Clean Agents PDF

CleanAgents
TS30031
Sunday9:00am12:00pm
BillHowerton
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
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

committee meets to discuss p
proposals
p a document is g
generated
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.
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. NITMAMs
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 ddocument.t
Class A Changes
5.4.2.4* The minimum designg 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
Class C Changes
5.4.2.5 The minimum designg 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 ththan 480 volts
lt which
hi h
remains powered during and after agent discharge, shall be determined
by testing, as necessary, and a hazard analysis.
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-over-
Ethernet (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 Heptane Class A/C Class A Class C
Agent MEC Cup Burner Design Design Design
UL Value Table Concentration Concentration Concentration
2166/ A.5.4.2(b) Edition 2008 Edition 2011 Edition 2011
UL 2127
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%
Novec1230 3.5% 4.5% 4.2% 4.5% 4.7%
ProInert 28.5% 35% 34.2% 35% 38.5%
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 creatingg 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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-100.00
Prressure (pa)
-200.00 ECARO-25
FM-200
-300.00 Novec 1230
-400.00
-500
500.00
00
-600.00
Time (sec)
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
1-
minute.
Room Pressure Examples
Room Pressure
1000.0
900.0
800.0
a)
700 0
700.0
P ressure (pa
600.0 ProInert
500.0 Standard Inert Gas System
400.0
300 0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec)
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
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 % Retention
R t ti Reqd
R d Area
A Max. Area
M A Relief
R li f Vent
V t
Conc. Time (min.) 2
(in ) 2
(in ) Damper Reqd (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
FM-200 6.25% 10 221 228 No

6 7%
6.7% 10 221 221 No
7.0% 10 221 217 Yes / 4
ProInert 34.2% 10 501 496 Yes / 5

35 0%
35.0% 10 513 490 Yes / 23
38.5% 10 564 468 Yes / 96
Inergen 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)
After discharge the Leakage Air In
weight of the agent

pushes out the low Descending Interface
leaks.
Agent/Air
Fresh air is pulled in at Agent/Air
Mixture
Mixture
the upper leaks.
Descending Interface is
the protected height.
Agent Out Leakage

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.
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 Pounds of Percent

Agent Design Agent per Comparison
Concentration 1,000 ft3 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
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 77.5%.
5% (45 second decrease in 10
10-
minute hold time)
Agenda part II
Clean Agent 201
NFPA Recommendations on Exposure Limits of
Agents
Update on Climate Issues
New NFPA Design Concentration Effects
Summary
Clean Agent 201
Design Concentration
Vapor
p Pressure
Effect on Room Pressure
Agent
Design
Specific
Agent Concentration
Vapor Volume
(70 F)
Novec 1230 1.156 ft3/lb.
4.5%
ECARO-25 3.171 ft3/lb.
8.7%
FM-200 2.208 ft3/lb.
6.7%
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
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 Novec
2.208 ft3 1230
1.156 ft3
11 386
11.386 ft 3
Remember Specific Vapor
Volumes
1000 ft3 room s
Agent D.C. (70 F)
Cubic of gas that would make (ft3/lb.)
up Design Concentration Novec 1230 4.5% 1.156
ECARO-25 8.7% 3.171
Divide that volume byy
FM-200 6.7% 2.208
Specific Vapor Volume (s)
ProInert 35.0% 11.386
If we have a 1000 ft3 room at
agent
g design
g concentration
how much agent will be in s
the room. Agent D.C. (70 F)
(ft3/lb.)
4.5% of 1000 is 45 ft3 Novec 1230 4.5% 1.156
8.7% of 1000 is 87 ft3, etc. ECARO-25 8.7% 3.171
FM-200 6.7% 2.208
Divide ft3 by s to get pounds ProInert 35% 11.386
45/1.156
45/1 156 = 38.9
38 9 lbs
lbs.
87/3.171 = 27.4 lbs.
Adding agent also adds cubic feet of volume.
This is why the equation is used
used.
W = V/s x (C/(100-C))
Design s Pounds of
Agent Concentration (70 F) agent per
(ft3/lb.) 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
What About Inert Gas?
1000 ft3 room at 34% is 340 ft3 of inert gas
Table from NFPA 2001
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
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 ~
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
heat to vaporize the agents
g
Agent has its own energy to boil off and create vapor
Room Pressure Liquid Agents
Room Pressure
200.00
100.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-100.00
Prressure (pa)
-200.00 ECARO-25
FM-200
-300.00 Novec 1230
-400.00
-500
500.00
00
-600.00
Time (sec)
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
1-
minute.
Room Pressure Examples
Room Pressure
1000.0
900.0
800.0
a)
700 0
700.0
P ressure (pa
600.0 ProInert
500.0 Standard Inert Gas System
400.0
300 0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec)
Properties of Clean Agents Room
Pressure
What pressure can a room take without
destruction.
General Rule
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 % Retention
R t ti Reqd
R d Area
A Max. Area
M A Relief
R li f Vent
V t
Conc. Time (min.) 2
(in ) 2
(in ) Damper Reqd (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
FM-200 6.25% 10 221 228 No

6 7%
6.7% 10 221 221 No
7.0% 10 221 217 Yes / 4
ProInert 34.2% 10 501 496 Yes / 5

35 0%
35.0% 10 513 490 Yes / 23
38.5% 10 564 468 Yes / 96
Inergen 34.2% 10 1216 496 Yes / 720

38 5%
38.5% 10 1369 468 Y / 901
Yes
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?
Vapor Density
Agent Mix Vapor Density
After discharge the
agent/air
g mixture is
completely homogenous
throughout the hazard
Agent/Air Mixture
(Homogeneous)
After discharge the Leakage Air In
weight of the agent

pushes out the low Descending Interface
leaks.
Agent/Air
Fresh air is pulled in at Agent/Air
Mixture
Mixture
the upper leaks.
Descending Interface is
the protected height.
Agent Out Leakage

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 AgentsHold Time
Vapor
p Density
y of Agents
g ((lb/ft3))
0.9
por Density (lb/ft3)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
02
0.2
Vap
0.1
0
Novec FM-200 ECARO- Halon Inergen ProInert Air
1230 25 1301
Properties of Clean AgentsHold Time
Agent/Air Mixture Density Relative to Air
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
4.5 %
6.7 %
8.7 %
34.2 %
0.6
100 %
5%
35 %
0.4
0.2
0
Novec 1230 FM-200 ECARO-25 Halon 1301 Inergen ProInert Air
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
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.
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 ththatt
gets into the body during the exposure.
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 deexcretion.
c et o
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.
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
5-Minute Class A Class C Design

Agent Exposure Design Concentration
Limit 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%
Halon 1301 (Historical) 5% 5% 5%
No regulations that limit or ban the use of FM-
200, ECARO-25, or Novec 1230.
HARC Keeping up with Legislation Issues
HEEP Report Emissions of HFCs
HFC s and PFCs
PFC s
from Fire protection are estimated at less than
1% of total HFC and PFC emissions from all
sources.
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 HFCs
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 HFCs that will be supported by the
producers of HFCs
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
Assessing the Risk

Getting the Most Value
A Co
Complete
p ete System
Syste
Approach:
- Clean Agent
- Detection
i andd 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?
Doo Myy Clients
C e ts Have
ave a
Second Option?
Whats 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
On the Agenda:
Assessing the Risk
Securing the
Resources
A Complete System
Approach:
Clean Agent
Detection and Controls
Specialized
S i li d Detection
D i
The Final Details
Discussion
66
There are a Number

of Steps That Should
b Considered
be C id d
Driven by Your Risk
Analysis
67
Obtain a Budget on
Several Alternatives
The
Th Mi
Minimum
i
Protection Needed
Up
p to the Maximum
Protection Available
68
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
Sources for
Assistance:
9 Facilities/Engineerin
g
9 General Contractor
9 Consultants - HVAC,
HVAC
UPS, Flooring
9 Fire Protection
C
Companiesi
Sprinkler
Contractors and
S
Special
i l Hazard
H d
70
Oth
Other F
Factors
t tto
Consider:
9 Timeliness
9 Coordination
Between
Specialists
9 Choose a
Professional
71
On the Agenda:
Assessing the Risk
Getting the Most
Value
A Complete System
Approach:
Clean Agent
Specialized
S i li d Detection
D i
The Final Details
Discussion
72
The Decision of
New Versus
Existing (if its an
option)
p
73
Minimum Fire
Protection to
Maximum Fire
Protection
Sprinklers
Pre-Action
Clean Agent
Detection
Advanced
Detection
74
The Minimum
P
Protection
i Needed
N d d
Up to the
Maximum
Protection
Available
9 Sprinklers Save the
Building
75
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
The Minimum
Protection
Needed Up to the
Maximum
Protection
Available
9 Sprinklers Save
the Building
9 Fire Alarm Saves
the
h Peoplel
9 Special Systems
Save the Assets
and Intangibles
77
On the Agenda:
Assessing the Risk
Gett
Getting
g the
t e Most
ost Va
Value
ue
A Complete System
Approach:
pp
Clean Agent
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
Clean Agent:
Safety:
9 Personnel
9 Equipment
9 Environment
81
Clean Agent:
The Pillars of
Special Systems
are:
9 Safety
9 Performance
9 Price
i
82
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
On the Agenda:
Assessing the Risk
A Complete System
Approach:
Clean Agent
Detection and
Controls
The Final Details
Discussion
Di i
84
Detection and
Controls:
Conventional Versus
Advanced
Special Systems
g Fire
Versus Building
Alarm
Updating to Meet the
N
New C
Coded St
Standards
d d
85
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
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
A Complete System
Approach:
Clean Agent
Specialized
p
Detection
The Final Details
Discussion
Di i
88
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
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 pphone 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
What Causes Fire ?

Increased Power
C
Consumption
ti
Increased Processor
Speeds & Heat
eat Density
e s ty
Increased Equipment &
Cable Density
100
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
Smoke Causes Computer Cancer

102
Early Detection Enables .
9 Timeto
Ti t Investigate
I ti t and
d
Understand the Threat
9 Timeto Prepare Staff
and Visitors
9 Timeto Stage the
Response and Avoid the
Cost of Nuisance Alarms
9 Timeto Investigate
Options for Control of
the Fire
103
Early Detection Enables .
9 Timeto Transfer
Data and Processes to
Redundant Systems
9 Timeto Evacuate
9 Timeto Suppress
pp the
Fire
9 Timeto Ensure Data
Center Uptime
104
Detects Thermal
Thermal
Events at the Earliest
Stage
g Possible, Before
Smoke is Visible:
9 Overheating Wire
9 Fused
F d Circuit
Ci it BBoard
d
Components
9 External Sources
Minimises Damage
and Downtime
105
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
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
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 Light signal is
passed
to processor card
for
Ultra pure air is used
processing into a
to keep optical surfaces
bar graph
clean
representation of
I l manifold
Inlet if ld the smoke
level
Laser
Chamber
Air sample is
moved through Air sample is exposed to a
the laser chamber highly stable laser light source
Dual Stage Filter with a 3.5 mm diameter
via the aspirator
laser beam
Dust is filtered
Aspirator out
110
On the Agenda:
Assessing the Risk
Getting
Gett g the
t e Most
ost Va
Value
ue
A Complete System
Approach:
Clean Agent
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

Clean Agents PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Clean Agents PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CleanAgents

2011 TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM

ROP (Report on Proposals) After the technical

At this time anyone can make a comment on the

At this time the document will g

This text was removed at the meeting in

Halon 1301 220

Ecaro-25 8.0% 24 115 249 No

FM-200 6.25% 10 221 228 No

ProInert 34.2% 10 501 496 Yes / 5

Inergen 34.2% 10 1216 496 Yes / 720

weight of the agent

Agent Out Leakage

Class C Pounds of Percent

Specific Vapor Volume is the volume of

Room pressure created during discharge

Ecaro-25 8.0% 24 115 249 No

FM-200 6.25% 10 221 228 No

ProInert 34.2% 10 501 496 Yes / 5

Inergen 34.2% 10 1216 496 Yes / 720

weight of the agent

Agent Out Leakage

Agent/Air Mixture Density Relative to Air

For more detailed information on PBPK see

5-Minute Class A Class C Design

ECARO-25 11.5% 8.7% 9%

Movement to use the Montreal Protocol to

Assessing the Risk

Will the Minimum

There are a Number

1994 Pacific Bell

1999, Pacific Bell,

June 2008 The

What Causes Fire ?

What Causes Fire ?

Smoke Causes Computer Cancer

The Attributes of ASD

The Attributes of ASD

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi