Hi, Mark;

We looked at a number of fire suppression systems in 2003 when our new
building was under construction.  There may be new technologies that
have come up since that time (I recall there were some new non-halon gas
systems coming out then, but were too new to know what their reliability
might be, and were horribly expensive!).  Below is a detailed assessment
that our consultant provided us in making the system selection.  Long
story short, a single-stage (wet-pipe) water system was recommended; we
ended up with a two-stage pre-action water system, which also met our
needs pretty well.

Hope it helps!



_____________________________________________________________________________

The following is my take on many aspects of the fire
detection and suppression question. I believe the answers to your
questions are included.

In addition to meeting environmental standards, the institution should
also meet fire safety standards for the protection of the collection. 
A
fire detection system should provide an early warning of a possible
fire
situation.  The smoke type of detector is preferred in a museum
situation because on average, smoke detectors sense a possible fire
situation 2 minutes earlier than a heat detector.  Heat detectors,
combined rate-of-rise and fixed temperature, should only be used in
areas where smoke detectors may be subject to false alarms.  Smoke
detectors should be used in non-collection spaces as well as in
collection areas since a fire anywhere in the building can lead to
smoke
and water damage of the collection.  Heat detectors are not generally
of
use if a sprinkler fire suppression system is included in the building
because the heat detectors would only give an alarm at about the same
time that a sprinkler head activates.  Since water flow in the
sprinkler
pipes is monitored by the fire alarm panel, when a sprinkler head is
heat activated in a fire, an alarm signal is sent to the monitoring
site, therefore the sprinkler system will perform the same function as
a
heat detector fire detection system, plus suppress the fire.  Code
does
not require a fire detection system if a sprinkler system is present,
but for the safety of the collection, a smoke detection system is
strongly recommended.

Acceptable smoke detectors are of four types: the ionization smoke
detector; the photoelectric smoke detector; the projected beam
photoelectric smoke detector; and the VESDA* (Very Early-warning Smoke
Detection Apparatus) system.  The fire alarm detection system is to be
monitored 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

With this early warning, it may be possible to attack the fire with
portable fire extinguishers.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) extinguishers are
the
extinguisher of choice.  They fell from favour when the original
Halon's
came along because Halon was more effective on more types of fires,
the
Halon extinguishers were much lighter in weight, Halon did not 'fog'
on
discharge, and the discharge range was greater.  New Halon gas types
has
not been proven acceptable for museum use.  When using CO2 portable
extinguishers as the initial fire suppression device, it is necessary
to
provide pressurized water portable extinguishers as a back-up unit,
since CO2 is not rated for use on Class A fires (wood, paper,
cardboard,
etc).  They may work, but the water is needed in case they do not
effectively suppress the fire.

Dry chemical ABC powder extinguishers should not be used near objects
because of the impossibility of removing the chemical powder from
porous
surfaces, such as open-pored wood, buckskin leather, textiles, etc. 
In
addition, if used on electrical apparatus, the equipment will have to
be
replaced since the powder will turn to glass on hot surfaces, and it
acts as an electrical insulator.

It was not noticed if the Esplanade plans include a standpipe (hose
rack) fire fighting system.  If a standpipe fire fightin
g system is
provided, it would be preferable to provide a hose reel system if it
is
accepted as an alternate.  A hose reel system is preferable because of
the ease of laying out the hose, and the smaller hose diameter.  Less
damage to the collection may occur from moving this smaller, lighter,
more manoeuvrable hose through a gallery space than from moving a
standpipe hose.  The water supply pipes for either system will need to
be copper or galvanized steel to lessen the amount of corrosion
products
in the water, and the pipes should be cleaned to potable water
standards
to remove cutting and protection oils, flux materials, etc. which
could
cause removal difficulties from objects.

In general, a sprinkler system should be provided in a museum, since
it
is better to lose only a small part of the collection to fire, smoke
and
water damage than to lose the whole collection and the building to a
fire.  Most water-damaged objects can be repaired.  Objects consumed
in
a fire cannot.

A water-based fire suppression system has been proposed for the
building.  The preferred type of sprinkler system for museums is the
wet-pipe type, as opposed to dry-pipe, pre-action, or firecycle types.

The use of dry-pipe sprinkler systems is not recommended for the
following reasons:

   * Dry-pipe sprinkler systems are more complex than wet-pipe ones,
and
     have been shown to be less reliable in a fire situation.
   * Dry-pipe sprinkler systems are slower to start working in an
     effective manner once fire has broken out than wet-pipe ones,
since
     water is not immediately available at the sprinkler head when the
     head melts open.  (The gas, usually air, in the sprinkler pipes
     must be expelled before water is available at the triggered head
or
     heads.)  More dry-pipe sprinkler heads are required to emit water
     in a fire situation because of the time detail.
   * The water that comes out of a dry-pipe sprinkler system is
     significantly dirtier than that from a wet-pipe system since a
dry
     system always has priming water in the sprinkler tree.  When the
     large quantity of oxygen present in the compressed air in the
pipes
     is combined with the water required for priming, which results in
a
     RH in the pipes of 100%, much more corrosion occurs than in a
     wet-pipe system, since the dissolved oxygen in the water is soon
     depleted in a wet-pipe system.  The corrosion problem can be
     combated by pressurizing the pipes with nitrogen or carbon
dioxide,
     but this is an added expense, and more complex than using
     compressed air.  I do not understand how compressed air combats
     corrosion as stated in your email.
   * Dry-pipe sprinkler systems are more prone to leakage because of
the
     water hammer that occurs with the pipes are loaded with water
     during testing or a fire situation.

Note that the second reason does not apply to pre-action systems,
since
the term 'pre-action' refers to the venting of the gas from the pipes
and filling them with water prior to the melting out of a sprinkler
head
or heads.  The venting of the gas is controlled by the smoke alarm
detection system, where one or two smoke detectors are required to
alarm
before the sprinkler valve opens.  'Firecycle' sprinkler systems are a
variant of the pre-action type, where water is emitted to the
sprinkler
pipes under the control of heat detectors, and the water to the
sprinkler system is automatically shut off when the temperature drops
below the operating temperature of the heat detectors.  Since heat
detectors have to be used instead of smoke detectors, early warning of
a
fire situation is lost with this system unless a separate smoke
detection system is also provided.

Copper, thermoplastic or galvanized steel pipe is preferable to black
steel pipe since the water emitted by a black steel pipe system is
usually very dirty due to the corrosion that occurs within the system,
leading to object conservation and cleaning problems
  The sprinkler
system should be cleaned to potable water or boiler water
specifications
in order to remove rust, cutting oils, protection oils, flux
materials,
etc. so that the water emitted by the system in a fire situation will
be
relatively clean.  Unfortunately, the sprinkler piping proposed for
use
is black steel.  This system will require flushing and cleaning.  An
effort should be made to use upright sprinkler heads wherever
possible,
and dry-pendant heads wherever upright heads cannot be used so that
when
the regular flushing of the sprinkler system occurs, the fewest
pockets
of "unflushed" water will remain.  Because of the close proximity to
sprinkler heads to storage equipment and the equipment required to
access the storage equipment, sprinkler heads should be equipped with
cages to reduce the possibility of accidental damage.  The sprinkler
system will be supervised by the fire alarm panel - i.e. water flow in
the sprinkler system will be reported at the fire alarm annunciator
panel, the panel where the fire detection system is monitored to
inform
the authorities where a fire is located in the building.  For areas of
the building where hidden sprinkler heads may be located, such as
above
false ceilings, the use of "annunciating" sprinkler heads, or flow
detection devices in the branch piping serving these areas should be
provided so that it may be easier to identify where a leak is
occurring.

As explained above, wet-pipe sprinkler systems are simpler, more
reliable and cheaper than dry-pipe ones.  They are also more
effective.
Fire studies have shown that most fires are controlled by three to
four
wet-pipe sprinkler heads going off.  ALL the heads do NOT go off
except
in the special case of deluge systems.  Since each sprinkler head
emits
approximately 20 gallons per minute, as a gentle sprinkle, the amount
of
water entering a space (80 gallons per minute) is significantly less
that the 125 to 250 gallons a minute emitted by fire hoses.  The force
behind the fire hose stream is greater than that behind the water
droplets coming out of the sprinkler heads.  By their very nature,
fire
hoses will cause greater damage than a sprinkler system because of the
pressure and quantity of water emitted, and the need to drag hoses
through the building.

The disadvantage of installing a wet-pipe sprinkler system (or any
sprinkler system) is that no matter how reliable the equipment,
failures
and accidents can occur.  When such a failure occurs in a museum, the
water from these pipes, which have to run through every space in the
building to be effective, can cause irreparable damage to
irreplaceable
objects.  The pre-action and firecycle dry-pipe systems should not
dump
water into the building if something happens to the pipes since the
water valve is closed until the fire detection system sends a signal
to
open it.  However, this possible advantage does not seem significant
enough to encourage the use of these systems instead of a wet-pipe
system.

It may be necessary to provide a supervised valve in the branches of
the
sprinkler system that serve temporary exhibition spaces, since some
lending institutions may have a loan condition that requires the
sprinklers in the space housing their objects to be deactivated for
the
length of the show.  The spaces servicing the temporary exhibition
spaces will also need to have supervised valves in the sprinkler
system
so that they can be shut off if required.  This requirement can only
be
met if the fire officials agree, since it is probably in conflict with
the code.  Most institutions are dropping this requirement as they
come
to realize that the advantages of having a sprinkler system outweigh
the
disadvantages.

A new sprinkler system has been developed that appears to be suited
for
museum applications.  The water mist sprinkler system delivers water
at
high pressures so that it turns to a high speed mist at the sprinkler
head.  The volume of water required is greatly reduced from that

required in a conventional sprinkler system, therefore the size of
piping required is also greatly reduced.  Stainless steel piping is
used, therefore corrosion is not a concern.  It is a relatively
complex
system when compared with a wet-pipe sprinkler system, therefore
likely
to be less reliable, but the short discharge times and the small
volume
of water required (experiments have shown that less than a gallon of
water was required to control many small room fires) makes it seem
very
attractive.  There are many mist variants, but the information appears
to show that fires are controlled with approximately 60% of the water
required by a conventional sprinkler system.  It is unlikely the
Esplanade budget can cover the cost of a mist system.

Building codes require various parts of the structure to remain intact
for various periods of time, generally based on life safety needs. 
For
instance, where the code may only call for a forty-five-minute fire
rating for the walls, floor and ceiling of the storage area, a
two-hour
fire rating should be provided, to give added protection to the
collection.  The doors and fire dampers used would have to be
appropriate for use in a two-hour rated wall.  In addition to the
above,
fire-resistant filing cabinets should be provided for the storage of
paper and computer magnetic media registration records.

"Fire compartmentation" is a concept often incorporated into the
design
of storage areas for large museums.  The idea is to limit the quantity
of collection that would be exposed to a fire by limiting the area of
any collection storage space.  The generally accepted maximum is 5000
sf
of single storey storage space, to be surrounded by two-hour rated
walls, floor and ceiling.

To reiterate, a single-stage sprinkler system appears to have fewer
drawbacks than a two-stage sprinkler system, but the main  concern is
to
have a sprinkler system, and that concern is being met!   


------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McShane, Assistant--Cultural History
Esplanade Museum
401 First Street SE
Medicine Hat, AB   T1A 8W2
Tel: (403) 502-8587
[log in to unmask]


>>> "Janzen, Mark" <[log in to unmask]> 8/5/2008 10:01 AM >>>
Colleagues,

We are meeting with an engineering firm tomorrow on future renovation
of our exhibition spaces to bring ourselves to professional museum code
on HVAC and fire suppression.

I would like to solicit opinions, experiences, and sources for what
fire suppression technologies are currently state of the art in art
exhibition spaces.

Do we lean toward water, technical fire suppressant systems, etc.? By
the way, we currently have no suppression at all.

Thanks for all information.

Please excuse and cross postings.

Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collection Manager
Ulrich Museum of Art
316-978-5850


=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read

"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the 
addressee and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged 
material.  Any unauthorized review, distribution or other use of or
the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is
prohibited.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete or destroy this message and any copies

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).