# indoor RV/ boat storage



## cda (Nov 11, 2009)

Bob,

Recently, the City of Lewisville gave a certificate of occupancy to a company called National Indoor Storage which has the capacity to house 340+ large RV's.  Prior to construction when I was Fire Marshal, the city requested an analysis to be performed as this application had not been addressed - professionally - in any industry.  In checking with NFPA the Chair for the RV section was interested as well since there are many issues with fire load including L..P.G., Diesel and Gasoline in large quantities.  The fire suppression system design and construction design took into consideration these factors.  In our research of other parts of the country we discovered the possibility of extremely inadequate fire protection in like facilities.  The facility approved in Lewisville provides control over ventilation and fire resistive natural lighting panels.

The author of the design has given us permission to share this with NFPA and Fire Officials. The NFPA committee may use the design to develop as criteria in the future.  In the meantime, sharing this design with other fire officials may be of assistance in preventing a certificate of occupancy to an inadequately protected facility in other jurisdictions in Texas.  When we made the selection we requested three design professional firms and chose RJA through the design professional section of the fire code 104.7.2 - Technical Assistance.  Please keep in mind that this is information only and not to be used as design criteria or used to design a facility without permission from RJA until NFPA creates and adopts.

Sincerely,

Cleve Joiner

Building Official

City of Lewisville

*The author of the design has given us permission to share this with NFPA and Fire Officials. The NFPA committee may use the design to develop as criteria in the future.  In the meantime, sharing this design with other fire officials may be of assistance in preventing a certificate of occupancy to an inadequately protected facility in other jurisdictions in Texas.  When we made the selection we requested three design professional firms and chose RJA through the design professional section of the fire code 104.7.2 - Technical Assistance.  Please keep in mind that this is information only and not to be used as design criteria or used to design a facility without permission from RJA until NFPA creates and adopts. *

the table for sprinkler density did not turn out good, it was a cut and paste job:::

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 1

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

REPORT OF FINDINGS

SPRINKLER PROTECTION

CRITERIA FOR A

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE

STORAGE FACILITY

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 2

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

REPORT OF FINDINGS

SPRINKLER PROTECTION CRITERIA FOR A

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

Prepared For:

Mr. Hal C. Kendrick

National Indoor Storage, LLP

5501 Independence Parkway, Suite 314

Plano, Texas 75023

February 18, 2008

Project H44071

© 2008 Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 1

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

I. BUILDING DESCRIPTION

National Indoor Storage, LLP (NIS) is developing a facility in Lewisville, Texas

specifically designed to store recreational vehicles (RV), boats and a limited number

of prestige automobiles. Light services such as interior and exterior cleaning, wax

and detail, generator servicing, and electric service to maintain battery charge will be

provided inside the building. Ancillary services available outside the building may

include a car wash area, propane tank re-fill, sewer flushing, potable water tank refill,

and a local shuttle.

The building is planned to be 213-feet by 728-feet and occupy approximately

152,040 square feet. The interior height is expected to vary between 18 feet at the

exterior wall to 27 feet at the center of the building. The exterior walls will be

constructed of split face concrete masonry units (CMU) and support a steel truss

system with metal roof decking. The building will be open throughout with the

exception of a 400 to 600 square foot enclosed area to accommodate office and

restroom facilities for 1 to 4 employees. Overhead doors will be located at each end

and at one-third intervals along both sides of the building.

It is anticipated that the building can accommodate a maximum of 350 to 360

vehicles assuming they are parked end to end in 11.5 foot wide aisles with a

minimum 3-foot separation between parked vehicles. Further, it is assumed that

65% of the vehicles will be RV’s and 35% will be boats of varying lengths. It is

expected that 40% of the RV’s (i.e. 26% of the total number of vehicles in the

building) will be larger than 35 feet long. The inclusion of the percentage breakdown

of vehicle types is not intended to limit the storage to a particular quantity of vehicles,

but rather to illustrate a typical distribution in the building.

II. BACKGROUND

The Lewisville Fire Marshal has expressed concern that the building is not typical

with respect to other storage facilities within the jurisdiction and requested that

National Indoor Storage, LLP (NIS) seek professional guidance to help the Fire

Marshal determine an appropriate fire protection scheme for the building.

There are no nationally recognized documents specifically created for protection of a

facility of this type. There are a number of occupancies that have characteristics

similar to an RV storage facility that are regulated under the 2003 International

Building Code (IBC), 2003 International Fire Code (IFC), and National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) Standards. The purpose of this report is to present a

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 2

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

summary of research conducted into the fire hazard associated with indoor RV

storage and recommendations for sprinkler protection.

III. RESEARCH

There is no research available specifically regarding sprinkler protection of

recreational vehicles in the type of facility planned by NIS or enclosed parking

garages. There is a limited number of studies available in the literature documenting

sprinkler protection for cars in parking structures, however there is nothing recent.

There is more data available documenting test fires initiated to determine the heat

release rate of various types of vehicles ranging from small passenger cars to school

buses and subway coaches.

Comparing values from these test programs can provide a broad indication of the

relative hazard of various commodities. Most of the fire tests listed in the table

below were conducted in either a laboratory setting under a ventilation hood/cone

calorimeter or in a parking structure with a ceiling height of approximately 10 feet.

The Ingason tests were conducted in a simulated tunnel with forced ventilation under

a 17 foot ceiling. All of these tests were allowed to burn themselves out and did not

involve sprinkler systems.

Vehicle Description

Peak Heat

Release

Rate (MW) Reference

Ford Taurus 1.5 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)

Datsun 160J sedan 1.8 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)

Datsun 180B sedan 2.0 Mangs, Keski-Rahkonen (1994)

Passenger mini-van 2.4 Stroup, DeLauter, Lee,

Roadarmel (2001)

1982 Austin Maestro 7.5 Shipp, Spearpoint (1995)

1986 Citreon BX 4.5 Shipp, Spearpoint (1995)

School Bus 29 Ingason (1994)

Passenger train 13.5 Ingason (1994)

Subway coach 35 Ingason (1994)

Simulated truck load

(6300 lbs of densely packed wood

cribs, plastic, and rubber tires)

17 Ingason (1994)

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 3

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

As noted in the table above, there is a broad range of heat release rates (HRR)

expected from different vehicles. The variance in peak HRR can be attributed to a

number of factors including the size of the vehicle, ventilation conditions in the test

facility, whether the doors and/or windows were open or closed, and the year the

vehicle was manufactured. Increasing the ventilation by forcing air into the test

facility and open windows in the test vehicle enhances the rate of burning. Vehicles

with all windows and doors closed at the beginning of the test tended to smolder for

extended periods before growing. Newer manufactured vehicles contain more

plastic than older cars which increase the HRR.

IV. SPRINKLER EFFECTS REPORTED FROM TEST OBSERVATIONS

A. Results of the tests conducted with sprinklers were reported in terms of

ceiling temperature and cannot be compared directly with the heat release

values noted in the table above. There are a number of general observations

reported in the literature regarding sprinklers and fires in parking garages that

can be expected to extend to fires involving larger vehicles.

1. “Fire Tests with Cars Parked in an Enclosed Car Park Building:

Suisse,” Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zietung, No. 12 (1970).

a) Generally, the fire remains confined to the burning car for a very

long time and will spread to adjacent cars only under certain

conditions. For example: burning petrol being swept by

extinguishing water towards a neighboring car, or where highly

combustible material in or outside the burning car are capable of

sustaining a vigorous combustion over a long period.

A tank explosion is very unlikely, even if the fire rages around the tank.

The petrol burns at the filler cap through the pressure relief valve, the

burnt-out tank seal and the melted seams.

b) Sprinklers cannot extinguish a fire inside a vehicle.

c) The extinguishing water causes immediate smoke spread,

eventually leading to complete loss of visibility.

2. “Fire and Unprotected Steel in Closed Carparks,” BHP Melbourne

Research Laboratories Report Number MRL/PS98/87/001 (August

1988).

a) Without an automatic sprinkler system:

i. Fire spread through the test car,

ii. In some tests fire spread from car to car,

iii. High temperatures were reached in the air and, after

about thirty minutes, in the structure, and

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 4

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

iv. Smoke and toxic products were produced for long and

potentially lethal periods of time.

b) With an automatic sprinkler system:

i. The fire was rapidly controlled

ii. Fire was confined to the cabin of the test car,

iii. The fire did not spread from car to car,

iv. Low temperatures were maintained in the air and the

structure,

v. The quantities of smoke and toxic products produced

were reduced, and

vi. The durations of high levels of smoke and toxic products

were reduced.

c) With a limited sprinkler system operated manually on fires which

had been allowed to develop and spread:

i. The fire was rapidly controlled,

ii. The maximum temperatures in the air and the steelwork

were rapidly reduced,

iii. The period over which large quantities of smoke and

toxic products would otherwise have been produces were

reduced.

d) The report concludes that as a result of nine fire tests, fire

protection of the steelwork is not necessary in a closed carpark

with a functioning sprinkler system.

3. Bennets, I.D., Thomas, I.R., Almand, K.H., Proe, D.J., Lewins, R.R.,

“Fires in Carparks,” The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited

(1989).

a) The results of this study supported the conclusions of the BHP

Melbourne Research Laboratories summarized in Item 2 above

based on three tests in a partially enclosed carpark.

V. SUMMARY OF NFPA 13 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS

The following table is a summary of sprinkler design requirements from NFPA 13-

1999, 2003 IFC, and two test programs involving car fires in enclosed parking

garages. While the IFC does not provide any guidance on sprinkler protection for

this type of facility, the minimum sprinkler design requirements noted below from

Chapter 27 are included as a reference to the minimum applicable requirements if

the building were classified as a Group H occupancy. Liquids in the fuel tanks of

motor vehicles located inside of buildings are not subject to the requirements of the

IFC per Section 3403.3.3, Exception 1.

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 5

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

Description Occupancy

Classificati

on

Flow

Rate

(gpm/ft2

)

Design

Area

(ft2)

Hose

Deman

d

(gpm)

Reference**

1 Auto Parking and

Show Rooms

Ordinary

Hazard-1

0.15 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.1

and 7-2.3.1.1

2 Repair Garages Ordinary

Hazard-2

0.20 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.2

and 7-2.3.1.1

3 Tire

Manufacturing

Ordinary

Hazard-2

0.20 1500 250 13: A-2-1.2.2

and 7-2.3.1.1

4 Gas Cylinder

Storage

(including

liquefied

flammable gases)

0.30 2500 500 13: 7-10.10.2

and NFPA 55

5 Plywood and

Particle Board

Manufacturing

Extra

Hazard-1

0.30 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.1

and 7-2.3.1.1

6 Upholstering with

plastic foams

Extra

Hazard-1

0.30 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.1

and 7-2.3.1.1

7 Manufactured

Homes or

Modular Building

Assemblies

(where finished

enclosure is

present and has

combustible

interiors)

Extra

Hazard-2

0.40 2500 500 13: A-2-1.3.2

and 7-2.3.1.1

8 Tire storage up to

5 feet on floor or

tread

Ordinary

Hazard-2

0.20 1500 250 13: Table 7-

2.3.2.2

9 Indoor areas

storing hazardous

materials

Ordinary

Hazard-2

0.20 3000 250 IFC-2003:

2704.5

10 Fire and

Unprotected Steel

in Closed

Carparks

N/A 0.26 114 ft2 per

sprinkler

155°F

k=5.6

BHP Steel

Int’l Group

(1988)

11 Fire Tests with

Cars Parked in an

Enclosed Carpark

Building: Suisse

N/A 0.24

gpm

100 ft2 per

sprinkler

(estimated

)

155°F

k=3.7

Schweizerisc

he

Feuerwehr-

Zietung

(1970)

**Note: All references to NFPA 13 assume the 1999 edition as currently enforced in the City of

Lewisville.

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 6

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

A typical automobile parking garage, which has many features that are similar to this

facility, would be protected as an Ordinary Hazard Group 1 (OH-1) occupancy as

noted in Item 1, in the table above. The fire tests involving automobiles noted in

Items 10 and 11, in the table above, used a sprinkler density that was approximately

65% greater than the amount of water required for an OH-1 occupancy and was

demonstrated to limit the fire to the vehicle of origin for an extended period of time.

While it is acknowledged that the sprinkler system cannot extinguish a fire that

originates inside the vehicle, the sprinkler system is effective in limiting the spread to

adjacent vehicles.

The hazards and concerns present in this facility that distinguish it from a typical

parking garage are the high fuel load contained in the RV, the presence of a

propane storage tank in the vehicle, and the quantity of fuel in the vehicle’s tank

compared to what is found in a typical automobile.

The high fuel load associated with an RV is addressed most directly via Item 7, in

the above table. A fire that starts in a manufactured home inside of a building is a

similar challenge to a fire located inside of an RV in that the fire is shielded from the

sprinkler water spray. The combustible loading in the manufactured home is

expected to be the wood framing in interior partitions, carpeting, doors, window and

door trim, kitchen cabinets, and built-in appliances. The RV contains many of the

same items, and also includes upholstery and furniture. The major difference

between the two scenarios is the manufactured home has a combustible exterior

where as an RV is constructed of a metal frame and an exterior skin that may be a

combination of metal, fiberglass, and composites.

Items 3, 4, 6, and 8 are included in the table above as points of reference to what

would be required for the protection of commodities that are associated with an RV,

recognizing that these sprinkler densities do not anticipate a shielded fire.

Automatic sprinkler information regarding the presence of a propane tank and the

quantity of fuel in the vehicle tank, each of which is typically not restricted in a

parking garage, are addressed in Items 4 and 9 in the table above. IFC

requirements for propane inside a building are addressed in Chapter 38. NFPA 13

treats gas cylinder storage, including storage of liquefied flammable gases, as an

Extra Hazard Group 1 occupancy. Section 3404.3.3, Exception 1 in the 2003 IFC

does not restrict the quantity of fuel in motor vehicle tanks however the storage of

hazardous materials is treated as no less than an Ordinary Hazard Group 2

occupancy.

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 7

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

In consideration of the discussion and information presented above and in lieu of

specific testing involving indoor RV storage facilities, it is our recommendation that

the following sprinkler protection criteria be used for the RV storage facility as

described in this report. These recommendations assume that the building, use, and

construction complies with all applicable codes and standards currently enforced by

the City of Lewisville.

A. Sprinkler system designed as an Extra Hazard Group 2 occupancy as defined

in NFPA 13 Sections 2-1.3.2 and A-2-1.3.2.

B. Design for a minimum flow rate of 0.40 gpm/ft2 in the hydraulically most

remote 2,500 ft2 area (13-1999: 7-2.3.1.1).

C. The design shall be revised to a minimum flow rate of 0.40 gpm/ft2 in the

hydraulically most remote 3,250 ft2 area (i.e. 30% area increase) if a dry

system is provided (13-1999:7-2.3.2.6).

D. The maximum area of protection for a single sprinkler shall not exceed 100 ft2

(13-1999: 5-6.2).

E. The maximum spacing between sprinklers shall not exceed 12 ft (13-1999: 5-

6.2).

F. Standard spray upright with a minimum value of K=8.0 gpm/(psi)1/2 shall be

provided.

G. High temperature, 286°F degree sprinklers shall be provided to limit sprinkler

activations to those in the immediate proximity of the fire.

H. Area of protection for a single extra hazard occupancy shall not exceed

40,000 ft2 if installed as a wet system (13-1999: 5-2). This will require a

minimum of five (4) wet risers if constructed as currently planned.

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 8

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

I. The maximum volume controlled by a single dry pipe valve shall not exceed

750 gallons (13-1999: 4-2.3). The number of risers will be determined based

on the final sprinkler design.

ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Prepared by:

February 18, 2008

Thomas E. Izbicki, P.E. Date

Reviewed by:

February 18, 2008

Nathaniel J. Addleman, P.E. Date

TEI/NJA/MAC/cmw

H44071 – RP OUTLINE RV STORAGE FACILITY - FINAL

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR H44071 - Page 9

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY February 18, 2008

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

REFERENCES

The following are references used for this report:

1. “Fire Tests with Cars Parked in an Enclosed Car Park Building: Suisse,”

Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zietung, No. 12 (1970).

2. “Fire and Unprotected Steel in Closed Carparks,” BHP Melbourne Research

Laboratories Report Number MRL/PS98/87/001, (August 1988).

3. Bennets, I.D., Thomas, I.R., Almand, K.H., Proe, D.J., Lewins, R.R., “Fires in

Carparks,” The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, (1989).

4. Gewain, R.G., “Fire in an Exposed Steel Parking Structure,” Modern Steel

Construction, First Quarter, (1973.

5. Hirashima, T., Wang, Y., Uesugi, H., Kitano, T., Ave, T., “Large Scale Fire tests of a

4-Story Type Car Park, Part 2: Analysis of the Thermal Stresses and Deflections,”

Fire Safety Science-Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium, pp. 655-

666, (2003).

6. Hirschler, M. M., Hoffman, D.J., Hoffman, J.M., Kroll, E.C., “Fire Hazard Associated

with Passenger Cars and Vans,” Fire and Materials 2003 Conference Proceedings,

Interscience Communications, Ltd., (2003).

7. Shipp, M., Spearpoint, M., “Measurement of the Severity of Fires Involving Private

Motor Vehicles,” Fire and Materials, volume 19, 143-151, (1995).

8. Mangs, J., Keski-Rahkonen, O., Characterization of the Fire Behavior of a Burning

Passenger Car, Part I: Car Fir Experiments,” Fire Safety Journal, volume 23, 17-35

(1994).

9. Stroup, D.W., DeLauter, L., Lee, J., Roadarmel, G., “Passenger Minivan Fire Tests,”

Report of Test FR 4011, National Institute of Standards and Technology, (2001).

10. Ingason, H., “Heat Release Rate Measurements in Tunnel Fires,” Proceedings of the

International Conference on Fires in Tunnels, Boras Sweden, (1994).

11. Babrauskas, V., “Heat Release Rates,” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection

Engineering, 3rd edition, (2003).

12. NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection

Association, (1999 edition).

13. Kruppa, J., Joyeux, D., Zhao, B., “Evaluation of the Fire Resistance of a Car Park

Structure Based on Experimental Evidences,” Proceedings Second International

Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers,

(August 1997).


----------



## JBI (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: indoor RV/ boat storage

cda - Great post, some good stuff there. I would have gone with indoor parking facility, but there is some validity to going farther. Most indoor parking garages won't accomodate RVs, few could really accomodate boats.

In my part of NYS we have quite a few places that are 'seasonal' (summer uses), that have large open buildings (usually pole buildings) that are empty and unoccupied during the off-season. Some of the more enterprising owners will 'rent' spaces for boat storage (probably RVs in some). Very few (if any) ever come to the AHJ for approval, and most of the time there is no advertizing of the availability. Either you know about it or you don't. It's extra income for the facility owner, and often it is the local politicians and power players that use them. 'Don't ask, don't tell' isn't always a military thing...


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: indoor RV/ boat storage

As with other scenarios any design scheme will need to be developed based on all the needed hazard and storage array details.  I seriously doubt the report's findings and recommended design scheme could adequately address fiberglass boat storage on floors or racks like seen in Florida and other areas of the country.


----------



## cda (Nov 18, 2009)

Re: indoor RV/ boat storage

I did not see it address like aisles? width,    If one catches on fire its not going to get another one going, especially if it starts interior first????


----------



## sergoodo (Jul 31, 2019)

Great information CDA
and a Rolf Jensen blast from the past.
Applicable for occupied RV storage, I do have one issue with this excerpt from the report:
_‘There is no research available specifically regarding *sprinkler protection of recreational vehicles* in the type of facility planned by NIS or enclosed parking garages.’_​
I really do not care if an RV dies in a fire.

As mentioned above, rural RV storage is an unoccupied structure; much different from the focus of the Rolf Jensen report. The 2008 report was a for a occupied mixed use storage/service/office building which is one of the two building types encountered at a full service 'RV center' . The second building type would be the unoccupied storage sheds: a canopy with all sides open, roofed only for weather protection.  A recreational vehicle defined by the IBC and is not a commercial motor vehicle. IBC has defined RVs specifically by chassis, area, and can be either self-propelled or permanently towable.  

I interpret as Group U with a shed 'use' is applicable for the 'roofed only' second building type at these RV centers. The IBC life safety requirements cover 'roofed only" RV shed from the Granny and Pawpaw shed to 100,000sf shed at the RV center.

Granny and PawPaw should not be required to protect an RVs with sprinklers . They only need the choice to sprinkle and that level of RV lovin to make that choice..

comments?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 1, 2019)

Bag of snakes,not worms. Hard to control.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2019)

sergoodo said:


> Great information CDA
> and a Rolf Jensen blast from the past.
> Applicable for occupied RV storage, I do have one issue with this excerpt from the report:
> _‘There is no research available specifically regarding *sprinkler protection of recreational vehicles* in the type of facility planned by NIS or enclosed parking garages.’_​
> ...




well to wake the old thread, and did not read back thorugh it,,,

In brief, if the code requires a fire sprinkler system, than install one.

If a fire sprinkler system is required, than design to the hazard.

I hate when a building with a fire sprinkler system, burns to the ground.

And i would also hate for my Prevost to burn to the ground.


----------



## sergoodo (Aug 2, 2019)

Prevost BABY!


----------

