NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 88-3695

A111D2 7S310M

Quick Response Sprinklers in Office

Configurations: Fire Test Results

William D. Walton

Edward K. Budnick

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

January 1988

Supported in part by:

General Services Administration

Washington, DC

and

QC

100

U56

88-3695

1988

. Administration

irg, MD

NBSIR 88-3695

Research Information Center

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

QUICK RESPONSE SPRINKLERS IN OFFICE

CONFIGURATIONS: FIRE TEST RESULTS

William D. Walton

Edward K. Budnick

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

January 1988

Supported in part by:

General Services Administration

Washington, DC

and

U.S. Fire Administration

Emmitsburg, MD

i I r?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES v

ABSTRACT 1

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. HEAT RELEASE RATE TESTS 4

2.1 Heat Release Rate Test Configuration 4

2.2 Heat Release Rate Test Results 7

2.2.1 Computer Work Station Test Results 7

2.2.2 Open Shelving Test Results 9

3. COMPARTMENT FIRE TESTS ....... 10

3.1 Compartment Test Configuration ........ . . 10

3.2 Compartment Fire Test Results 13

3.2.1 Computer Work Station Test Results 14

3.2.2 Office Module Test Results 17

4. OPEN OFFICE FIRE TEST 20

4.1 Open Office Test Configuration ........ 20

4.2 Open Office Test Results 21

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 23

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....... 25

7. REFERENCES ............. 26

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 . Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Heat Release Rate Tests ........

Maximum Heat Release ........

Compartment Tests ..........

Maximum Average Upper Layer Temperature

Sprinkler Activation Time ......

Gas Concentrations ..........

LC 50 Values for Carbon Monoxide [7]

page

28

28

28

29

29

29

30
LIST OF FIGURES

page

Figure 1. Computer Desk 31

Figure 2. Book Case 32

Figure 3. Computer Work Station Plan View 33

Figure 4. Open Steel Shelving 34

Figure 5. Office Storage Plan View 35

Figure 6. Computer Station, Heat Release Rate, Tests 101 and 102

(free burn) 36

Figure 7. Computer Station, Total Heat Released Tests 101 and 102

(free burn) 37

Figure 8. Office Storage, Heat Release Rate Tests 201 and 202

(free burn) . 38

Figure 9. Office Storage, Total Heat Released Tests 201 and 202

(free burn) 39

Figure 10. Compartment Instrumentation ..... ....... 40

Figure 11. Compartment Computer Work Station Plan View 41

Figure 12. Office Module Desk 42

Figure 13. Compartment Office Module Plan View 43

Figure 14. Computer Station, Heat Release Rate Tests 110 (QR)

and 111 (QR) . 44

Figure 15. Computer Station, Total Heat Released Tests 110 (QR)

and 111 (QR) 45

Figure 16. Computer Station, Upper Layer Temperatures Test 110 (QR) ... 46

Figure 17. Computer Station, Sprinkler (near) Gas Temperature

Tests 110 (QR) and 111 (QR) 47

Figure 18. Computer Station, Gas Concentrations Test 110 (QR) 48

Figure 19. Computer Station, Upper layer Temperatures Test 111 (QR) . . 49

Figure 20. Computer Station, Gas Concentrations Test 111 (QR) ...... 50

Figure 21. Computer Station, Heat Release Rate Test 120 (None) 51

Figure 22. Computer Station, Total Heat Released Test 120 (None) .... 52

Figure 23. Computer Station, Upper Layer Temperatures Test 120 (None) . 53

Figure 24. Computer Station, Sprinkler (near) Gas Temperature

Test 120 (None) 54

Figure 25. Computer Station, Gas Concentrations Test 120 (None) 55

Figure 26. Computer Station, Average Upper Layer Temperature

Tests 110 (QR) , 111 (QR) and 120 (None) 56

Figure 27. Office Module, Heat Release Rate Tests 310 (QR)

and 311 (SSP) 57

Figure 28. Office Module, Total Heat Released Tests 310 (QR)

and 311 (SSP) 58

Figure 29. Office Module, Upper Layer Temperatures Test 310 (QR) .... 59

Figure 30. Office Module, Sprinkler (near) Gas Temperature

Tests 310 (QR) and 311 (SSP) 60

Figure 31. Office Module, Gas Concentrations Test 310 (QR) 61

Figure 32. Office Module, Upper Layer Temperatures Test 311 (SSP) .... 62

Figure 33. Office Module, Gas Concentrations Test 311 (SSP) 63

Figure 34. Office Module, Heat Release Rate Test 320 (None) 64

Figure 35. Office Module, Total Heat Released Test 320 (None) 65

v
Figure 36. Office Module, Upper Layer Temperatures Test 320 (None) 66

Figure 37. Office Module, Sprinkler (near) Gas Temperature

Tests 320 (None) and 321 (None) ......... . 67

Figure 38. Office Module, Gas Concentrations Test 320 (None) . 68

Figure 39. Office Module, Heat Release Rate Test 321 (None) ....... 69

Figure 40. Office Module, Total Heat Released Test 321 (None) ..... 70

Figure 41. Office Module, Upper Layer Temperatures Test 321 (None) ... 71

Figure 42. Office Module, Gas Concentrations Test 321 (None) ...... 72

Figure 43. Office Module, Average Upper Layer Temperature

Tests 310 (QR), 311 (SSP) , 320 (None) and 321 (None) .... 73

Figure 44. Open Office Plan View ......... ...... 74

Figure 45. Large Area Office Module, Upper Layer Temperatures

Test 4126 (QR) 75

Figure 46. Large Area Office Module, Average Upper Layer Temperature

Test 4126 (QR) 76

Figure 47. Large Area Office Module, Gas Concentrations Test 4126 (QR) . 77
QUICK RESPONSE SPRINKLERS IN OFFICE CONFIGURATIONS: FIRE TEST RESULTS

William D. Walton

Edward K. Budnick*

ABSTRACT

A series of fire tests in several typical office occupancy configurations were

conducted in order to address the use of quick response sprinkler technology.

These tests included 1) heat release rate tests, 2) compartment fire tests and

3) a large office test. The heat release rate tests were designed to

characterize the burning rates of a computer work station and open shelf

office storage. The compartment fire tests were designed to examine the

effectiveness of quick response sprinklers in typical office fires involving a

computer work station or an open office module. Measurements of heat release

rate, air temperature, and the concentration of oxygen, carbon monoxide and

carbon dioxide were taken. A test was conducted in a large office test

configured with multiple open office modules to complement the compartment

test results and examine the possibility of multiple sprinkler activation.

Measurements of air temperature and the concentration of oxygen, carbon

monoxide and carbon dioxide were taken.

Key Words: burning rate; calorimetry; compartment fires; fire growth; fire

tests; heat release rate; oxygen consumption; quick response sprinklers; room

fires; sprinklers; toxicity.

* Presently with Hughes Associates, Inc.

1
1 . INTRODUCTION

The General Services Administration has expressed a need for developing

sprinkler design criteria for use in government office spaces which ensure

adequate, cost effective fire protection. The Center for Fire Research at the

National Bureau of Standards under the sponsorship of the General Services

Administration, has completed the first phase of a multi-phase research

project addressing the use of quick response sprinkler technology in office

occupancies. The major emphasis in the first phase of this project was to

1) examine the potential applicability of quick response technology to office

occupancies and 2) characterize office fuel packages. The work to date has

demonstrated some of the potential benefits of using quick response sprinkler

technology and provided part of the basis for developing design criteria.

Automatic sprinkler technology has been used to protect commercial and

industrial property for more than a century. The success of this technology

in reducing property damage and life loss from fire is widely accepted.

Advances in sprinkler technology have lead to the development of quick

response sprinklers which actuate faster than conventional sprinklers. The

use of quick response sprinklers offers the potential for improved life and

property protection by actuating earlier in the fire growth than conventional

sprinklers. Research into the use of quick response sprinklers has lead to

2
the development of NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler

Systems In One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homesfl] 1

.

In addition, the Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) Program coordinated by

the National Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPRF) focuses on the

development of criteria and hardware to apply quick response sprinkler

technology to warehouse and high challenge fires [2].

Currently there are no design criteria for the use of quick response

sprinklers in office occupancies. The benefits of applying quick response

sprinkler technology to office occupancies include the potential for:

1) Improved life safety. By suppressing fires in the early stages, fast

responding sprinklers can reduce the quantity of smoke and toxic gases

generated. In critical occupancies where total evacuation in the event

of a fire is not desirable, fast responding sprinklers have the

potential for improving the survivability of the remaining occupants.

2) Improved property protection. Particularly in occupancies where down

time is critical, fast responding sprinklers can reduce property loss

and thus down time.

3) Reduced system cost. The potential exists to reduce piping sizes and

water supply requirements.

Number in brackets indicate literature references at the end of the i paper

.

3
In order to address the use of existing quick response sprinkler technology in

office occupancies, the Center for Fire Research conducted a series of

feasibility tests for the General Services Administration. These tests

included; 1) heat release rate tests designed to characterize the burning rate

of several typical office fuel packages, 2) compartment fire tests designed to

examine the effectiveness of quick response sprinklers in several typical

office fires and 3) a large office test to complement the compartment test

results and examine the possibility of multiple sprinkler activation.

2. HEAT RELEASE RATE TESTS

A series of four heat release rate or so called free burn tests were conducted

to characterize two typical office fuel packages. The office fuel packages

consisted of a computer work station and an open shelf storage configuration.

The heat release rates of these fuel packages were compared to the fire growth

rates used in the 1984 edition of NFPA 72E Appendix C Guide for Automatic Fire

Detector Spacing[3].

2.1 Heat Release Rate Test Configuration

The heat release rate tests, using oxygen consumption calorimetry, were

conducted under a large exhaust collection hood. A discussion of the

principles of oxygen consumption calorimetry can be found in reference [4] and

its use in determining the heat release rate of large furniture items in

reference [5], To summarize the method of oxygen consumption calorimetry, all

4
of the gaseous combustion products from the burning item are designed to flow

through a duct where the mass flow rate and oxygen concentration are measured

as a function of time. From these measurements the rate at which oxygen is

consumed by the fire in the combustion process can be determined. For most

common fuels the rate of heat release is proportional to the rate of oxygen

consumption regardless of the fuel burned. In these tests the collection and

processing has been computerized with measurements taken and reported every 10

seconds

.

Two fuel packages were chosen in cooperation with the project sponsors to be

representative of high challenge fires in office occupancies. These consisted

of a computer work station and open shelf storage.

The computer work station consisted of a computer desk and a book case each

constructed of 5/8 in. (16 mm) thick particle board covered with a simulated

wood, plastic laminate. The book case shelves were 3/4 in. (19 mm) thick.

The desk was 60 in. (1.52 m) tall by 49 in. (1.24 m) wide by 23.5 to 9.5 in.

(0.60 to 0.24 m) deep with a weight of 128 lb (58.1 kg). The desk was loaded

with a total of 99 lb (44.9 kg) of paper materials. Figure 1 shows the

dimensions of the computer desk and distribution of the load of paper

materials. The book case was 72 in. (1.83 m) tall by 36 in. (0.91 m) wide by

12 in. (0.30 m) deep with a weight of 102 lb (46.3 kg). The book case was

loaded with a total of 160 lb (72.6 kg) of paper materials. Figure 2 shows

the dimensions of the book case and the distribution of the load of paper

materials. Figure 3 shows a plan view of the computer work station consisting

5
of the computer desk and book case. Computer work stations with this loading

were used in free burn tests 101 and 102.

The open shelf storage consisted of common open steel shelving with vertical

steel supports at each corner. The shelving units were 71 in. (1.8 m) tall by

36 in. (0.91 m) wide by 18 in. (0.46 m) deep with a weight of 22 lb (9.98 kg).

A total of four shelving units were used in each test. The units were

arranged in two parallel sets of back to back units separated by a 30 in.

(0.7 m) aisle in free burn test 201 and a 24 in. (0.61 m) aisle in free burn

test 202. Each shelving unit consisted of six shelves loaded with paper

products. The bottom two shelves contained horizontally stacked paper, the

next two shelves, paper in open top vertical file holders and the top shelf,

horizontally stacked paper in closed cardboard boxes. The total weight of

these paper products was 265 lb (120 kg) per unit. Figure 4 shows the

dimensions and loading of the shelving units and Figure 5 is a plan view of

the open shelf storage fuel package. The open shelf storage used in test 201

consisted of an open aisle. For test 202, two boxes of paper products with a

total weight of 7 lb (3 kg) were placed in the aisle between the burner and

one set of shelf units.

The ignition source for the heat release rate tests consisted of a rectangular

50 kW diffusion flame natural gas burner representing a typical wastebasket

fire. The burner was an open top steel box 9.75 in. (248 mm) wide by 7.25 in.

(184 mm) deep by 2.75 in. (70 mm) high. The box was filled with sand covered

by a fibrous refractory material and the top was expanded metal. An opening

for the natural gas supply was centered on the 7.25 inch (184 mm) side of the

6
box. The top of the burner was positioned 14.5 in. (368 mm) above the floor.

The burner was located in the corner between the desk and the book case for

the computer work station tests and centered in the aisle adjacent to one set

of shelves in the storage tests. A listing of the heat release rate tests and

ignition exposures is given in Table 1.

2.2 Heat Release Rate Test Results

The free burn heat release tests consisted of two tests of the computer work

station (tests 101 and 102) and two tests of the open shelf storage (tests 201

and 202).

2.2.1 Computer Work Station Test Results

The heat release rates for tests 101 and 102 are shown in Figure 6. The

integrated or total heat released for tests 101 and 102 is shown in Figure 7.

The maximum rates of heat release for all tests are given in Table 2.

In addition to the heat release rate determined from the tests, figures 6

and 8 show heat release rates for the fast, medium and slow fires specified in

NFPA 72E Appendix C Guide for Automatic Fire Detector Spacing[3]. The fast,

medium and slow fires are based on fires that grow with the square of time and

are sometimes referred to as time squared fires. These fires are often

compared to the early stages of fire growth for the purposes of estimating

activation time of thermal devices such as heat detectors or sprinklers. The

comparison of time squared fires to actual fires is sensitive to the location

7
of time zero. In the tests analyzed here, no attempt has been made to adjust

the starting times of the time squared fires in order to provide an exact

match. Instead, a general comparison is made with the slope of the growth

rates

.

Figures 6 and 7 indicate that the two computer work stations burned in a very

similar manner, well within the variation expected for fire tests. The

agreement is particularly good considering the variation expected in the

burning of the paper products loaded in the desk and book case. Figure 7

shows that by 1700 seconds the same total amount of heat had been released in

both fires. Test observations show that by 120 seconds the fire had spread

half way across the book case and to the shelves above the burner on the desk.

At 250 seconds the fire had spread across the front of the book case above the

level of the burner and at 500 seconds across the desk and inside the desk.

The initial fire growth was a result primarily of the burning paper materials.

Beyond 750 seconds the work station began to collapse resulting in erratic

burning.

Although there is good overall agreement between the two computer work station

tests the initial growth rate for test 101 follows more closely the slow fire

while test 102 is more like the medium to fast fire. This initial growth

period is very important in determining the sprinkler activation time.

8
2.2.2 Open Shelving Test Results

The heat release rates for tests 201 and 202 are shown in Figure 8 and the

integrated or total heat released for tests 201 and 202 in Figure 9.

Figures 8 and 9 show a significant difference in the two open shelving tests.

This difference is a result of the change in configuration between tests 201

and 202. In test 201 only one set of the back to back shelving units became

involved while in test 202 the addition of two boxes of paper in the aisle and

the reduction of the aisle from 30 in. (0.7 m) to 24 in. (0.61 m) allowed fire

to spread to both sets of shelving units. Test observations show that in both

tests the fire spread up the face of the shelves above the burner and by 120

seconds had spread into the adjacent back unit. At approximately 200 seconds

the first set of back to back units had become well involved and for test 202

fire was beginning to spread to the second set of units across the aisle. In

test 201 the maximum heat release rate of approximately 1 MW was reached at

280 seconds while in test 202, the maximum of 1.6 MW was reached at 330

seconds. Prior to the involvement of the second set of shelving units the two

tests demonstrate very good agreement.

The initial growth rate of the shelving unit fires tends to follow the rate of

the medium time squared fire. At approximately 200 seconds the growth rate

increases and its slope is more nearly like that of the fast fire.

9
3. COMPARTMENT FIRE TESTS

A series of seven office compartment fire tests were conducted to examine the

conditions resulting with no sprinklers , conventional sprinklers and so called

quick response sprinklers. Two office fuel packages, a computer work station

and an office module were used in these tests. The computer work station was

of the same type as used in the heat release rate tests and the office module

was of the type used in some Federal office buildings. Measurements of heat

release rate, temperature and gas concentrations were used to evaluate the

test results.

3.1 Compartment Test Configuration

The compartment fire tests were conducted in the ASTM standard room, the

specifications for which are contained in the ASTM Proposed Method for Room

Fire Test of wall and Ceiling Materials and Assemblies [ 6 ] . The room is 8 ft

(2.44 m) wide by 12 ft (3.66 m) deep by 8 ft (2.44 m) high. A 30 in. (0.76 m)

wide by 80 in. (2.03 m) high door is centered in one of the 8 ft by 8 ft

walls. The room is lined with 0.5 in. (12 mm) thick calcium silicate board

and the concrete floor was covered with 0.5 in. (12 mm) gypsum board.

The same large exhaust hood used in the heat release tests was located outside

the room over the door and it collected the fire exhaust gases for determining

rate of heat release. Instrumentation inside the room consisted of 0.02 in.

(0.05 mm) diameter chromel -alumel thermocouples located in the corner of the

10
room near the door, 12 in. (0.3 m) from each wall, on the ceiling and 6, 12,

18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78, 84, and 90 in. (0.15, 0.30, 0.46,

0.61, 0.76, 0.91, 1.07, 1.22, 1.37, 1.52, 1.68, 1.83, 1.98, 4.11 and 2.29 m)

below the ceiling. A thermocouple was also located adjacent to the sprinkler

which was centered in the room. Gas sampling probes for carbon dioxide,

carbon monoxide and oxygen were located in the corner near the thermocouples

12 in. (0.3m) from each wall and 60 in. (1.52 m) above the floor. The

compartment dimensions and instrument positions are shown in Figure 10.

Two fuel packages were used in the compartment fire tests. The first was the

computer work station used in heat release rate tests 101 and 102. A plan

view of the location of the work station in the compartment is shown in

Figure 11. The second fuel package was an office module similar to the type

used in some Federal office buildings. The office module was made up of a

desk, chair, file cabinet and partitions. The desk had a 70 in. (1.8 m)

by 23.75 in. (0.60 m) plastic covered top positioned 30 in. (0.76 m) above the

floor. The desk weighed 130 lb (59 kg) and was loaded with 31 lb (14 kg) of

paper. A 70 in. (1.8 m) by 12 in. (0.30 m) steel shelf supported by clips at

each end was located 22 in. (0.56 m) above the desk top. The shelf was loaded

with 16 open top file boxes filled with paper with a total weight of 70 lb

(32 kg) . Below the desk on the left side was a conventional two drawer steel

file cabinet 15.25 in. (0.39 m) wide. The file cabinet weighed 81 lb (37 kg)

and each drawer was loaded with 14 lb (6 kg) of paper. Figure 12 shows the

dimensions and loading of the office desk.

11
The chair was supported with a single steel base shaft centered under the seat

with four casters on arms. The back and base of the chair seat was a lightly

padded molded plastic covered with a synthetic fabric. The chair arms were

steel with lightly padded arm rests. The chair was approximately 20 in.

(0.5 m) square with a seat height of 20 in. (0.5 m) and a back height of

35 in. (0.9 m) . The weight of the chair was 43 lb (19.5 kg).

The file cabinet was constructed of steel with overall dimensions of 36 in.

(0.91 m) wide by 18 in. (0.46 m) deep by 64.75 in. (1.64 m) high with a total

weight of 298 lb (135 kg) . The cabinet was made up of 5 shelf units each

12 in. (0.3 m) high. Each self unit had a cover hinged at the top which swung

out toward the user and slid back over the top. The suspension files opened

towards the user such that all files in a drawer shelf were exposed when the

cover was raised. During the tests the bottom three drawer units were empty

and closed. The top two units were open and each loaded with 43 lb (20 kg) of

paper

.

The partitions were constructed of a steel frame with a hardboard panel center

covered with fiberglass and synthetic fabric on both sides. The partitions

were 66.5 in. (1.7 m) high by 1.6 in (41 mm) thick and in widths of 24, 36 and

48 in. (0.61, 0.91 and 1.22 m) with weights of 42, 52 and 63 lb (19, 24 and 29

kg) respectively. A plan view of the location of the office module in the

compartment is shown in Figure 13.

12
The ignition source for the compartment fire tests was a round steel trash can

with an upper diameter of 13.5 in. (343 mm), a lower diameter of 10 in.

(254 mm), a height of 14.5 in. (368 mm) and a weight of 4 lb (1.8 kg). The

trash can was loaded with 3.8 lb (1.7 kg) of paper. An electrically activated

book of matches was used to ignite the fire. The trash can was located in the

corner between the desk and the book case in the computer work station tests

and in the corner between the desk and the side partition in the office module

tests

.

Two types of sprinklers were used in the compartment tests. The first was a

standard spray pendent (SSP) operated with a flow of 16.3 gpm (62 L/min) and

the second was a residential quick response sprinkler operated with a flow of

18 gpm (68 L/min) both in accordance with manufacturers recommendations. The

activation temperature of both types of sprinklers was 165 °F (74 °C). A

listing of the compartment tests is given in Table 3.

3.2 Compartment Fire Test Results

The compartment fire test series included three tests with the computer work

station and four tests with the office module. The computer work station

tests included two with quick response sprinklers (tests 110 and 111) and one

with no sprinklers (tests 120). The office module tests included one with a

quick response sprinkler (test 310), one with a standard sprinkler (test 311)

and two with no sprinklers (tests 320 and 321). The data shown for each of

these tests includes heat release rate, total heat released, upper layer

13
temperatures, gas temperature near the sprinkler and concentrations of 02 , CO

and C02

.

3.2.1 Computer Work Station Test Results

The heat release rates for the two computer work station tests with quick

response sprinklers are shown in Figure 14 along with the fast medium and slow

time squared fires. The total heat released for these tests is shown in

Figure 15. The heat release rates for these tests was so low that the

instrumentation noise is evident in the results and a comparison with the time

squared fires is not possible. Figure 16 shows, for test 110, the temperature

of thermocouple 3 located 12 in. (0.30 m) below the ceiling and thermocouple 7

located 36 in. (1.07 m) below the ceiling. In addition the average of

thermocouples 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 located 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 in. (0.30, 0.46,

0.61, 0.76 and 1.07 m) down from the ceiling is shown. In most of the tests

thermocouple 2, located 6 in. (0.15 m) below the ceiling, was also used.

Thermocouple 2 failed to function in test 110. An analysis of all of the

thermocouple data revealed that these thermocouples spanned the hot upper gas

layer in the compartment. A list of the maximum average upper layer

temperatures is given in Table 4.

Observations from test 110 showed that the paper on the desk above the trash

can ignited at 15 seconds and the flames from the trash can were below the top

of the can by 120 seconds. At 200 seconds, the upper part of the compartment

was obscured by smoke. The fire appeared to intensify on the top of the desk

and began to spread up the corner face of the book case at 300 seconds . The

14
sprinkler activated at 317 seconds. A list of sprinkler activation times for

all tests is given in Table 5. Figure 17 shows the temperature of the

thermocouple located near the sprinkler in tests 110 and 111. This figure

shows that the gas temperature in test 110 was only slightly above the

activation temperature. The gas temperature in test 111 rose more quickly

above the activation temperature resulting in sprinkler activation in a

shorter period of time.

Figure 18 shows the gas concentrations of CO, C02 and 02 measured at the

60 in. (1.52 m) level in the room. Maximum concentrations for CO and C02 and

the minimum for 02 are given in Table 6. Although a complete analysis of the

gas concentration data is beyond the scope of this report, a simple comparison

« to CO lethality data can be made. LC5Q values for carbon monoxide as a

function of exposure time for rats is provided in Table 7 [ 7 ]

.

LC 50 (Lethal

Concentration 50%) is the concentration of gas which will cause 50% lethality

in test animals exposed for a specified period of time. For example, from

Table 7, the minimum concentration of CO required to cause 50% lethality over

a continuous 3600 second exposure is 0.49%. The maximum concentration of CO

in test 110 was well below the 3600 second LC 50 value.

Observations for test 111 show the paper on the desk above the trash can

ignited at 15 seconds and by 90 seconds the flames in the trash can had

receded below the top of the can. The fire involvement was similar to that in

test 110 when the sprinkler operated at 127 seconds. The upper part of the

room was not completely obscured by smoke at the time of sprinkler activation.

In all tests the room became completely obscured after sprinkler activation.

15
The upper layer temperatures for test 111 are shown in Figure 19 and the gas

concentrations in Figure 20 . As in test 110, the concentration of CO in

test 111 was below the 3600 second LC50 value.

The primary difference between the results of test 110 and test 111 was a

slight difference in burning rate. This difference in burning rate resulted

in a difference in upper layer temperature. Since the temperatures were very

close to the activation temperature of the sprinkler, a small temperature

difference resulted in a significant difference in sprinkler activation time.

Test 120 consisted of the same configuration as tests 110 and 111 except there

was no sprinkler. Figure 21 shows the heat release rate and Figure 22 the

total heat released. The overall trend of the heat release rate tended to be

much slower than the slow time squared fire. Figure 23 shows the upper layer

temperatures, Figure 24 the temperature of the thermocouple near the sprinkler

and Figure 25 the gas concentrations. Test observations showed that at 30

seconds the paper above the trash can ignited, and by 150 seconds the flames

in the trash can were below the top of the can. At 200 seconds flames were

across the top of the book case, and at 900 seconds half way across the

ceiling. At 1200 seconds the work station was well involved, and at 1400

seconds flashover conditions existed within the compartment. At 1500 seconds

the work station was collapsing and flames were out the door. The test was

terminated shortly thereafter.

The conditions in the compartment without sprinklers would certainly have been

lethal by the time of flashover. A comparison of the average upper layer

16
temperatures from the computer work station tests 110, 111 and 120 is shown in

Figure 26.

3.2.2 Office Module Test Results

Test 310 consisted of an office module with a quick response sprinkler and

test 311 an office module with standard response sprinkler. Figure 27 shows

the rate of heat release for these tests along with the fast, medium and slow

time squared fires. Again it is difficult to make a comparison between the

test results and the time squared fires because of the short duration of

growth and the low rate of heat release. Figure 28 shows the total heat

released for tests 310 and 311.

Figure 29 shows the upper layer temperatures for test 310 and Figure 30 the

temperature of the thermocouple located near the sprinkler for tests 310

and 311. Observations for test 310 showed the paper on the desk above the

trash can ignited at 30 seconds and by 100 seconds the flames in the trash can

were below the top of the can. At 130 seconds the rate of burning of papers

on top of the desk began to increase, and at 177 seconds the quick response

sprinkler activated. Prior to sprinkler activation the smoke did not

completely obscure visibility in the upper part of the room. Figure 31 shows

the gas concentrations in test 310. The maximum concentration of CO in test

310 was below the 3600 second LC 50 value.

Figure 32 shows the upper layer temperatures in test 311. Observations from

test 311 show that at 30 seconds flames had spread from the trash can to the

17
paper on the desk, and by 250 seconds the flames in the trash can were below

the top of the can. At approximately 400 seconds the rate of burning of the

papers on the desk began to increase, and at 438 seconds the conventional

response sprinkler activated. Prior to sprinkler activation the smoke did not

completely obscure visibility in the upper part of the room. Figure 33 shows

the gas concentrations in test 311. The maximum concentration of CO in test

311 was below the 3600 second LC50 value.

A comparison of tests 310 and 311 reveals that the average upper layer

temperatures in test 311 with the conventional response sprinkler were

approximately 54 °F (30 °C) higher than in test 310 with the quick response

sprinkler. The maximum temperature of the thermocouple near the sprinkler was

108 °F (60 °C) higher. These high temperatures reflect the longer response

times for the conventional sprinklers

.

Two tests, 320 and 321, were conducted using the office module with no

sprinklers. Figure 34 shows the heat release rate in test 320, and Figure 35

the total heat released. Upper layer temperatures for test 320 are shown in

Figure 35, and the temperature of the sprinkler near the thermocouple for

tests 320 and 321 is shown in Figure 37. Observations from test 320 showed

the flames from the trash can ignited the paper on the desk at 30 seconds, and

by 250 seconds the flames in the trash can were below the top of the can. In

test 320, the fire failed to spread beyond the top of the desk and ultimately

burned out. Gas concentrations for test 320 are shown in Figure 38. This

test points out the variability in burning realistic fuel packages. Test 321

18
is a repeat of test 320 with minor rearrangement of the paper materials on top

of the desk.

Figure 39 shows the rate of heat release for test 321 along with the fast

medium and slow time squared fires. The initial heat release rate in test 321

appears to follow that of the medium fire. The total heat released is shown

in Figure 40. Upper layer temperatures are shown in Figure 41 and gas

concentrations in Figure 42. Observations show that at 30 seconds fire spread

from the trash can to the paper on the desk, and by 75 seconds the fire had

grown on the desk. At 210 seconds, the flames in the trash can were below the

top of the can and the flames on the top of the desk had receded. At 220

seconds, the shelf above the desk collapsed resulting in renewed flaming, and

by 270 seconds there was fire on the desk and the floor. This fire continued

at a relatively steady rate until the chair became involved at 1200 seconds.

The involvement of the chair was followed by the development of a dark smoke

layer and flashover conditions at 1300 seconds. The test was terminated

shortly thereafter.

The conditions in the compartment in test 321 without sprinklers would

certainly have been lethal by the time of flashover. A comparison of the

average upper layer temperatures from the office module tests 310, 311, 320

and 321 is shown in Figure 43.

19
4. OPEN OFFICE FIRE TEST

A single test was conducted in a large open office space containing two back

to back office modules and quick response residential sprinklers. The office

modules were of the same type as those used in the compartment fire tests.

Measurements of temperature and gas concentrations were used to evaluate the

test results.

4.1 Open Office Test Configuration

The test was conducted in a building undergoing renovation and modified to

have the appearance of an open office space. The room was basically

rectangular in shape with a small rectangular extension in one corner. The

overall dimensions of the room were 48 ft (14.6 m) by 18 ft (5.5 m) with a

total floor area of 963 ft2 (89 m

2

)

.

The room had an asphalt tile covered

concrete floor, concrete block walls, and fiber board suspended ceiling under

a concrete slab. The finished ceiling height was 8.5 ft (2.59 m) in the fire

area and 9.25 ft (2.82 m) in a 216 ft2 (20 m

2

) area away from the fire. All

doors and windows to the room were closed. A plan view of room is shown in

Figure 44.

Instrumentation included a string of 0.02 in. (0.05 mm) diameter chromelalumel thermocouples in one corner of the room 1 ft (0.3 m) from each wall and

102, 96, 90, 84, 78, 72, 66, 60, 54, 48, 42, 36, 30, 24, 18, 12 and 6 in.

(2.59, 2.44, 2.29, 2.13, 1.98, 1.83, 1.68, 1.52, 1.37, 1.22, 1.07, 0.91, 0.76,

0.61, 0.46, 0.30 and 0.15 m) from the floor. In addition, thermocouples were

20
located above the point of ignition 1, 6 and 10 in. (0.03, 0.15 and 0.25 m)

below the ceiling. Gas sampling probes for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide

and oxygen were located near the thermocouples, 60 in. (1.52 m) above the

floor. Heat release measurements were not available for this test.

Nine pendent residential quick response sprinklers were installed with piping

above the suspended ceiling. The sprinklers had an activation temperature of

160° F (71° C) and the flow was set to 25 gpm (95 L/min) in accordance with the

manufacturers recommendations. Two sets of office modules with the same load

of paper as used in the compartment tests were positioned to be centered under

four of the sprinklers. The center of the fuel package was approximately

7.8 ft (2.4 m) from each of the four sprinklers. The ignition source was the

same type of trash can used in the compartment fire tests.

4.2 Open Office Test Results

The upper layer temperatures for the open office test are shown in Figure 45.

Shown in this figure are the temperatures of thermocouple 5 located 102 in.

(2.59 m) above the floor and thermocouple 8 located 84 in. (2.13 m) above the

floor. Also shown is the average of thermocouples 5, 6, 7, and 8 located 102,

96, 90 and 84 in. (2.59, 2.44, 2.29 and 2.13 m) above the floor. An analysis

of all of the thermocouple data revealed that these thermocouples spanned the

hot upper gas layer in the compartment. Although these thermocouples were on

the opposite side of the room from the only sprinkler activated and

approximately 14 ft (4.3 m) from the fire, the average upper layer temperature

was approximately equal to the activation temperature of the sprinkler at the

21
time of activation. Figure 46 shows the average upper layer temperature and

the temperature measured 1 in. (0.03 m) below the ceiling above the trash can.

This indicates that gas temperatures on the ceiling above the fire were as

high as 302 °F (150 °C).

Figure 47 shows the gas concentrations for the large office test. The changes

in gas concentration from ambient were very small. The spikes in the C02 data

were created by the instrumentation. The maximum concentration of CO was

below the 3600 second LC50 value.

Test observations show that paper on the desk above the trash can ignited at

20 seconds, and at 60 seconds the fabric on the partition over the trash can

was melting. At 140 seconds, the flames in the trash can were below the top

of the can. At 155 seconds, the flames on top of the desk were impinging on

the shelf, but by 180 seconds, the flames on the desk had receded and were

slowly spreading on the desk. At 330 seconds, flames were visible in the

corner above the shelf, and by 360 seconds were 2 ft. (0.6m) above the shelf.

At 408 seconds, a single sprinkler activated mixing the light smoke in the

room and obscuring the fire, although the overhead fluorescent lights were

still visible. The sprinkler which operated was the one closest to the corner

of the desk where the initial burning took place. The sprinkler water flow

was continued for 600 seconds after activation. When the sprinkler flow was

terminated the only fire visible was smoldering in the bottom of the trash

can. The fire damaged area included the partitions next to the trash can and

in back of the desk, the top three quarters of the desk surface and the papers

up to 2 ft. (0,6 m) from the corner on the self above the desk. One of the

22
shelving clips holding the shelf above the desk had failed, but the shelf had

not fallen.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The heat release rates of several office fuel packages including a computer

work station, open shelving and an open office module have been characterized.

The initial growth rates of these fires ranged from fast to slow as compared

to the NFPA 72E standard time squared fires. This suggests that the selection

of a single growth rate to represent office fire scenarios may be

inappropriate

.

Fires in the fuel packages tested, when uncontrolled, in an ASTM standard size

compartment generally lead to the development of flashover and associated

lethal conditions in 1300 to 1500 seconds. For the tests conducted, quick

response residential sprinklers operating within their design limits actuated

at 177 to 317 seconds and controlled the office type fires as long as water

was flowing. The fire damage in all sprinkler tests was limited to a

relatively small area, and conditions within the compartments did not appear

to be lethal. In the single test conducted with a standard response

sprinkler, the sprinkler actuated at 438 seconds and the upper layer

temperatures were higher than those in a similar test with a quick response

sprinkler, but conditions still did not appear to reach lethal levels.

In the single large office test conducted, a single residential quick response

sprinkler activated in 408 seconds and controlled the fire even though the

23
fire was nearly equidistant from four sprinklers and the partitions provided

some blockage of the spray pattern. The fire damage was limited to a

relatively small area, and conditions within the space did not appear to be

lethal

.

In conclusion, these tests have provided some limited evidence that

residential quick response sprinklers can substantially improve life safety

and property protection in office occupancies as compared to occupancies

without sprinklers

.

24
6 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is extended to J. Breese, D. Evans, D. Madrzykowski , T. Maher, P.

Martin, R. McLane, W. Rinkinen, G. Roadarmel, J. Steel, M. Womble and R. Zile

of the Center for Fire Research for assistance in conducting these tests.

Appreciation is also extended to J. Morehart and the NIH safety and fire

/ departments as well as the Bethesda and Kensington fire departments, Bethesda

Chevy Chase Rescue Squad and Livingston Fire Protection for support in

conducting the large office test. In addition, appreciated is extended to D.

Bathurst and W. Blazek of GSA and T. Smith of USFA for their support of this

proj ect

.

25
7 . REFERENCES

[1] Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems In One- and Two-Family

Dwellings and Mobile Homes 13D. Quincy, MA: Nat. Fire Prot. Assn. ; 1984.

[2] Fleming, R.P. Quick Response Sprinklers: A Technical Analysis. Quincy, MA:

Nat. Fire Prot. Assn. Research Foundation; 1986.

[3] Standard on Automatic Fire Detectors 72E. Quincy, MA: Nat. Fire Prot.

Assn. ; 1984.

[4] Parker, W.J., Calculations of the Heat Release Rate by Oxygen Consumption

for Various Applications. Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) NBSIR 81-2427-1; 1982 March.

41 p

.

[5] Babrauskas , V. Lawson, J.R., Walton, W.D. and Twilley, W.H. Upholstered

Furniture Heat Release Rates Measured with a Furniture Calorimeter. Nat. Bur.

Stand. (U.S.) NBSIR 82-2604; 1982 December. 73 p.

[6] Proposed Method for Room Fire Test of Wall and Ceiling Materials and

Assemblies. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM; Section 4: 958-978; 1983.

26
[7] Levin, B.C., Gurman, J.L., Paabo , M. , Baier, L. and Holt, T.

,

Toxicological Effects of Different Time Exposures to The Fire Gases: Carbon

Monoxide or Hydrogen Cyanide or to Carbon Monoxide Combined with Hydrogen

Cyanide or Carbon Dioxide. Proceedings U.S. /Japan Cooperative Program on

Natural Resources. Fire Research and Safety; 1987 May 4-8; Norwood, MA; 1-16.

27
Table 1. Heat Release Rate Tests

Test No. Fuel Package Ignition Mode

101 Computer Station 50 kW for 420 s 102 Computer Station 50 kW for 180 s 201 Office Storage 50 kW for 180 s 202 Office Storage 50 kW for 180 s

Table 2 Maximum Heat Release

Test No. Fuel Package Sprinkler Maximum Heat

Release Rate (MW)

Total Heat

Released (MJ)

101 Computer Station Free Burn 1.42 1200.

102 Computer Station Free Burn 1.83 1350.

110 Computer Station QR 0.041 6.33

111 Computer Station QR 0.039 1.14

120 Computer Station None 2.48 658.

201 Office Storage Free Burn 0.98 318.

202 Office Storage Free Burn 1.60 560.

310 Office Module QR 0.062 19.0

311 Office Module SSP 0.049 11.8

320 Office Module None 0.058 24.1

321 Office Module None 2.20 421.

Table 3. Compartment Tests

Test No. Fuel Package Ignition Mode Compartment Sprinkler

110 Computer Station Trash Can ASTM QR

111 Computer Station Trash Can ASTM QR

120 Computer Station Trash Can ASTM None

310 Office Module Trash Can ASTM QR

311 Office Module Trash Can ASTM SSP

320 Office Module Trash Can ASTM None

321 Office Module Trash Can ASTM None

4126 Office Module Trash Can Large Area QR

28
Table 4. Maximum Average Upper Layer Temperature

Test No. Fuel Package Sprinkler Temperature (°C)

110 Computer Station QR 93

111 Computer Station QR 88

120 Computer Station None 811

310 Office Module QR 80

311 Office Module SSP 113

320 Office Module None 88

321 Office Module None 763

4126 Office Module QR 62

Test No.

Table

Fuel Package

5 . Sprinkler Activation Time

Sprinkler Time (s) Maximum Sprinkler

Thermocouple Temperature '

110 Computer Station QR 317 90

111 Computer Station QR 127 102

310 Office Module QR 177 93

311 Office Module SSP 438 153

4126 Office Module QR 408 -

Test No.

Table 6. Gas Concentrations

Fuel Package Sprinkler CO (%) C02 (%)

(maximum) (maximum)

02 (%)

(minimum)

110 Computer Station QR 0.20 1.1 19.8

111 Computer Station QR 0.31 0.84 19.7

120 Computer Station None 0.85 20.4 0.35

310 Office Module QR 0.075 0.93 20.0

311 Office Module SSP 0.10 1.2 19.6

320 Office Module None 0.74 1.0 19.8

321 Office Module None 3.19 17.5 1.0

4126 Office Module QR 0.05 3.4 20.6

29
Table 7. LC50 Values for Carbon Monoxide [7]

Exposure Time (s) CO Concentration (%) CO Concentration (ppm)

60 10 . 7 107000

120 4.25 42500

300 1.4 14000

600 0.98 9800

1200 0.74 7400

1800 0.66 6600

3600 0.49 4900

30
31

Figure

1.

Computer

Desk
-

3/4

CO

CO

co n

CO -Q

O

CO

CD

CVJ

CO n

GO

CO

CO 5

CM

CO

CO n

T~

CO

32
33

Figure

3.

Computer

Work

Station

Plan

View
36"

-

41

lbs

34

Figure

4.

Open

Steel

Shelving
35

Figure

5.

Office

Storage

Plan

View
102

1— 2

Z)

f—

i

in Q o

< UJ _l

Ll_ X an

i i

o o o o o o o O o o o

o CD CO CXI o CD to OJ o

cu e=i O O o o o

05

CDS

-rH h—

(MW) a^eu aseatau }eaH

36

Figure

6.

Computer

Station,

Heat

Release

Rate,

Tests

101

and

102

(free

burn)
1500

i

1

1

s

1

1

1

1

1

[

l

101 OJ

o

ui

CD

o o o o o o o o o o

in o in o in o in o in cn cu o cn CO "T cn

(PW) paseatay lean ie}o_L

37

Figure

7.

Computer

Station,

Total

Heat

Released

Tests

101

and

102

(free

burn)
2.00

j—

—b

n

!

—!

—

s

1

r~—

1

\

s

201

h“

2

Z)n 2

OJ CD Q O

o C LU _J

OJ Ll 2 cn

o o o o o o o o © o

CO CO OJ o CO to ''T OJ o

^=4 o o o o o

(MW) aseaxay }eaH

38

Time

(s)

Figure

8.

Office

Storage

„

Heat

Release

Rate

Tests

201

and

202

(free

burn)
600

i

1

1

1

I

l

1

I

I

I

I

201 oj

o

C\J

o

OJ

o o o O o o o o o O

V GO OJ CD o CD OJ CD

in cn m OJ

(PW) pasEai ay }eaH ib^oi

39

Figure

9.

Office

Storage,

Total

Heat

Released

Tests

201

and

202

(free

burn)
40

Figure

10.

Compartment

Instrumentation
CM

T

CM

I

41

Figure

11,

Compartment

Computer

Work

Station

Plan

View
42

Figure

12.

Office

Module

Desk
43

Figure

13.

Compartment

Office

Module

Plan

View
.10

r—

n

n

—

'

—

"

—i

~~i

—i

—

T

—

11

’"

i

i

“i

i

HO

f—

2

ZDHH 2

cn Q O

< LU _l

Ll, cn

U3

CD

(MW) s^ea asestaa }eaH

44

Figure

14.

Computer

Station,

Heat

Release

Rate

Tests

110

(QR)

and

111

(QR)
110

CPW) paseaiaa }eaH moi

45

Figure

15.

Computer

Station,

Total

Heat

Released

Tests

110

(QR)

and

111

(QR)
AVG

46

Figure

16.

Computer

Station,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

110

(QR)
200i1111111111

110

47

Figure

17.

Computer

Station,,

Sprinkler

(near)

Gas

Temperature

Tests

110

(QR)

and

111

(QR)
cu a o cu o u o

I I o

OJ^iQDCD^OJOmiD'^ajO •*s=TMt «*”S (^uaajad ausntOA) uot j^uaouoo

48

Time

(s)

Figure

18.

Computer

Station,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

110

(QR)
200i111lIllIII

TC2

cd> CD < i—

49

Figure

19.

Computer

Station,

Upper

layer

Temperatures

Test

111

(QR)
CU O O CM

CJ CJ O

I I

I

tn

CDs

•fi f”

CM

CD CD CM QD CD CM

(^uaDjad aiuntQA) uot q.e J^uaauoo

50

Figure

20.

Computer

Station,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

111

(QR)
2.50

(MW) a^BH aseaiau }eaH

Figure

21.

Computer

Station,

Heat

Release

Rate

Test

120

(None)
700

o

o © o o o o o o o o

m CO CD cu m CO ^r

CO in •^r m as ru x—

i

(TW) paseaiay }eaH le^oi

52

Time

(s)

Figure

22.

Computer

Station,

Total

Heat

Released

Test

120

(None)
900i1i1—i1111—I1

TC2

CD> CJ < i—

53

Figure

23,

Computer

Station,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

120

(None)
1100 o o o o o o o o o o

01 00 CO m ^r cn CXI O) CO CO m O' CO OJ

(3 ) a jn^ejaduuai

54

Time

(s)

Figure

24.

Computer

Station,

Sprinkler

(near)

Gas

Temperature

Test

120

(None)
CU

o

CU

o o

CJ cj

I I

I

o CD cd CD ID "sT m OJ ^“1 o

CD CD "'T CVJ o CD CD ’'T CU o

cu (^uaajad aiuniQA) uoiq.a j^uaauoo

CD

55

Figure

25.

Computer

Station,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

120

(None)
OU

—

L_

1

8

.1

L-

»

1

1--—

L_

1

_J

006

^ o

^ OJ

o o o o o o o o o O

Vi OJ co LD CD r^ CD CD

CD CD ID ^r cn cu

(3 ) aun^Bjadiuai

56

Figure

26

,

Computer

Station,

Average

Upper

Layer

Temperature

Tests

110

(QR)

,

111

(QR)

and

120

(None)
310

1—

2

ZD

l—

i

3:

c

n

O O

< LU _1

Ll_ X CO

57

Figure

27.

Office

Module,

Heat

Release

Rate

Tests

310

(QR)

and

311

(SSP)
o ^ m m

CQ

CDB

H”

58

Figure

28.

Office

Module,

Total

Heat

Released

Tests

310

(QR)

and

311

(SSP)
100

I

1

1

i

1

1

1

1

l

l

I

TC2

CD

> CJ

< I—

(3 ) ajn^ejadiuai

59

Figure

29.

Office

Module,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

310

(QR)
200

i

1

1

1

—i

1

s

1

i

1

—

—

s

310 m

QJ

(3 ) ajn^euadujai

60

Figure

30

.

Office

Module

s

Sprinkler

(near)

Gas

Temperature

Tests

310

(QR)

and

311

(SSP)
18.9

OJ O O OJ

CJ CJ o

I I

I I

I

CD

CD C\J CD IQ OJ

(luasjad aiuniQA) uoiq.e j^uaauoo

61

Figure

31.

Office

Module,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

310

(QR)
200

i

r~

1

—

—s

“

s

1

'

T”

'

i

'

—

—~i

—

”i

!

TC2

cd

> CJ

< H—

CO

CD

(3

q

) ajn^ejsdujai

62

Figure

32.

Office

Module,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

311

(SSF)
CM O O CM

CJ CJ O

I I

I

o CJ) CD I s* CD in ''T m CM T-i O

rH CD CD ^ CM o 00 CD T CM o

CM 'cH

(q.ua3jad aiuniQA) uoiq.a J^uaauoo

63

Figure

33.

Office

Module,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

311

(SSP)
FAST

HH 2 Q O

UJ _j S CO

i t

i

(MW) a^ea aseaisu lean

64

Figure

34.

Office

Module,

Heat

Release

Rate

Test

320

(None)
30

.

0

o

o o o o o o o o o o

TT CD in cu CD ID ro o cu CU cu ^H!

(PW) paseaiay }B 3 h ib^oj.

cn

CD

65

Figure

35,

Office

Module,

Total

Heat

Released

Test

320

(None)
100

s

1

s

i

i

i

i

r~

i

i

i

TC2

CD

> CJ

< h—

i

i

(3 ) ajrnejadiuai

66

Figure

36.

Office

Module,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

320

(None)
1000

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

320

OJ

m

o

e\/\

9

(

t

/)

I /

J

J'

I

* /

*

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o cn CO ID ID ro cu

(3 ) ajn^ejsduuai

67

Figure

37.

Office

Module,

Sprinkler

(near)

Gas

Temperature

Tests

320

(None)

and

321

(None)
CU O O OJ

CJ U O

(^uaDjad aujniQA) uoiq.e j^uaauoG

68

Figure

38.

Office

Module,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

320

(None)
i

ZD

h-l s

cn Q o

cu < LU

cn Ll_ z 01

(MW) a^ey aseaiay }eaH

cn

CDE

•f—

1

69

Figure

39

.

Office

Module,

Heat

Release

Rate

Test

321

(None)
500

o

o o o o o o o o O

o LD o LfJ o m o LD

m m oj cu

(PH) paseat ay }eaH moi

70

Figure

40

„

Office

Module,

Total

Heat

Released

Test

321

(None)
800

i

—i

1

1

1

i

l

I

l

l

I

TC2

CD

> CJ

< i—

i

I o

o o o o O O o o o o

CM "T CO CD O CM ^r CO CO

CO in m CM

(3 ) ajruBjadujai

CD

CDS

•M

\—

71

Figure

41.

Office

Module,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

321

(None)
C02

C\J O

72

Figure

42.

Office

Module,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

321

(None)
800

i

1

1

1

—i

1

1

I

l

l

I

310

T-l O T_l

««-

' Ol OJ

m cn m

3

CD

o o O o o o o o o O

C\J XT CD CD o CVJ ^r CD CD

1^ CD in m ru

(3 ) ajn^Gjadiuai

73

Figure

43,

Office

Module,

Average

Upper

Layer

Temperature

Tests

310

(QR)

„

311

(SSP),

320

(None)

and

321

(None)
CO

b>

X

d>

O

eiO

O)

.CO. O

CM

®

O

O

CO

CM

CO

I ©

74

Figure

44.

Open

Office

Plan

View
100

i

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

l

I

TC5

CD CD

> CJ

< h-

(3 ) ajn^Bjadiuai

75

(

Figure

45.

Large

Area

Office

Module,

Upper

Layer

Temperatures

Test

4126

(QR)
AVG

i o

CVJ "*~t ^

(3 ) aunq.BJ0dujai

76

Time

(s)

Figure

46.

Large

Area

Office

Module,

Average

Upper

Layer

Temperature

Test

4126

(QR)
o

CJ

1

J

f

r

i

i

OJ

cuO OJ

CJ o

_L

cn

CD

CD

CO

s

/

f/v

K

i

l 1

o

o

cn

o

o

cu

o

o

1 1 i 1 1

i

1 <

co in cn OJ ^ O

OJ o CD UD "sT OJ o *cH

auunioA) UOiq.B J4U0GUOQ

77

Figure

47.

Large

Area

Office

Module,

Gas

Concentrations

Test

4126

(QR)
NBS«1 14A ibev. 2*0

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR-88/3695

2. Performing Organ. Report No 3. Publication Date

January 1988

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Quick Response Sprinklers in Office Configurations.* Fire Test Results

S, AUTHOR(S)

William D. Walton and Edward K. Budnick

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than N BS,

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

see instructions) ?. Contract/Grant No.

t. Type of Report & Period Covered

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)

General Services Administration U.S. Fire Administration

Wasnington, DC and Emmitsburg

,

MD

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

PH Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information . If document includes a significant

bi bliography or literature survey „ mention it here)

A series of fire tests in several typical office occupancy configurations were

conducted in order to address the use of quick response sprinkler technology. These

tests included 1) heat release rate tests, 2) compartment fire tests and 3) a large

office test. The heat release rate tests were designed to characterize the burning

rates of a computer work station and open shelf office storage. The compartment fire

tests were designed to examine the effectiveness of quick response sprinklers in

typical office fires involving a computer work station or an open office module.

Measurements of heat release rate, air temperature, and the concentration of oxygen,

carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were taken. A large office test configured with

multiple open office modules was conducted to verify the compartment test results and

examine the possibility of multiple sprinkler activation. Measurements of air

temperature and the concentration oxygen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were

taken.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

burning rate; calorimetry; compartment fires; fire growth; fire tests; heat

release rate; oxygen consumption; quick response sprinklers; room fires;

sprinklers ; toxicity

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

Hn Unlimited

HI For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

~~| Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

84

15. Price

[^] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $13.95

U 5 COMM”DC 8043-P80