam for Tests 15, 16, 18

(top sprinklers above loft opening)

Figure 29 – Location ID – In Bay with Channel Beam for Test 17

5. Fire Tests

5.1 Test ParametersA total of eighteen tests described in this report were conducted in the 22 ft. by 24 ft. by 30 ft. high, simulated great room having a 12 in 12 slope incorporating 14-inch deep simulated beams installed down the slope. Three of the tests incorporated 6-inch deep beams installed perpendicular to the 14-inch beams to create a box-beam type appearance. The fuel packages utilized during these tests incorporated commercially available furniture.

Eight tests were conducted with no opening near the top of the enclosure and ten tests were conducted with an opening in the top portion of the enclosure to provide venting of hot gases. While it is likely that this opening vented hot gases from the fire at a rate

February 7, 2006

23

greater than would occur in an actual loft type room configuration, this opening was intended to simulate rooms connected to the sloped ceiling test room.

Ten tests were conducted with residential style, recessed sprinklers installed in various locations within the ceiling and eight tests were conducted using residential style, concealed sprinklers installed in various locations within the ceiling.

Six tests were conducted with the fire originating in the corner of the room and twelve tests were conducted with the fire located in the center of the room.

The tests were conducted with the sprinklers located in the ceiling, both at the bottom of the beams, and in the center of the bays or troughs. A sprinkler located outside of the loft opening was installed in addition to the sprinklers installed in the ceiling within the test room. Each test was conducted for a minimum duration of 15 minutes.

A summary of the tests conducted is presented in Table 1 (closed loft) and Table 2 (open loft), and a detailed description of each test is described in Section 5.2

5.2 Test Results A table summarizing the sprinkler operation test results is presented in Table 1 and Table2. Following the tables, data for each individual test is presented.

Table 1 - Summary of Sprinkler Tests without Loft Opening

Test No TestCode Fire Loc. Ceiling

Config.Sprk.Type

Sprk.Loc.

Room Sprk. Activ.

Sprk. Order (No./time)

Min. O2%(loft/floor)

Max CO% (loft/floor)

Max CO2%(loft/floor)

1 7180501 Corner MB C Beam 3 3/466, 1/472, 2/484 19.11 / 19.34 0.11 / 0.08 0.64 / 0.39

2 7190501 Center MB R Beam 73/218, 1/240, 6/243, 8/244, 5/247, 4/254,

2/25918.98 / 19.10 0.24 / 0.23 0.51 / 0.45

3 7190502 Center BB R Beam 4 1/257, 4/259, 3/260, 2/265 19.63 / 19.79 0.08 / 0.08 0.35 / 0.30

4 7190503 Corner BB R Beam 1 2/280 18.96 / 20.14 0.17 / 0.10 0.43 / 0.19

5 7210501 Corner BB R Bay 1 5/275 19.23 / 20.60 0.19 / 0.05 0.35 / 0.07

6 7210503 Center MB R Bay 4 9/246,12/247,14/247, 7/262 19.73 / 20.02 0.04 / 0.05 0.23 / 0.19

7 7210504 Center MB C Bay 3 19/284, 24/288, 21/293 18.92 / 18.95 0.18 / 0.11 0.56 / 0.36

8 7220501 Center MB C Beam 4 2/306, 3/309, 1/320, 4/333 20.54 / 19.09 0.15 / 0.13 0.61 / 0.37

Notes: C: Concealed, R: Recessed, MB: Main Beam, BB: Box Beam

Febr

uary

7, 2

006

24

Tab

le2

- Sum

mar

y of

Spr

inkl

er T

ests

with

Lof

t Ope

ning

Tes

tN

o.T

est C

ode

Fire

Loc

.C

eilin

gC

onfig

.Sp

rk.

Type

Sprk

. Loc

.R

oom

Sprk

.A

ctiv

.

Lof

tA

ctiv

atio

n(ti

me)

Sprk

. Ord

er (N

o./ti

me)

Max

Tem

p at

60

in. f

rom

Fl

oor

(o F)

Min

. O2%

(loft

/floo

r)M

ax C

O%

(lo

ft/fl

oor)

Max

CO

2%(lo

ft/fl

oor)

972

6050

2C

ente

rM

BC

Bea

m4

466

5/47

2, 1

/482

, 2/4

87,

4/51

4N

A18

.28

/ 6.3

10.

07 /

0.56

MF

/ 1.0

8

1072

6050

3C

orne

rM

BC

Bea

m3

375

1/37

2, 2

/372

, 5/3

76N

A19

.34

/ 20.

65M

F / 0

.06

MF

/ 0.0

8

1172

7050

1C

ente

rM

BC

Bay

1139

8

4/38

4, 1

2/38

6, 2

/387

, 1/

397,

6/4

04, 9

/414

, 19

/415

, 10/

420,

14/

421,

15/4

23, 7

/437

NA

18.2

7 / 1

8.25

MF

/ 0.1

4M

F / 0

.44

1272

8050

1C

orne

rM

BC

Bay

1N

one

4/3

8118

3.2

20.0

9 / 2

0.8

0.05

/ 0.

030.

25 /

0.01

1372

9050

1C

ente

rM

BR

Bay

1032

0

4/32

0, 9

/323

, 14/

419,

6/

430,

24/

497,

11/

502,

19

/501

, 1/5

14, 2

/525

, 7/

538

181.

419

.55

/ 18.

950.

15 /

0.15

0.29

/ 0.

32

1480

3050

2C

ente

rM

B/R

idge

RB

eam

529

35/

351,

1/4

53, 3

/468

, 7/

514,

4/5

7818

6.8

19.2

9 / 1

9.44

0.10

/ 0.

110.

51 /

0.34

1580

5050

1C

ente

rM

B/R

idge

RB

eam

, Top

row

of s

prin

kler

s loc

ated

ab

ove

the

top

of th

e lo

ft op

enin

g2

239

2/23

3, 4

/510

163.

419

.90

/ 20.

240.

08 /

0.07

0.29

/ 0.

17

1680

5050

2C

ente

rM

B/R

idge

CB

eam

, Top

row

of s

prin

kler

s loc

ated

ab

ove

the

top

of th

e lo

ft op

enin

g3

363

5/34

3, 2

/344

, 4/3

5334

8.8

18.5

3 / 7

.97

0.08

/ 1.

460.

67 /

1.23

1780

9050

1C

ente

rM

BR

Bay

, Top

row

of s

prin

kler

s loc

ated

with

in

3-ft.

ver

tical

ly o

f the

pea

k12

275

8/28

3, 3

/293

, 6/3

86,

23/4

17, 1

/423

, 10/

427,

18

/428

, 13/

431,

11/

436,

5/

437,

15/

448,

16/

450

177.

819

.63

/ 17.

450.

17 /

0.10

0.34

/ 0.

64

1881

1050

1Co

rner

MB

RB

eam

, Top

row

of s

prin

kler

s loc

ated

ab

ove

the

top

of th

e lo

ft op

enin

g3

357

2/34

2, 6

/352

, 4/4

6814

019

.48

/ 20.

40.

06 /

0.11

0.25

/ 0.

07

Not

es:

C: C

once

aled

, R: R

eces

sed,

MB

: Mai

n B

eam

, BB

: Box

Bea

mM

F–

Parti

cula

tes i

n th

e ga

s sam

ple

acqu

isiti

on sy

stem

cau

sed

a m

alfu

nctio

n as

not

ed in

Tes

ts 9

, 10

and

11

February 7, 2006

25

Figure 30 – Photo sequence of fire progression with furniture in corner of room.

February 7, 2006

26

Figure 31 – Photo sequence of fire progression with furniture in center of room.

February 7, 2006

27

Test 1 – Summary of Test Parameters and ResultsTest Parameters

Test Date - Test Code 7/18/2005 - 07180501Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CornerCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY3596Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 4

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 3Target Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 19.11%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: 0.11%Maximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: 0.64%Minimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 19.3%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.08%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 0.39%

February 7, 2006

28


Test Date - Test Code 7/19/2005 - 07190501Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel Beams Ceiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8


February 7, 2006

29


Test Date - Test Code 7/19/2005 - 07190502Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Box BeamCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8


February 7, 2006

30


Test Date - Test Code 7/19/2005 - 07190503Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CornerCeiling Configuration: BoxCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8


February 7, 2006

31


Test Date - Test Code 7/21/2005 - 07210501Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CornerCeiling Configuration: Box BeamCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: In BaySprinklers Installed: 25


February 7, 2006

32


Test Date - Test Code 7/21/2005 - 07210503Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: In BaySprinklers Installed: 20


February 7, 2006

33


Test Date - Test Code 7/21/2005 - 07210504Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: In BaySprinklers Installed: 20


February 7, 2006

34


Test Date - Test Code 7/22/2005 - 07220501Loft Condition: ClosedFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel Beams Ceiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8


February 7, 2006

35


Test Date: - Test Code 7/26/2005 - 7260502Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8 + Loft

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 5 including loft sprinklerTarget Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 18.28%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: 0.07%Maximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: MFMinimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 6.31%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.56%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 1.08%

February 7, 2006

36


Test Date - Test Code 7/26/2005 - 7260503Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CornerCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8 + Loft

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 4 including loft sprinklerTarget Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 19.34%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: MFMaximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: MFMinimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 20.65%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.06%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 0.08%

February 7, 2006

37


Test Date - Test Code 7/27/2005 - 07270501Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: In BaySprinklers Installed: 20 + Loft

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 12 including loft sprinklerTarget Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 18.27%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: MFMaximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: MFMinimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 18.25%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.14%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 0.44%

February 7, 2006

38


Test Date - Test Code 7/28/2005 - 07280501Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CornerCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: In BaySprinklers Installed: 20 + Loft

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 1Target Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 20.09%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: 0.05%Maximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: 0.25%Minimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 20.8%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.03%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 0.01%Maximum Temperature at 60 in. (oF): 183.2

February 7, 2006

39


Test Date - Test Code 7/29/2005 - 07290501Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: In BaySprinklers Installed: 20 +Loft

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 11 including loft sprinklerTarget Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 19.55%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: 0.15%Maximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: 0.29%Minimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 18.95%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.15%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 0.32%Maximum Temperature at 60 in. (oF): 181.4

February 7, 2006

40


Test Date - Test Code 8/3/2005 - 08030502Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel Beams and RidgeCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of BeamSprinklers Installed: 8 + Loft


February 7, 2006

41


Test Date - Test Code 8/5/2005 - 08050501Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel Beams and Ridge Ceiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of Beam

Sprinklers Installed:

6 + Loft (Top row of sprinklers located above the top of the loft opening)


February 7, 2006

42


Test Date - Test Code 8/05/2005 - 08050502Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel Beams and Ridge Ceiling Sprinkler Type: Concealed TY2596Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of Beam

Sprinklers Installed:

6 + Loft (Top row of sprinklers located above the top of the loft opening)


February 7, 2006

43


Test Date - Test Code 8/9/2005 - 08090501Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CenterCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: In Bay

Sprinklers Installed: 15 + Loft (Top row of sprinklers located within 3-ft. vertically of the peak)


February 7, 2006

44


Test Date - Test Code 8/11/2005 - 08110501Loft Condition: OpenFire Location: CornerCeiling Configuration: Channel BeamsCeiling Sprinkler Type: Recessed TY2234Sprinkler Locations: Bottom of Beam

Sprinklers Installed: 6 + Loft (Top row of sprinklers located above the top of the loft opening)

Test ResultsCeiling Sprinklers Activated: 4 including loft sprinklerTarget Water Flow Per Sprinkler (gpm) 13Minimum O2 Concentration at Loft: 19.48%Maximum CO Concentration at Loft: 0.06%Maximum CO2 Concentration at Loft: 0.25%Minimum O2 Concentration at 60 in.: 20.4%Maximum CO Concentration at 60 in.: 0.11%Maximum CO2 Concentration at 60 in.: 0.07%Maximum Temperature at 60 in. (oF): 140

February 7, 2006

45

6. Discussion and Summary

6.1 General

The data contained in this report should be considered and utilized in the context of the scale and conditions established during the tests.

All tests were conducted using a sprinkler water flow that corresponded to a relatively low starting pressure of less than 10 psig. In actual field conditions, the initial pressure provided to the sprinklers is likely to be higher than used during these tests.

The tests conducted with the opening near the top of the enclosure were intended to simulate a loft type opening. However, it is likely that this opening vented hot gases generated by the fire at a rate greater than would occur in a loft type room configuration where other rooms are connected to the sloped ceiling room. Also, it is the case that the entrance opening was open to a rather large open area and was not connected to a corridor which has the potential to influence fire ventilation and growth.

Furthermore, other field conditions such as room size and geometry, ceiling slope and geometry, amount of combustibles, arrangement of combustibles, etc. have the potential to influence sprinkler performance.

Use of the data contained in this report should consider these and any other relevant factors having significant influence on sprinkler performance.

6.2 Gas MeasurementsThe use of automatic sprinkler systems in residences is intended to prevent flashover (total involvement) in the room of fire origin, and to improve the chance for occupants to escape or be evacuated. Measurements of oxygen (O2), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration were taken during the tests. In a previous testing program*, a criterion of maximum eye-level CO concentration of 1500 ppm (0.15%) was selected. The criteria assume that occupants are not directly engulfed in flames nor remain very close to the fire source. The measured values of CO concentration are strongly influenced by the location of the measurements relative to the fire source and the ventilation condition of the room. For the tests in the center of the room, the gas measurements were taken in close proximity (1 ft. away from side of couch) to the furniture package. For the tests in the corner of the room, the measurements were taken approximately 12 ft. from the furniture package.

*Kung, H. C., Spaulding, R. D. And Hill, E. E., “Sprinkler Performance in Residential Fire Tests,” Sponsored by U. S. Fire Administration, Technical Report RC80-T-16, Serial No. 22574, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Norwood, MA, July 1980.

February 7, 2006

A-1

Appendix

Graphical representations of

gas and temperature measurements

February 7, 2006

A-2

Test Code 07180501Measured Gas Levels

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor

Test 1 – O2, CO, and CO2 Measurements

Test Code 07180501Thermocouple Tree

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26TC 27TC 28TC 29TC 30TC 31TC 32TC 33TC 34TC 35TC 36

Test 1 – Temperature Measurements from Thermocouple Tree

February 7, 2006

A-3


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-4


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

19.40

19.60

19.80

20.00

20.20

20.40

20.60

20.80

21.00

21.20

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-5


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-6


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

19.00

19.20

19.40

19.60

19.80

20.00

20.20

20.40

20.60

20.80

21.00

21.20

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-7


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

22.00

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-8


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-9


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-10


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

13.00

15.00

17.00

19.00

21.00

% O

xyge

n

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-11


0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

19.20

19.40

19.60

19.80

20.00

20.20

20.40

20.60

20.80

21.00

21.20

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-12


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

% O

xyge

nCO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



February 7, 2006

A-13


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

20.00

20.20

20.40

20.60

20.80

21.00

21.20

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35


February 7, 2006

A-14

Test Code 07280501 Temperature at 60 in. from Floor

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

Test 12 – Temperature Measurement 60 in. from Floor


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

17.00

17.50

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

% O

xyge

nCO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor


February 7, 2006

A-15


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)


February 7, 2006

A-16


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

19.20

19.40

19.60

19.80

20.00

20.20

20.40

20.60

20.80

21.00

21.20

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35


February 7, 2006

A-17


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

18.00

18.50

19.00

19.50

20.00

20.50

21.00

21.50

22.00

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor


February 7, 2006

A-18


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)


February 7, 2006

A-19


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

50

100

150

200

250

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35


February 7, 2006

A-20


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)



0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

% O

xyge

n

CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor


February 7, 2006

A-21


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)


February 7, 2006

A-22


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Time (sec.)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00CO2 Loft

CO Loft

CO2 Floor

CO Floor

O2 Loft

O2 Floor



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time (sec.)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)

TC 26

TC 27

TC 28

TC 29

TC 30

TC 31

TC 32

TC 33

TC 34

TC 35


February 7, 2006

A-23


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time (seconds)

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

. C)


December 2007

WORLDWIDE HEADQUARTERSTyco Fire & Building Products 451 N. Cannon Avenue Lansdale, PA 19446 215-362-0700, Fax 215-362-5385 www.tyco-fire.com

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY CENTERTyco Fire & Building Products 1467 Elmwood Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 Technical Services 800-381-9312, Fax 800-791-5500

Documents

Residential Sprinkler Fire Tests with Steeply Pitched ... · A sloped ceiling having a 12 over 12 pitch was used to provide an assumed worst case condition as compared to ceilings