ANALYSIS OF SLOPED CEILING AND SPRINKLER ORIENTATION IMPACT ON DELIVERED DENSITY

Prepared for the National Fire Sprinkler Associatio n February 2013

www.customspraysolutions.com info@customspraysolutions.com

T: +1 301-775-2967

Abstract
The problem of how to best protect commodities from fire under sloped ceilings is an unsolved fire sprinkler challenge. Because of a lack of understanding of this problem, there is minimal engineering guidance on how to design sprinkler systems in this configuration. Fire protection solutions in these situations are often developed through ad hoc design concepts which are validated with large-scale tests. This empirical sprinkler system design approach, requiring case-specific large-scale testing, is expensive leaving little room for optimization and little opportunity for generalization to other protection challenges with even the slightest differences. In this study, we take a revolutionary new quantitative approach to address the sloped ceiling commodity protection challenge. A commercially available k-14 sprinkler head was characterized using the University of Maryland invented Spatially-resolved Spray Scanning System (4S). The complete spatio-stochastic spray description obtained from the 4S was used as input into the Custom Spray Solutions (CSS) SprayVIZ software tool along with the geometric details of the protected space. The SprayVIZ software provides quantitative visualization of the impact of ceiling slope on the delivered density to the protected commodities based on the sprinkler activation scenario of interest. The SprayVIZ software analysis reveals that when the sprinkler deflector is parallel to the floor, the sloped ceiling acts as an obstruction. Further, the SprayVIZ analysis reveals that as the slope increases the percentage of water delivered to the protected commodity decreases when the sprinkler deflector is parallel to the floor.

www.customspraysolutions.com
2

1. Introduction
The effect of sloped ceilings on sprinkler spray distribution performance is a subject that continues to challenge the fire protection industry. There is minimal guidance that exists for the practitioner and any design direction is typically a result of a large-scale test, the results of which may not readily be transferred to other scenarios (e.g. different sprinkler heads, pressure and flow characteristics, rack configurations and clearances, ceiling heights, or ceiling slopes). This inability to provide concrete guidance stems from fundamental knowledge gaps in sprinkler spray characteristics. In this study we bridge these gaps through innovations that 1) provide detailed characteristics of the sprinkler head spray properties and 2) predict delivered density to protected surfaces using these head characteristics. We demonstrate how this new technology can be deployed to attack real-world fire sprinkler design challenges through an evaluation of the impact of ceiling slope on delivered density.

2. Current Guidance on Sloped Ceilings

There is a lack of clear guidance on how to design fire sprinkler systems with ceilings having a rise of more than 2:12. Two of the leading authorities in fire protection, NFPA and FM Global, provide some limited guidance; however, in several key areas they diverge from each other. For example, NFPA requires that sprinkler heads be installed parallel to the ceiling (due to spray density performance considerations) while FM Global requires that they are installed parallel to the floor (due to spray momentum performance considerations). Needless to say it is physically impossible to comply with both requirements. While each organization has salient points supporting their design guidance, there is simply insufficient analysis to determine the performance benefits of one position versus the other. NFPA 13 provides only two solutions for slopes greater than 2:12, namely putting in place a drop-ceiling (effectively eliminating the slope) or conducting a performance based analysis to determine the requirements based on the specific configuration and sprinkler head selected. It has generally been indicated that the NFPA standard guidance on coverage area and flow does not apply in sloped ceiling situations. This leaves the practitioner in a challenging predicament with little guidance other than experience.

3. Basic Scenarios Evaluated

A standard 4x4x4 pallet load double rack configuration was evaluated with a storage height of 19 and a starting ceiling height of 25. Sprinkler drops were defined as 1 such that the sprinklers are located 5 from the top of the load. This configuration is typical of many storage facilities and can serve as a baseline for comparison with each of the sloped ceiling configurations. www.customspraysolutions.com
3

3.1 Rack Configuration

The storage space was created in the model to simulate a double rack configuration. The loads are 4 cubes spaced with 6 transverse and longitudinal flue spaces and a 4 aisle. A plan view for the storage space of interest detailing the initial sprinkler locations relative to the commodity can be seen in Figure 1.

10

10

10 4

0.5

Figure 1 Plan view of modeled space

The loads are stacked 4 high with 1 spacing between the loads, thus the top of the load is at a height of 19, while the ceiling is located at 25 and the sprinklers are on a 1 drop placing them at a height of 24 and 5 above the top of the load. This three dimensional orientation can be seen in Figure 2 which shows the configuration in the SprayVIZ software.

www.customspraysolutions.com
4

Figure 2 3D view of wet commodity from SprayVIZ software.

3.2 Ceiling Slope & Sprinkler Layout

In each case the modeled sprinkler flowed at a discharge rate of 60 gpm, for the k-14 sprinkler head tested this corresponds to 18 psi. In the flat ceiling configuration the sprinklers are spaced 10 on center, for the sloped ceilings the sprinklers are spaced 10 on center aligned with the slope of the ceiling (i.e. the greater the slope the shorter the horizontal separation between the heads). Spacing was configured such that Sprinkler 03 was always located directly above the center of the commodity as depicted in Figure 1. Three separate ceiling slopes were evaluated with 2:12, 4:12, and 6:12 rises being compared with the flat ceiling.

3.3 Nozzle Parallel with Ceiling vs. Floor

The orientation of the sprinkler with respect to the ceiling has been a debated issue for some time. NFPA and FM offer differing guidance on what orientation is correct for sloped ceilings however no quantitative evidence has been provided to date to indicate which www.customspraysolutions.com
5

orientation offers better protection and what impact, if any, the change in orientation has on the delivered density.

4. Results
For each of the results below a k-factor 14 sprinkler head operating at 18 psi was utilized.

4.1 Flat Ceiling

The control scenario was the flat ceiling, Figure 3; each of the other scenarios was compared to the results from this scenario. As discussed above the sprinklers were spaced 10 on center with sprinkler 03 located above the middle of the box.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3 Commodity View Reference room, flat ceiling. (a) Isometric view; (b) Plan view delivered density to commodities

4.1.1 Sloped Ceilings A total of 6 different sloped ceiling configurations were examined and modeled. Each slope (2:12, 4:12, 6:12) was modeled with the sprinkler parallel to the floor and also parallel to the ceiling. The main difference for each configuration, other than the slope itself, is that the spacing of the sprinklers is measured along the slope, thus effectively making the sprinklers closer together horizontally in relation to the floor with increasing slope. The results from each of the sloped configurations are somewhat similar when compared to flat ceiling reference geometry as shown in Figure 3 which served as a baseline for much of the analysis conducted. However, the 6:12 slope differs most from the other configurations in that there is a significant quantity of spray that hits the roof for both the www.customspraysolutions.com
6

parallel to the floor and parallel to the ceiling sprinkler orientations. In this situation it was observed that the parallel to the floor configuration results in the highest quantity of water spray impacting the roof with the majority of it being directed at the lower portion of the slope. Representative figures for the 6:12 configuration are provided below which show the detail of the spray for isometric, plan views, and ceiling views. These figures, Figures 4 & 5, show the detailed spray patterns in the full geometry and water distributions to the ceiling and commodity for the two sprinkler orientations.

Figure 4 Isometric view of 6:12 slope with sprinklers parallel to the floor, density distribution in mm/min

www.customspraysolutions.com
7

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 5 Density distribution of k-factor 14 head at 18 psi in mm/min. (a) Commodity view sprinkler parallel to the floor; (b) Commodity view sprinkler parallel to the ceiling; (c) Reflected ceiling view sprinkler parallel to the floor; (d) Reflected ceiling view sprinkler parallel to the ceiling.

www.customspraysolutions.com
8

5. Analysis
5.1 Impact of Sloped Ceiling
Figure 6 below shows the difference in the delivered density to the top of the commodity for each slope with the sprinkler parallel to the ceiling. The difference is calculated by subtracting the delivered density of water of the sloped configuration from the reference room (flat ceiling) density. The legend has been provided to show areas that have a deviation greater than 20% from that of the reference average flux. As can be observed there are significant areas where the delivered flux from the sprinkler on a sloped ceiling is within 20% of the reference flux (green shade) and also significant areas where the delivered flux from the sloped ceiling sprinkler is more than 20% less than the reference ceiling (blue shade). The flux from the sloped ceiling sprinklers exceeds that of the reference flux by more than 20% over a much smaller surface area (red).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6 Difference in delivered density (flat ceiling-sloped ceiling) to the surface of the commodity with sprinkler parallel to the ceiling. (a) 2:12 slope, (b) 4:12 slope, (c) 6:12 slope

www.customspraysolutions.com
9

Figure 7 below is similar to Figure 6 with the exception that the sprinkler is parallel to the floor in these simulations.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7 Difference in delivered density (flat ceiling-sloped ceiling) to the surface of the commodity with sprinkler parallel to the floor. (a) 2:12 slope, (b) 4:12 slope, (c) 6:12 slope

As can be observed in both figures the greater the slope the greater the percentage of surface area that deviates from the reference configuration. As the slope increases the sprinklers higher on the slope provide more of their water to commodities further away from the intended area of protection.

www.customspraysolutions.com
10

When a single sprinkler head, Sprinkler 02, is isolated and the impact of the slope is observed, with the sprinkler parallel to the floor, it is clear that the sprinkler spray is still centered over the protected commodity. It is also clear that the increased distance from the head to the protected commodity increases the coverage area of the sprinkler but simultaneously reduces the delivered density. Figure 8 shows the delivered density of a single sprinkler with the sprinkler parallel to the floor for each configuration.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 8 single sprinkler distributions with sprinkler parallel to the floor. (a) Reference flux for flat ceiling; (b) 2:12 slope; (c) 4:12 slope; (d) 6:12 slope, density in mm/min.

www.customspraysolutions.com
11

5.2 Impact of Sprinkler Orientation

The orientation of the sprinkler head clearly has an impact on the delivered density to the surface and affects the quantity of water that impacts the roof, as shown earlier. When the sprinkler orientation is parallel with the floor in a sloped configuration there is a greater percentage of water that impacts the ceiling. While orienting the sprinkler parallel to the ceiling results in less flux to the ceiling, as the slope increases the flux to the ceiling does as well. Figure 9 shows the percentage of total water flowed that is delivered to the ceiling and to the top of the protected commodities as a function of ceiling slope and sprinkler orientation. Figure 10 shows the impact of the orientation on the delivered density.
Percentage of Total Water to Ceiling [%] Percentage of Total Water to Commodity [%] 0 2:12 (9.5) 4:12 (18.4) Ceiling Rise (Angle [deg]) Parallel to Floor Parallel to Ceiling 6:12 (26.6) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 0 2:12 (9.5) 4:12 (18.4) 6:12 (26.6) Ceiling Rise (Angle [deg]) Parallel to Floor Parallel to Ceiling

(a)

(b)

Figure 9 Percent of total flowed water delivered to the protected commodities and to the ceiling as a function of sprinkler orientation and ceiling slope. (a) Percent of water delivered to ceiling (note in the 4:12 configuration approximately 0.1% of the total flowed water was delivered to the ceiling); (b) Percent of total flowed water delivered to the top surface of the protected commodities.

www.customspraysolutions.com
12

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 10 Impact of sprinkler orientation on delivered density. (a) Reference distribution; (b) 6:12 slope with sprinkler parallel to the floor; (c) 6:12 slope with sprinkler parallel to the ceiling

www.customspraysolutions.com
13

6. Conclusions
This analysis examined the impact that ceiling slope and sprinkler orientation has on the delivered density to the protected commodity. For this specific configuration (sprinkler type, commodity geometry, pressure, etc.) it was shown that both sprinkler orientation and ceiling slope impact the spray distribution. With a single sprinkler activating it is clear that the protected coverage area is shifted based on the orientation of the head as well as due to the increased clearance between the sprinkler and the protected commodity due to the slope. Furthermore for the tested sprinkler head it appears that orienting the sprinkler head parallel to the ceiling reduces the quantity of water that strikes the ceiling (the ceiling is less of an obstruction) and that it also increases the quantity of water that is delivered to the protected commodities. This effect increases as the slope increases.

7. Additional Applications
The CSS methodology can also be used to address many of the other sprinkler protection challenges facing the industry, namely: The sprinkler droplet momentum interaction with fire and plume dynamics The high clearance sprinkler problem in industrial operations Impact of pressure on actual delivered density Differences in sprinkler performance based on model and manufacturer Cloud and other complex ceiling arrangements and designs Sloped, curved, and other ceiling configuration impact on spray distribution Deflector orientation effects on commodity protection High cost of large scale testing

In addition to the current design challenges above, the methodology can be applied in many other situations where a non-standard solution is required or as a screening tool prior to conducting large scale testing.

www.customspraysolutions.com
14