Evaluating warehouse sprinkler systems
“Storage Practices in Warehouses and Distribution Centers,” by Gerard J. Naylis (Industrial Fire Safety, February 1999) is a very good article and one that every fire/building official needs to read. However, it does not address how to evaluate existing sprinkler systems for adequacy based on commodity classification and storage arrangements, something every fire/building official should know how to do.
After a building is constructed, commodity classification and storage arrangements may be overlooked, and most tenants/building owners do not know the limits of the sprinkler system. This may also be true in the initial plan review process prior to construction (i.gif>., the design is for a low-hazard commodity to save costs, but the owner knows a more hazardous commodity may someday be stored there).
Having been an engineer in the insurance industry, I cannot tell you the number of times I have seen buildings with inadequate sprinkler systems because of a change in commodity classification or storage arrangements. Property insurance rates for commercial businesses are relatively cheap, and it is difficult for a business owner to upgrade a system for, let`s say, $10,000 when the premium is only $2,000 a year and no significant reduction in premium will occur if the upgrade is completed. If the building is involved in a fire, most building owners do not say that is what I have the sprinkler for; they say that is what I have insurance for.
It`s not only the insurance industry that doesn`t force building owners/tenants to upgrade deficient systems. Local building/ fire officials themselves do not do it, since they may not be able to recognize when a sprinkler system is deficient for the type of commodity stored and the existing storage arrangements. Building owners/tenants have told me countless times that “the local fire department inspects this facility annually, and they`ve never had a problem with the sprinkler system, so why should you?”
It is difficult for an insurance engineer to push a needed upgrade when the local fire/building official does not recognize that there is a deficiency. As an example, how many times during an annual inspection does a fire building official say the following: “The sprinkler system can provide a density of only .10 gpm/1,500 square feet, but since the building is used to store Class III commodities to 20 feet in racks with four-foot aisle spaces, .275 gpm/2,000 square feet with high temperature heads or .325 gpm/2,000 square feet with ordinary heads are required. Therefore, the system needs to be upgraded or the storage arrangement must be changed”? Probably never.
It`s time for fire/building officials to learn how to evaluate existing sprinkler systems based on commodity classification and storage arrangements and to force building owners/tenants who have overloaded the existing sprinkler system to reduce the storage arrangements or upgrade the sprinkler system.
In my opinion, it is not that fire/building officials do not want to do this, but more that they were never properly trained to look at sprinkler systems that way. Perhaps articles on how to conduct these evaluations would help. Also, local fire/building officials can partner with insurance companies, fire protection engineering firms, or their local community college to obtain this training.
Jay Robinson
Fire Protection Engineer
Lockheed Martin Utility Services
Piketon, Ohio
