# Clean agent system in IT room?



## mtlogcabin (Jan 21, 2016)

Relocated IT room in an existing medical office building that is fully sprinkled NFPA 13

The architect wants to install a Clean Agent System in the IT room and remove the 2 water supplied sprinkler heads. 904.2 states an alternative fire extinguishing system has to be approved by the fire code official. We have approved a few of them with the condition the water supplied sprinkler heads where installed/remained. We allow them to install high temp heads to avoid the water discharging before the Clean Agent System has time to work.

The architect and his client are adamant about removing the existing heads.

Question

Are we being overly cautious by requiring a back up system in case the first one malfunctions or is over run? Any history of system failures?


----------



## cda (Jan 21, 2016)

we have allowed it, but normally in more critical places, like cell phone switching room.

But the walls are two hour walls, more than likley you do not have two hour walls.

Sounds like you are dealing with a small room. Have not heard of a failure, but have only seen one ever discharge, and that was an accident.

I guess a pre action would cost a little for two heads.

How critical is this to thier work??   Maybe try for two hour walls, with smoke detection in the room???


----------



## Msradell (Jan 21, 2016)

I've seen multiple locations clean agent extinguishing systems were installed in computer rooms and none of them had sprinkler heads. They all did have extensive smoke alarm systems above and below the floor as well as 2 hour rated walls. If you don't have both of those I think your approach is reasonable.


----------



## JPohling (Jan 22, 2016)

I would go pre-action


----------



## mjesse (Jan 22, 2016)

I agree with keeping the water heads. That's what we do here.

If the clean agent doesn't extinguish the flames, the equipment is already toast. That's when you need water to save the structure.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jan 22, 2016)

2 head room, pre action way too much $$$ to install. Leave the heads in, if it gets hot enough to set off a head you have a heck of a fire. IF you let them install the clean agent make sure they do a fan door test, a room that small it will not take much of a hole to fail the test. I would ask for automatic door closure connected to the fire alarm system to prevent the box they will use to hold open the door. Can not tell you how many of these rooms will not hold enough gas because every time they pull a new wire they never fill in the hole. Also if they are using ceiling tiles make sure they use clips to hold it down, or better yet let them calculate the space above the false ceiling in the gas calculation. Do all walls go tight to the deck?  The fan test is required by NFPA 2001.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 25, 2016)

> RThe architect and his client are adamant about removing the existing heads.


Why are they so adamant that they be removed?


----------



## cda (Jan 25, 2016)

> Why are they so adamant that they be removed?


Water on their Dell computer,

Fire happens, they still have a fried Dell


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jan 25, 2016)

IT people are generally more worried about leaks or accidental discharge than an actual fire.  I would think that a clean agent system would cost more to install than a pre-action valve.


----------



## Minnesota Paul (Jan 26, 2016)

I agree, the pre-action system is the best choice


----------

