Clean Agents

 

      Clean Agents  TS 300‐3‐1  Sunday 9:00am‐12:00pm  Bill Howerton 

American Society of Plumbing Engineers

2011 TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM October 27-30, 2011 – Orlando, FL Bill Howerton Director Systems Sales Fike Corporation

1

NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent g Fire Extinguishing Systems Update

2

Agenda – part I • NFPA Standard Process • Changes to NFPA 2001 • New NFPA Design Concentration Effects

NFPA Standard Process • Standard out for Proposals – Anyone can make a proposal to the standard. All proposals are heard by the Technical Committee. Committee

• ROP (Report on Proposals) – After the technical proposals p a document is g generated committee meets to discuss p called the ROP. This document is voted on by the committee.

• At this time anyone can make a comment on the ROP document. document Again all comments are heard by the Technical Committee.

NFPA Standard Process • ROC (Report on Comments) – After the technical Committee meets to discuss and vote on the comments a document is generated called the ROC ROC. This document is voted on by the committee.

• At this time the document will g go before the NFPA Standards Council to become official unless a NITMAM (Notice of Intent to Make a Motion) is filed filed. NITMAM’s NITMAM s are heard at the NFPA Annual Meeting. • A NITMAM is filed when an individual does not agree with proposed change to the document. A NITMAM can be filed on a section or the whole h l d document. t

Changes to NFPA 2001 • Class A Changes – 5.4.2.4* The minimum design g concentration for a Class A surface fire hazard shall be determined by 5.4.2.4.1 or 5.4.2.4.2, whichever is greater. – 5.4.2.4.1 The extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.2, ti times a safety f t factor f t off 1.2. 12 – 5.4.2.4.2 Equal to the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.1.

• Some S off the th Reasons R for f change h – Safety Factor of Halon 1301 and CO2 – Higher Safety Factors Used in Europe – General belief more is better

Changes to NFPA 2001 • Class C Changes – 5.4.2.5 The minimum design g concentration for a Class C hazard shall be the extinguishing concentration, as determined by 5.4.2.2, times a safety factor of 1.35. – 5.4.2.5.1 The minimum design concentration for spaces containing energized i d electrical l ti lh hazards d supplied li d att greater t th than 480 volts lt which hi h remains powered during and after agent discharge, shall be determined by testing, as necessary, and a hazard analysis.

Changes to NFPA 2001 • What NFPA 2001 was going to say regarding Class C. –

5.4.2.5.1 The requirements of 5.4.2.5 apply to the following conditions: 1. Cable bundles less than four inches (100 mm) in diameter, which include power distribution cables other than power-overEthernet (nominal 48 VDC, maximum 25 W) cables 2. Cable trays with a fill density less than sixty-percent (60%) of the tray cross-section 3 Cable trays spaced further than 10 inches (250 mm) from each other 3. 4. Individual equipment units in which the power consumption or production is less than or equal to 5 kW 5. Equipment supplied with voltage less than or equal to 480 V.

–

5.4.2.5.2 If the conditions listed in 5.4.2.5.1 are exceeded, the minimum design concentration for spaces containing energized electrical hazards which remain powered during and after agent discharge discharge, shall be determined by testing testing, as necessary necessary, and a hazard analysis.

• This text was removed at the meeting in Boston

NFPA 2001 – Class A & C Changes Class A MEC UL 2166/ UL 2127

Heptane Cup Burner Value Table A.5.4.2(b)

Class A/C Design Concentration

Class A Design Concentration

Class C Design Concentration

Edition 2008

Edition 2011

Edition 2011

ECARO-25

6.7%

8.7%

8.0%

8.7%

9.0%

FM 200 FM-200

5 2% 5.2%

6 7% 6.7%

6 25% 6.25%

6 7% 6.7%

7 0% 7.0%

Inergen

28.5%

31%

34.2%

34.2%

38.5%

Novec™1230

3.5%

4.5%

4.2%

4.5%

4.7%

ProInert

28.5%

35%

34.2%

35%

38.5%

Agent

NFPA Changes • Room Pressure Must be Determined – NFPA 2001: 5.1.2.2(10) 5 1 2 2(10) and (28) - Enclosure Pressure estimate required – Must be on plan drawings

• Why – Isolated damage to “tight enclosures” – Inert Gases and newer Liquefied agents (ECARO-25 and Novec™ 1230)

NFPA Changes g – Room Pressure • How is room pressure developed during an agent g discharge? g – Liquefied Agents – Liquid exits the nozzle and uses the room heat to help the agent vaporize into a gas. Depending on the properties of the agent more heat from the room is required. Agent

Vapor Pressure (psig @ 77 F)

Halon 1301

220

ECARO-25

186

FM-200

51.2

Novec™ 1230

6

NFPA Changes g – Room Pressure • As the heat is extracted the temperature drops in the room creating g a negative g pressure. • At the end of the liquid discharge the agent finishes vaporizing in the room and the nitrogen in the cylinder is released creating a positive room pressure.

Room Pressure – Liquid Agents Room Pressure 200.00 100.00 0.00 Prressure (pa)

0

5

10

15

20

-100.00 -200.00 -300.00

ECARO-25 FM-200 Novec™ 1230

-400.00 -500 500.00 00 -600.00 Time (sec)

25

30

NFPA Changes g – Room Pressure • Inert Agents • Inert agents discharge as a vapor so there is no liquid vaporization. Therefore it is all positive pressure. (No negative Pressure) • A large amount of agent is discharged, therefore the pressures are generally higher than a liquid system t even though th h th the di discharge h titime iis 1 1minute.

Room Pressure Examples

P ressure (pa a)

Room Pressure 1000.0 900.0 800.0 700 0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300 0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0

ProInert Standard Inert Gas System

0

10

20

30

40

Time (sec)

50

60

70

Properties of Clean Agents– Room Pressure • What pressure can a room take without destruction. • General Rule – 2 x 4 walls with sheetrock on both sides can withstand 5 psf or 250 Pascal – 2 x 6 walls with sheetrock on both sides can withstand 10 psf or 500 Pascal

• Room Pressure Calculation

Example is based on the following: Room Size: 40’ x 20’ x 16’ ht. = 12,800 ft3 Structure: 2 x 4 walls (5 psf) & Minimum Hold Time = 10 minutes A Agent t Ecaro-25

Novec™ 1230

FM-200

ProInert

Inergen

% Conc.

Retention R t ti Time (min.)

Req’d R ’d Area A 2 (in )

Max. Area M A 2 (in )

Relief R li f Vent V t Damper Req’d (in2)

8.0%

24

115

249

No

8.7%

24

115

249

No

9.0%

24

115

249

No

4.2%

10

359

199

Yes / 161

4 5% 4.5%

10

359

199

Yes / 166

4.7%

10

359

190

Yes / 169

6.25% 10

221

228

No

6 7% 6.7%

10

221

221

No

7.0%

10

221

217

Yes / 4

34.2%

10

501

496

Yes / 5

35 0% 35.0%

10

513

490

Yes / 23

38.5%

10

564

468

Yes / 96

34.2%

10

1216

496

Yes / 720

38 5% 38.5%

10

1369

468

Y / 901 Yes

Properties of Clean Agents– Hold Time • NFPA 2001 5.6 states 85% of the initial design concentration shall be maintained for a minimum of 10 minutes. • What property determines the agent hold time? – Specific Vapor Volume • Vapor Density • Agent Mix Vapor Density

Properties of Clean Agents • After discharge the agent/air g mixture is completely homogenous throughout the hazard Agent/Air Mixture (Homogeneous)

Properties of Clean Agents Leakage • After discharge the weight of the agent pushes out the low leaks. • Fresh air is pulled in at the upper leaks. • Descending Interface is the protected height.

Agent Out

Air In

Descending Interface Agent/Air Agent/Air Mixture Mixture

Leakage

Properties of Clean Agents– Hold Time • Agent/air mixture vapor density relative to air is what determines an agents g hold time. • The closer the density is to air the longer the hold time will be.

Properties of Clean Agents– Hold Time

Properties of Clean Agents • So what does all this mean? • There is a window between room pressure and agent hold time. • Leakage must be enough to maintain enclosure integrity but not so large that the hold time is compromised. • Enclosure Designer Spreadsheet

NFPA Changes Effects • More Clean Agent Required Class C Design Concentration

Pounds of Agent per 1,000 ft3

Percent Comparison of Agents

ECARO-25

9.0%

31.2

Baseline

FM-200

7.0%

34.1

9% more

Novec™ 1230

4.7%

42.6

37% more

Agent

NFPA Changes Effects • Make sure maximum positive and negative is determined. (NFPA 2001: 5.1.2.2(10) and (28)) • Agent hold time – Adding g more agent g increases the agent/air g density y making it leak out of the enclosure faster. – 15% more agent decreased the hold time by approximately 7 7.5%. 5% (45 second decrease in 10 10minute hold time)

Agenda – part II • Clean Agent 201 • Changes to NFPA 2001 • NFPA Recommendations on Exposure Limits of Agents • Update on Climate Issues • New NFPA Design Concentration Effects • Summary

Clean Agent 201 • Properties of Clean Agents – Design Concentration • Specific Vapor Volume

– Vapor p Pressure • Effect on Room Pressure

Properties of Clean Agents Agent

Agent Design Specific Concentration Vapor Volume (70 F)

Novec 1230

1.156 4.5% ft3/lb.

ECARO-25

3.171 8.7% ft3/lb.

FM-200

2.208 6.7% ft3/lb.

ProInert

11.386 35% ft3/lb.

• Specific Vapor Volume is the volume of space that 1 pound of agent will occupy as a vapor. vapor

Remember Inert Gasses are Properties of Clean Agents stored as a vapor.

• Specific Vapor Volume is the amount of volume one pound of agent g occupies.

IG 55 IG-55 ECARO-25 ECARO 25 FM-200

3.171 ft3

11 386 11.386

2.208

3 ft

ft3

Novec 1230 1.156 ft3

Properties of Clean Agents • Remember Specific Vapor Volumes • 1000 ft3 room • Cubic of gas that would make up Design Concentration • Divide that volume byy Specific Vapor Volume (s)

Agent

D.C.

s (70 F) (ft3/lb.)

Novec 1230

4.5%

1.156

ECARO-25

8.7%

3.171

FM-200

6.7%

2.208

ProInert

35.0%

11.386

Properties of Clean Agents • If we have a 1000 ft3 room at agent g design g concentration how much agent will be in the room. • 4.5% of 1000 is 45 ft3 • 8.7% of 1000 is 87 ft3, etc. • Divide

ft3

by s to get pounds

45/1 156 = 38.9 38 9 lbs lbs. • 45/1.156 • 87/3.171 = 27.4 lbs.

Agent

D.C.

s (70 F) (ft3/lb.)

Novec 1230

4.5%

1.156

ECARO-25

8.7%

3.171

FM-200

6.7%

2.208

ProInert

35%

11.386

Properties of Clean Agents • Adding agent also adds cubic feet of volume. • This is why the equation is used used. W = V/s x (C/(100-C)) Design Concentration

s (70 F) (ft3/lb.)

Pounds of agent per 1,000 ft3

Novec 1230

4.5%

1.156

40.8

ECARO-25

8.7%

3.171

29.7

FM-200

6.7%

2.208

32.5

ProInert

35%

11.386

TBD

Agent

Properties of Clean Agents • What About Inert Gas? • 1000 ft3 room at 34% is 340 ft3 of inert gas • Table from NFPA 2001

Properties of Clean Agents • Approximate final design concentration is 34% • Discharging as a vapor there is positive pressure exerted on the room • In order to keep the room in tact there must be leakage in the room. Not all leakage is room air. Inert agent also leaks out. • Equations take this into account

Properties of Clean Agents • Vapor Pressure - the pressure of a vapor in thermodynamic y equilibrium with its condensed phases in a closed system. Agent ge t

Vapor apo Pressure essu e (psig @ 77 F)

Halon 1301

220

Novec 1230

6

ECARO-25

186

FM-200

51.2

ProInert

~

Properties of Clean Agents • Effects of Vapor Pressure – Flow characteristics • Higher vapor pressure agents have more of their own energy to assist the agent in flowing through the pipes. – Container mo mounting nting location – Multiple spaces protected with same cylinder – Smaller pipe sizes

– Room pressure created during discharge • Higher vapor pressure agents need less help from the room p the agents g heat to vaporize • Agent has its own energy to boil off and create vapor

Room Pressure – Liquid Agents Room Pressure 200.00 100.00 0.00 Prressure (pa)

0

5

10

15

20

-100.00 -200.00 -300.00

ECARO-25 FM-200 Novec 1230

-400.00 -500 500.00 00 -600.00 Time (sec)

25

30

NFPA Changes g – Room Pressure • Inert Agents • Inert agents discharge as a vapor so there is no liquid vaporization. Therefore it is all positive pressure. • A large amount of agent is discharged, therefore the pressures are generally higher than a liquid system t even though th h th the di discharge h titime iis 1 1minute.

Room Pressure Examples

P ressure (pa a)

Room Pressure 1000.0 900.0 800.0 700 0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300 0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0

ProInert Standard Inert Gas System

0

10

20

30

40

Time (sec)

50

60

70

Properties of Clean Agents– Room Pressure • What pressure can a room take without destruction. • General Rule – 2 x 4 walls with sheetrock on both sides can withstand 5 psf or 250 Pascal – 2 x 6 walls with sheetrock on both sides can withstand 10 psf or 500 Pascal

• Room Pressure Calculation

Example is based on the following: Room Size: 40’ x 20’ x 16’ ht. = 12,800 ft2 Structure: 2 x 4 walls (5 psf) & Minimum Hold Time = 10 minutes A Agent t

% Conc.

Retention R t ti Time (min.)

Req’d R ’d Area A 2 (in )

Max. Area M A 2 (in )

Relief R li f Vent V t Damper Req’d (in2)

Ecaro-25

8.0%

24

115

249

No

8.7%

24

115

249

No

9.0%

24

115

249

No

Novec-1230 4.2%

10

359

199

Yes / 161

4 5% 4.5%

10

359

199

Yes / 166

4.7%

10

359

190

Yes / 169

6.25% 10

221

228

No

6 7% 6.7%

10

221

221

No

7.0%

10

221

217

Yes / 4

34.2%

10

501

496

Yes / 5

35 0% 35.0%

10

513

490

Yes / 23

38.5%

10

564

468

Yes / 96

34.2%

10

1216

496

Yes / 720

38 5% 38.5%

10

1369

468

Y / 901 Yes

FM-200

ProInert

Inergen

Properties of Clean Agents– Hold Time • NFPA 2001 5.6 states 85% of the initial design concentration shall be maintained for a minimum of 10 minutes. • What property determines the agent hold time? – Specific Vapor Volume • Vapor Density • Agent Mix Vapor Density

Properties of Clean Agents • After discharge the agent/air g mixture is completely homogenous throughout the hazard Agent/Air Mixture (Homogeneous)

Properties of Clean Agents Leakage • After discharge the weight of the agent pushes out the low leaks. • Fresh air is pulled in at the upper leaks. • Descending Interface is the protected height.

Agent Out

Air In

Descending Interface Agent/Air Agent/Air Mixture Mixture

Leakage

Properties of Clean Agents– Hold Time • Agent/air mixture vapor density relative to air is what determines an agents g hold time. • The closer the density is to air the longer the hold time will be.

Properties of Clean Agents– Hold Time

Properties of Clean Agents–Hold Time

Vap por Density (lb/ft3)

Vapor p Density y of Agents g ((lb/ft3)) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 02 0.2 0.1 0 Novec 1230

FM-200

ECARO25

Halon 1301

Inergen

ProInert

Air

Properties of Clean Agents–Hold Time Agent/Air Mixture Density Relative to Air 1.6 1.4 1.2 1

100 %

35 %

0.2

34.2 %

5%

8.7 %

0.4

6.7 %

0.6

4.5 %

0.8

0 Novec 1230

FM-200

ECARO-25

Halon 1301

Inergen

ProInert

Air

Properties of Clean Agents • So what does all this mean? • There is a window between room pressure and agent hold time. • Leakage must be enough to maintain enclosure integrity but not so large that the hold time is compromised. • Enclosure Designer Spreadsheet

Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems

Exposure Limits and Environmental Issues

50

Agenda – part III • Agent Exposure Limits • Climate Issues

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits • NFPA 2001 (2008 & 2011 Edition) –1 1.5.1.2 5 1 2* Liquefied Agents …Means Means shall be provided to limit exposure to no longer than 5 minutes… – 1.5.1.3* Inert Gas Clean Agents …The maximum exposure time ti in i any case shall h ll nott exceed d5 minutes…

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits • How are exposure limits determined? • NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level) • LOAEL (lowest observed adverse effect level) – Actual test is conducted to simulate a high adrenaline level at given agent concentrations (epinephrine)

• NOAEL and LOAEL values are based on cardiac arrhythmia. • NOAEL and LOAEL values are always y lower with the use of epinephrine.

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits • What the NOAEL and LOAEL test does not do. – Does not take into account the physiological differences between test species and humans – Nothing is done to relate the cardiac sensitization eventt with ith an “i “internal” t l” measure off th the chemical h i l th thatt gets into the body during the exposure.

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits • Another way exposure limits are determined is by y PBPK ((Physiologically y g y Pharmacokinetic)) modeling Term

Definition

Physiologically

Of or relating to physiology.

Physiology

A branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or li i matter living tt ((as organs, titissues or cells) and the physical and chemical phenomena involved.

Ph Pharmacokinetics ki ti

The characteristic Th h t i ti iinteractions t ti off a drug and the body in terms of its absorption, distribution, metabolism, and a de excretion. c et o

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits • PBPK is a scientific approach for determining safe human exposure limits. – Concentration and time.

• PBPK requires q that the concentration of the extinguishing agent in the bloodstream be measured. • There are differences in the absorption in test species and humans which the PBPK model takes into account account.

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits • What about Inert Agents? – With inert agents the concern is not cardiac sensitization, it is hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation.

• For more detailed information on PBPK see HARC News – March 2001, Special Edition

NFPA 2001 Agent Exposure Limits Agent

5-Minute Exposure Limit

Class A Design Concentration

Class C Design Concentration NFPA 2001-2011

NFPA 2001-2011

ECARO-25

11.5%

8.7%

9%

FM-200

10.5%

6.7%

7%

Inergen

<43%

34.2%

38.5%

Novec™ 1230 Novec

10%

4 5% 4.5%

4 7% 4.7%

ProInert

<43%

35%

38.5%

5%

5%

5%

Halon 1301 (Historical)

Update on Climate Issues • No regulations that limit or ban the use of FM200, ECARO-25, or Novec™ 1230. • HARC – Keeping up with Legislation Issues HFC s and PFC’s PFC s • HEEP Report – Emissions of HFC’s from Fire protection are estimated at less than 1% of total HFC and PFC emissions from all sources.

Update on Climate Issues • Climate change has taken a drastic change from a few years age. – Belief in Global Warming – Economy – Political Landscape

• Movement to use the Montreal Protocol to Phase Down the use of HFC’s HFC s • Phase Down but “NOT” Out – End result is in a few years there will likely be a phase down schedule for the use of HFC’s that will be supported by the producers of HFC’s

Summary • Selecting a Clean Agent – Cost – Floor Space – Room integrity – Agent Hold Time Flexibility – Container Location – Ease of Installation – Environmental Evaluation – Human Exposure

• Reason why there is more than one agent

Best Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • • • •

Assessing the Risk Securing the Resources Getting Gett g the t e Most ost Va Value ue A Complete System Approach: - Clean Agent - Detection and Controls - Specialized Detection

• The Final Details • Discussion 62

Best Practices in Fire Protection • Assessing the Risk • Securing the Resources • Getting the Most Value • A Co Complete p ete System Syste Approach: - Clean Agent - Detection i and d Controls C l - Specialized Detection

• The Final Details • Discussion

63

Assessing the Risk • Do I Have a Back-up p Plan, or a Redundant Site? • How H Q Quickly i kl Can C I be b Up and Running? • Do o My y Clients C e ts Have ave a Second Option? • What’s My Financial E Exposure? ? Fisher Plaza Seattle, WA

64

Assessing the Risk • Will the Minimum R Requirements i Work W k ffor My Site? • Can I Gain a Financial Advantage by Investing in More Protection? • What Do My Competitors Offer? • Th The Answer A tto Th These Questions are Important Bus Bar at Fisher Plaza 65

Best Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • Assessing the Risk

• Securing the Resources • Getting the Most Value • A Complete System Approach: – Clean Agent – Detection and Controls – Specialized S i li d Detection D i

• The Final Details • Discussion 66

Securing the Resources

• There are a Number of Steps That Should b Considered be C id d • Driven by Your Risk Analysis

67

Securing the Resources

• Obtain a Budget on Several Alternatives – • The Th Mi Minimum i Protection Needed Up p to the Maximum Protection Available

68

Securing the Resources • A List Li t off Considerations: 9 Sprinkler – Wet 9 Sprinkler – Dry 9 Detection – Conventional 9 Detection – Addressable 9 Clean Agent 9 Early Warning Detection 69

Securing the Resources • Sources for Assistance: 9 Facilities/Engineerin g 9 General Contractor 9 Consultants - HVAC, HVAC UPS, Flooring 9 Fire Protection C Companies i – Sprinkler Contractors and S Special i l Hazard H d 70

Securing the Resources • Oth Other F Factors t tto Consider: 9 Timeliness 9 Coordination Between Specialist’s 9 Choose a Professional

71

Best Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • Assessing the Risk • Securing the Resources

• Getting the Most Value • A Complete System Approach: – Clean Agent – Detection and Controls – Specialized S i li d Detection D i

• The Final Details • Discussion 72

Getting the Most Value • The Decision of New Versus Existing (if its an option) p

73

Getting the Most Value • Minimum Fire Protection to Maximum Fire Protection – Sprinklers – Pre-Action – Clean Agent – Detection – Advanced Detection 74

Getting the Most Value • The Minimum P Protection i Needed N d d Up to the Maximum Protection Available 9 Sprinklers Save the Building

75

Getting the Most Value • The Minimum P Protection i Needed N d d Up to the Maximum Protection Available 9 Sprinklers Save the Building 9 Fire Alarm Saves the People 76

Getting the Most Value • The Minimum Protection Needed Up to the Maximum Protection Available 9 Sprinklers Save the Building 9 Fire Alarm Saves the h People l 9 Special Systems Save the Assets and Intangibles 77

Best Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • Assessing the Risk • Securing the Resources • Gett Getting g the t e Most ost Va Value ue

• A Complete System Approach: pp – Clean Agent – Detection and Controls – Specialized Detection

• The Final Details • Discussion Di i 78

The Clean Agents

79

A Complete System Approach

Clean Agent: • The Pillars of Special Systems are: 9 Safety 9 Performance 9 Price i

80

A Complete System Approach

Clean Agent: • Safety: 9 Personnel 9 Equipment 9 Environment

81

A Complete System Approach

Clean Agent: • The Pillars of Special Systems are: 9 Safety 9 Performance 9 Price i

82

A Complete System Approach Clean Agent: • The Pillars of Special Systems are: 9 Safety 9 Performance 9 Price

• Other Factors: 9 An Existing System 9 Floor Space 9 Detection Needs

83

Best Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • Assessing the Risk • Securing the Resources • Getting the Most Value

• A Complete System Approach: – Clean Agent

– Detection and Controls – Specialized Detection

• The Final Details • Discussion Di i 84

A Complete System Approach Detection and Controls: • Conventional Versus Advanced • Special Systems g Fire Versus Building Alarm • Updating to Meet the N New C Code d St Standards d d

85

A Complete System Approach Detection and Controls: • Designing for Rapid Air Movement • Different Types of Detection for the Application 9 Thermals 9 Duct D t Detectors D t t 9 UV/IR

86

A Complete System Approach Detection and Controls: • The Best Advice is to Buy as Much Detection as Possible • In Suppression pp Applications – Rapid Detection with Rapid Response

87

Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • Assessing the Risk • Securing the Resources • Getting the Most Value

• A Complete System Approach: – Clean Agent – Detection and Controls

– Specialized p Detection • The Final Details • Discussion Di i 88

A Complete System Approach Special Detection: • Air Sampling Detection is Becoming a More and More Popular Choice in the Data Center World

89

Air Sampling Detection Special Detection: • Air Sampling is Often Times Being Incorporated with the Advanced Detection and Controls of a S Suppression i System, S or With the Building Fire Alarm

90

Air Sampling Detection Special Detection: • Air Sampling is Finding a Bigger Niche Due to the Changing Nature of Conducting Business • Time is Money • Down Time is a Loss

91

Trends – Thermal Risks Consequences IIncreasing C i Across A M Many IIndustries d ti That Depend on the Datacentre

Source: IT Performance Engineering & Measurement Strategies: Quantifying Performance Loss, Meta Group.

92

Fires Do Happen! pp • J July l 2, 2 1959 • The Pentagon • D Destroyed t d$ $30 Milli Million Worth of Computers • Forced the Evacuation of 30,000 Employees and Sent 25 Firemen to the Hospital

93

Fires Do Happen! pp • 1994 Pacific Bell Los Angeles Telephone Exchange Fire Fi • Fire starts in Telephone exchange • Interrupts 911 services in the city for 16 hours • Local p phone service was knocked out to most of LA, California

94

Fires Do Happen! pp • 1999, Pacific Bell, Canada Telephone Exchange Fire • Resulted in 110,000 phone lines being disrupted • Took down networks serving airlines, lottery terminals, security services and more…

95

Fires Do Happen! • April p 2004, 4, British Telecom Cable Fire • 150,000 lines affected • Ambulance dispatch radios rendered useless • Estimated direct cost to Greater Manchester = £4.5 million a day

96

Fires Do Happen! • June 2008 The Planet Data Center Houston, Texas • Data Center was Without Power for Several Days • A Significant Outage Impacting Approximately 9,000 Servers and 7,500 C t Customers

97

Fires Do Happen! • July y 2009, 9, Fisher Plaza Seattle, WA • Knocked out Service to Bing i Travel.com l and d Authorize.net • Impacted KOMO TV and Radio Service • 50,000 customers in O Oregon and d Washington hi lost Internet connectivity

98

Fires Do Happen! Other Fires: • November 2002 University of Twente Th Netherlands The N th l d • January 2008 KREX Studio Grand Junction, CO • March 2008 Wi Wisconsin i Hosting H ti Facility - Green Bay, WI

99

Air Sampling Detection

What Causes Fire ? • Increased Power C Consumption ti • Increased Processor Speeds & Heat eat Density e s ty • Increased Equipment & Cable Density

100

Air Sampling Detection

What Causes Fire ? • Increased Equipment C Complexity l it • Redundant and Poorly Managed a aged Cab Cabling g • Air Movement by Air Conditioning Systems A l t Fi Accelerates Fire G Growth th

101

Air Sampling Detection

Smoke Causes Computer “Cancer” 102

Early Detection Enables …. 9 Time…to Ti t Investigate I ti t and d

Understand the Threat 9 Time…to Prepare Staff and Visitors 9 Time…to Stage the Response and Avoid the Cost of Nuisance Alarms 9 Time…to Investigate Options for Control of the Fire

103

Early Detection Enables …. 9 Time…to Transfer

Data and Processes to Redundant Systems 9 Time…to Evacuate 9 Time…to Suppress pp the Fire 9 Time…to Ensure Data Center Uptime

104

Air Sampling Detection • Detects “Thermal Thermal Events” at the Earliest Stage g Possible, Before Smoke is Visible: 9 Overheating Wire 9 Fused F d Circuit Ci it B Board d Components 9 External Sources

• Minimises Damage and Downtime 105

Air Sampling Detection • Complement to Suppression: 9 Suppression pp is Used When Needed, but not Before its Time 9 Most Reliable Actuation 9 Wide Programmable Detection Range for Very Early Warning and Late Confirmation for Suppression 106

Air Sampling Detection

• The Attributes of ASD 9 Highly Sensitive 9 Tolerant of Air Dilution and High g Airflow 9 Actively Draw Air Samples to a Central Detector

107

Air Sampling Detection

• The Attributes of ASD 9 Monitor Airflow to Ensure Reliable Sampling 9 Maintain Integrity g y of the Optics for Absolute Smoke Detection

108

ASD – How it Works

109

Operation of the ASD Display Ultra pure air is used to keep optical surfaces clean

I l manifold Inlet if ld Air sample is moved through the laser chamber via the aspirator

Aspirator

Laser Chamber Dual Stage Filter

Light signal is passed to processor card for processing into a bar graph representation of the smoke level

Air sample is exposed to a highly stable laser light source with a 3.5 mm diameter laser beam Dust is filtered out

110

Best Practices in Fire Protection On the Agenda: • • • •

Assessing the Risk Securing the Resources Getting Gett g the t e Most ost Va Value ue A Complete System Approach: – Clean Agent – Detection and Controls – Specialized Detection

• The Final Details • Discussion 111

Details • Coordinate the Details Between the Trades: 9 Tie-ins and Shutdowns 9 Sealing of the Protected Space 9 Pre-Test, Final Test and Training Test, 9 Warranties

112

Questions?

113

Thank You for Attending!

114

Fike Corporation– WWW.Fike.Com

115