Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0476 (2)Prepared for Industrial Developments International August 1995 Prepared by EMCON 5701 East Loop 820 South Fort Worth, Texas 76119 817/478 -8254 Project 64150- 004 -001 Emcon 5701 East Loop 820 South • Fort Worth, Texas 76119 -7051 • (817) 478 -8254 • Metro (817) 572 -3411 • Fax (817) 478 -8874 August 1, 1995 Project 64150- 004 -001 Industrial Developments International c/o Goodwin and Marshall, Inc. 6001 Bridge Street Fort Worth, Texas 76112 Attn: Mr. Matthew Goodwin, P.E. Re: Geotechnical Study Building A; D/FW Trade Center Dallas County, Texas The results of our geotechnical study for the proposed Building A are presented in the following engineering report. Recommendations for foundations and earthwork are provided in this report. Field and laboratory test data, developed for this study, are also included. The study has been conducted in general agreement with our proposal dated April 28, 1995, and your authorization received on May 30, 1995. Since this report is being submitted during the design phase, some changes in the project could occur after our report is submitted. Therefore, we request the opportunity to review this report with respect to final design. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on your project. Should you have any questions, or find we can be of further service, please let us know. Sincerely, , or e2 EMCON C, e • ♦HNM�us1w� DAVID R. FRIE IELS IV �NN�sf�O•VOVVVOV.re V�Vq• 51700 � David R. Friels, P.E. , ®ldg '/ONA. MM Senior Engineer � Senior Engineer Copies submitted: (4) F W/i: \4150U,DGA -L.DOC /801- 95 /js:0 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope 1 1.3 Related Studies 2 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3 2.1 Field Exploration 3 2.2 Laboratory Testing 4 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 3.1 Subsurface Stratification 5 3.2 Material Conditions 5 3.3 Expansive Soils 5 3.4 Hard Rocks 6 3.5 Groundwater Observations 6 4 FOUNDATIONS 7 4.1 Foundation Alternatives 7 4.2 Footing Foundations 7 4.2.1 Site Considerations 7 4.2.2 Footing Design 9 4.3 Drilled Shafts 10 4.4 Drilled Shaft Construction 10 4.5 Grade Beams 12 4.6 On -Grade Slabs 12 5 SITE DRAINAGE 13 6 EARTHWORK 14 6.1 Site Grading 14 6.2 Subgrade Preparation 14 6.3 Fill Material 15 6.4 Moisture and Density Control 15 6.5 Trench Backfill 16 6.6 Contamination Testing and Certification 16 CONSTRUCTION O FW /l/4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 11 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 CONTENTS (Continued) 8 REPORT CLOSURE APPENDIX A Plan of Borings General Notes Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Summary of Material Properties A.l A.2 A.3 - A.28 FW/1/4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95rs:4 111 Rev. 0; 8/1/95 64150-004-001 1.1 Project Description This report presents the results of a geotechnical study for the proposed Building A in the planned D/FW Trade Center. The project is located on a 180 -acre site fronting on the northwest side of State Highway 121 in the northwest corner of Dallas County near the Tarrant and Denton County lines. The project will consist of an industrial/commercial building with approximate plan dimensions of 1,350 feet by 400 feet. The planned finish floor elevation is 492 feet mean sea level (msl). Column loads are anticipated to not exceed 200 kips. Site development will include construction of a truck dock around the building, which will result in exterior grades of approximately 488. During the time of our field exploration, the site was covered with native grasses. A drainage way crossed the building area on the south end. The ground surface generally slopes down toward the west and to the creek south of the building location. The surface elevation varies from approximately 484 at the southwest corner to 494 at the northeast corner. The purpose of this geotechnical study has been to determine the general subsurface conditions, to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered, and to develop recommendations for the type or types of foundations suitable for the project. To accomplish its intended purposes, the study has been conducted in the following phases: 1) drilling sample borings to determine the general subsurface conditions and to obtain samples for testing; (2) performing laboratory tests on appropriate samples to determine pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials; and (3) performing engineering analyses, using the field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. FW/ U4150/004/DFW- R.DOC/621- 95/js:4 1 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 -0 A preliminary geotechnical study for the 180 -acre site was conducted between March 31 and May 19, 1995. The site was previously called Grapevine 180. Borings B -10, B -11, and B -12 were located within the proposed Building A area and are included in Appendix A. The general findings of the preliminary study and the specific results of the three borings and 5 test pits within the building area were used in this analysis. FW/U4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 2 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 Subsurface materials at the project site were explored by 18 borings drilled to a depth of 20 feet in the proposed building area (borings A -51 through A -68). The borings were drilled on May 23 through May 26, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on the Plan of Borings in Appendix A, Figure A.1. The plan of borings was provided by Goodwin and Marshall, Inc. and the letter A prefix is not shown with the boring numbers. The plan also shows the boring and test pit locations from the preliminary study. The general boring locations were selected by EMCON and were surveyed by Goodwin and Marshall's survey crew. The boring logs are also included in Appendix A on Figures A.3 through A.20, and a key to terms and descriptions on the logs is provided on Figure A.2. Logs for borings and test pits within the building area from the preliminary study are also included in Appendix A, A.21 through A.28. Relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils encountered in the borings were taken by rapidly pushing a 3 -inch OD thin - walled tube sampler (ASTM D 1587) a distance of approximately 1 to 2 feet into the soil with hydraulic cylinders from the drill rig. Depths at which these samples were taken are designated "U" in the "Sample" column of the boring logs. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) cone penetrometer test was used to evaluate selected sandstone, shale, and dense sand layers. Either the number of blows required to produce 12 inches of penetration, or the inches of penetration due to 100 blows of the hammer, are noted on the boring logs designated "T" in the "Penetration Resistance" column. Disturbed samples were taken by driving a standard ASTM 2 -inch OD split -spoon sampler (ASTM D 1586) a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-lb hammer falling freely a distance of 30 inches. Where resistance was high, the number of inches of penetration for 50 blows of the hammer was recorded. Depths at which the split -spoon samples were taken in these borings are designated "S" in the "Sample" column of the boring logs. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of penetration is recorded at a corresponding depth in the "Blows Per Ft" column of the boring logs. Representative portions of each split -spoon sample were selected and sealed in plastic bags to prevent loss of moisture. This N -value is considered a good indication of the relative density of granular layers and also an indication of the consistency of cohesive layers. FW/I /4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95fs:4 3 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 Groundwater observations made during the course of the Geld exploration are included on the boring logs. Groundwater level measurements refer only to those observed at the times and places indicated, and can vary with time, geologic condition, construction activity, rainfall, and other factors. Selected laboratory soil tests were performed on representative samples recovered from the borings. In addition to the classification tests (liquid limits, plastic limits, and percent passing #200 sieve), unconfined compressive strength tests, unit dry weight, and moisture content tests were performed. Results of the laboratory tests conducted for this project are provided on each boring log, and a summary is included in Appendix B. FW/1/4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 4 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 3.1 Subsurface Stratification Specific types and depths of subsurface strata encountered in the borings are shown on the attached boring logs. The general subsurface conditions encountered in the borings consist of the following: 4.5 to 17 feet of residual Woodbine soils and possibly some alluvium and fill, followed by the primary Woodbine shale and sandstone. The primary gray shale, sandy shale, or clayey shale of the Woodbine formation, was encountered approximately 4.5 to 17 feet below existing grade. 3.2 Material Conditions The upper residual (and alluvial) soils vary in texture from sand with gravel to moderately plastic clay. Sandy clays and clays, where encountered, are on or near the surface and range in thickness from approximately 1 foot to 12 feet. With the exception of borings B- 10, B -11, A -61, and A -66, the sandy clay or clay was 4 feet or less in thickness. Over much of the building, the residual soils consisted of sands, silty sands, or clay sands. The plasticity indices of the clayey sands, sandy clays, and clays ranged from approximately 7 to 29. The silty sands and sands generally had plasticity indices of nonplastic to 5. The predominantly cohesive soils were generally soft to very stiff in consistency. The predominantly granular soils were found to have standard penetration N- values of 12 to more than 50, indicating a relative density of medium dense to very dense. Sandy clay and clay soils were encountered in many of the borings. Most samples were found to have relatively low plasticity indices (i.e., less than 20) and relatively high sand contents. However, several borings (e.g., A -61, A -64, and A -67) were determined to have moderately plastic to highly plastic sandy clay or clay that could undergo volume changes due to seasonal moisture content variations. Seven absorption pressure swell tests were conducted on selected samples during the preliminary study. These tests revealed absorption swell pressures ranging from 0.18 tons /square foot (tso to over 0.53 tsf. However, the samples generally had relatively high in -situ moisture contents. These FW /I /4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 5 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 soils will exhibit somewhat greater swelling potential if in -situ moisture contents decrease significantly. 3.4 Hard Rocks Rock boulders are frequently encountered in the Woodbine Formation. The rocks are described as limy sandstone, grading to sandy limestone, and are very hard and highly cemented. Experience with these very hard materials has revealed them to be in the form of irregular - shaped boulders and/or layers varying in thickness from less than 1 foot to over 10 feet. Construction of foundations often requires rock -tooth augers, drop chisels, core barrels, or other rock excavation equipment where the hard rocks are encountered. 3.5 Groundwater Observations Groundwater, in the form of a perched condition, exists at various depths within the limits of the area explored. Indications are that the groundwater is perched within the permeable sand and gravel which lie above the primary Woodbine as well as within sand layers present within the primary. Water -level measurements are recorded at the bottoms of the logs. Water -level observations during the preliminary exploration and the field exploration phase of this study revealed groundwater levels ranging from 1 foot below the ground surface to more than 20 feet below the ground surface. With few exceptions groundwater was encountered between elevation 481 and 492. In general, the upper groundwater is highest near the northeast corner of the building, and the gradient slopes down toward the southwest corner. Fluctuations in the water table are anticipated and are often dependent upon climatic conditions (rainfall, drought, etc.), the permeability of the sand, cross bedding of sands and clays, and adjacent grades. The water level at the time of construction could be higher or lower than the depths recorded. . FW /V4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 6 Rev. 0, 811/95 64150-004-001 !. = Selection of a foundation system for structural support depends on several factors, some of which include: magnitude of loads, structural sensitivity to differential movement, subsurface conditions (i.e., bearing materials and groundwater levels), system constructability, and economics . Based on subsurface conditions determined during the field and laboratory phases of this study, the available project information, and experience with other construction in the Woodbine Formation, consideration has been given to the following systems: Spread footings and continuous footings, backhoe excavated Straight -sided drilled shafts, auger excavated The following paragraphs present issues regarding shallow spread footings and deeper drilled shaft foundations. In order to be able to successfully utilize spread footings for Building A, certain earthwork must occur in order to adequately prepare the subsurface. Based upon conversations with the site civil engineer, Matt Goodwin; the structural engineer, Sergio LeGuizamon; the architect, Bruce McGregor; and owner (IDI), Craig Gum, there does not appear to be sufficient cost savings to justify the use of footings (less positive structural support) instead of the more positive system using deeper drilled shafts. The following information regarding site preparation and design of footings is nevertheless being presented for information in the event that IDI would care to more closely analyze the footing. Footing • d. -. 4.2.1 Site Considerations The presence of near surface sandy soils within the Building A area provides the opportunity to evaluate the use of footing foundations for the support of concentrated structural loads. Although the shallow soils within the area are predominantly sandy, there are areas where near surface sandy clay or clay that is potentially expansive or lacks sufficient consistency for support of footings does exist. The presence of shale at shallow depths in some locations could produce heave if the environment is altered (i.e., removal FW /U4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95ijs:4 % Rev. 0, 811/95 64150- 004 -001 of overburden or changing groundwater levels). Also, relatively shallow groundwater exists which could interfere with subgrade preparation or footing construction. Special site treatment will be required if shallow foundations are to be used. It will be necessary to undercut (i.e., over - excavate and replace with compacted select fill) soils that would be within the zone of influence of a footing that are too soft or loose to support the foundation loads. Also, plastic clays that could cause excessive vertical movement from shrinking or swelling due to seasonal moisture variation should be undercut. The lateral areas and depths of undercutting would need to be determined during site preparation based on test boring logs, proof rolling, and supplementary test pits excavated with a back -hoe or dozer. A geotechnical technician working under the direction of the project geotechnical engineer should be on site full time during subgrade preparation (including undercutting and backfilling) and should make the final determinations of undercut areas and depths. The test locations, depths, and elevations where clay or sandy clay soils that may be expected to adversely impact the performance of a footing type foundation are shown in the following table. FW/I/4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 8 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 Clay /Sandy Clay Soil Test Location Depth from Surface (ft.) Bottom Elevation of Clay A -52 1.5 491 A -55 1.5 492 A -59 7.0 485 A -60 1.5 486 A -61 6.0 486 A -64 4.0 487 A -65 3.0 481 A -66 12.0 480 A -67 4.0 483 B -10 8.0 478 B -11 5.0 483 TP -41 1.0 482 FW/I/4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 8 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 Some locations (e.g., A -52 and A -55) may not require special undercutting since the clay soils should be removed during stripping. In some locations it is possible that undercutting may be reduced or eliminated depending on the condition of the cohesive soils when exposed, bottom of footing elevations, footing size, and footing loads. Also, in some areas it may be practicable to deepen the footing excavations below soft or expansive soil layers. However, since the exterior footings would be constructed below the adjacent truck dock pavement, it is expected that the undercutting could be rather deep in some areas (e.g., A -66 where the sandy clay does not appear sufficiently stiff for support of shallow foundations). Shale is relatively shallow at some locations within the building area (e.g., A -54, A -55, and A -56). Footings constructed near the shale could experience significant long term vertical movements due to volume change within the shale caused by changes in the environment from construction activities. Therefore, if footings are used, it will be necessary to undercut the shale at some locations. If the shale is undercut, care must be taken not to build depressions or low areas within the shale contours that could collect seepage and further change the moisture environment and cause additional heave. 4.2.2 Footing Design Prior to construction of footings it will be important that any near surface soft or loose soils and expansive clays be removed as discussed above. The building pad subgrade should then be proof rolled and the pad constructed with compacted fill as discussed later in this report under the earthwork section. A net allowable soil pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot (pso may be used to design continuous wall (strip) footings and 3000 psf may be used for individual column (spread) footings. It is recommended that spread footings have a width of at least 4 feet and strip footings be at least 2 feet wide, regardless of the soil pressure developed. Additionally, the bottom of the footing should be constructed at least 2 feet below the adjacent finished grade or finished floor elevation (whichever is lower). All footing excavations should be observed by a field representative of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the soil exposed is the material anticipated in the design and that the footings are constructed to the design size and depth. If the building area is developed as discussed in Sections 4.1 and 6, the total vertical movement (settlement or heave) of a footing should not exceed approximately 1 inch, and the differential movement between adjacent footings should not exceed 3/4 inch. FW /U4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 9 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 The bearing materials suitable for support of moderate to heavy column loads include the primary Woodbine gray shales, clayey shales, and shales encountered approximately 4.5 to 17 feet below existing grade. The very dense sands and sandstones are also suitable bearing material; however, it is likely that groundwater conditions will preclude founding shafts in these soils. Auger - excavated, reinforced concrete, straight -sided drilled shafts will provide a desirable means of transmitting structural loads to the bearing material. An allowable end - bearing value of 18,000 psf can be used for design of the shafts. A skin friction value Of 3,000 psf can be used for that portion of the shaft perimeter in direct contact with the bearing material after 1 foot of penetration and below any temporary steel casing used for construction purposes. For pier resistance to pullout, a friction value of 1,500 psf can be used. Regardless of loads, all shafts should penetrate into the bearing material a minimum of 3 feet. Furthermore, in areas where the shale is shallow, the shafts should have a minimum length (below the adjacent ground surface) of at least 10 feet. Bearing values should be selected to include a factor of safety of three (3) with regard to shear failure, dead load only., Foundations proportioned in accordance with these values will experience negligible settlement after construction. The weight of the footings below final grade may be neglected in determining the design loads. It is anticipated that temporary steel casing will be required to properly construct the shafts. Zones of moderately expansive clays were encountered in several of the borings (e.g., A- 61, A -64, and A -67). However, the expansive soils were generally not noted below elevation 483 and most (or all) of these soils will be removed during subgrade preparation for the slab. Although uplift pressures caused by tensile forces from expansion within surrounding clays are not expected to be significant, reinforcing steel should be placed within the drilled shafts to resist tensile forces from isolated expansive clay pockets that are not removed during subgrade preparation. Drilled shaft construction should be monitored by a representative of the project geotechnical engineer to observe, among other things, the following items: Identification of bearing material. • Adequate penetration of the shaft excavation into the bearing layer. • The base and sides of the shaft excavation are clean of loose cuttings. FW /1/4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 10 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150 -004 -001 • If seepage is encountered, whether it is of sufficient amount to require the use of temporary steel casing. If casing is needed it is important that the field representative observe that a sufficient head of plastic concrete is maintained within the casings at all times during their extraction to prevent the inflow of water. Precautions should be taken during the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to prevent loose, excavated soil from falling into the excavation. Concrete should be placed as soon as practical after completion of the drilling, cleaning and inspection. Excavation for a drilled shaft should be filled with concrete before the end of the workday, thus preventing excessive deterioration of the bearing material. Prolonged exposure or inundation of the bearing surface with water will result in changes in strength and compressibility characteristics. If delays occur, the drilled shaft excavation should be slightly deepened and cleaned, in order to provide a fresh bearing surface. As previously discussed, dense to very dense sands and shaly sands are present within the primary Woodbine Formation. These predominantly granular layers are suitable bearing materials for drilled shaft foundations. Depending on groundwater conditions, however, it may be necessary to extend the temporary casing through any sand layers that overlie shale in order to satisfactorily reduce seepage into the shaft during construction. Sandstone may also fall within this category; however, that will depend on the groundwater pressure and degree of cementation. The concrete should be placed into the drilled shafts in a manner to prevent the concrete from striking the reinforcing cage or the sides of the excavation, which could not only affect the positioning of the cage but may also result in segregation of the concrete mixture. A bottom discharge hopper is recommended for this purpose. A drilling rig of sufficient size and weight will be necessary, since the possibility of encountering hard rock layers exists. The rig must be capable of drilling and/or coring through the hard layers to .reach the desired bearing stratum and achieve the required penetration. Rock -tooth augers, drop chisels, or core barrels could be required to achieve the required depth. Caution should be exercised during construction to prevent the bearing of a shaft on soft material within the founding stratum. Should any shaft excavation terminate on a soft seam or layer within the shale, after the required penetration has been achieved, the shaft should be deepened until the next layer of firm shale or dense sand has been encountered. Water seepage into the pier shafts may occur even if the shafts are cased. Therefore, provisions should be made in the project specifications for underwater concrete placement if more than 4 inches of water is present in the bottom of the pier hole. A closed tremie should be used for underwater concrete placement and the discharge end should be kept below the top FW/l/4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 I l Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 of the concrete in the pier hole. A nominal shaft diameter of at least 24 inches is recommended to facilitate concrete placement with a tremie. .r• . Grade beams used in conjunction with the drilled shafts should be tied into the tops of the shafts and should have a permanent void space of 6 inches beneath. This void is recommended to prevent vertical movements within isolated expansive clay pockets from applying pressure to the bottom of the beam. If the building pad is prepared as recommended under the earthwork section, the floor slab may be designed to bear uniformly on the uniformly placed and compacted select fill pad. The nonexpansive, compacted building pad should be a soil pad of 3 feet in thickness. This uniform 3 -foot slab support will provide proper bearing support for the floor slab. Several areas will require undercutting before the select fill pad is constructed. It will be important that any layers of expansive clay that are exposed once the subgrade is reached are also removed before the pad is constructed. Areas of soft or expansive soil should be identified during site preparation by proof rolling (see Section 6.2). Subgrade preparation and pad construction should be observed by an experienced geotechnical technician to verify that areas of soft or expansive soils are undercut as recommended and the pad is constructed with compacted select fill as discussed in Section 6. FW/ 114150/004/DFW- R.DOC/621- 95/js:4 12 Rev. 6,8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 11 z An important feature of the project is to provide positive drainage away from the structure. If water is permitted to stand next to or below the structure where expansive clay is present, excessive soil movements (heave) can occur. This results in cracking of floor slabs, grade beams, interior partitions, and doors out of square. A slope of 1.5 to 3 percent should be provided, such that the soil slopes away from the building for a minimum distance of 25 feet. A well - designed site drainage plan is of utmost importance and surface drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the structure. Consideration should be given to the design and location of gutter downspouts, planting areas, or other features which would produce moisture concentration adjacent to or beneath the structure or paving. It is desirable that paving and/or exterior flatwork extend to the building line rather than have planting areas next to the structure. Consideration should be given to the use of self - contained, watertight planters. Joints next to the structure should be sealed with a flexible joint sealer to prevent infiltration of surface water. Proper maintenance should include periodic inspection for open joints and cracks and resealing as necessary. Rainwater collected by the gutter system should be transported by pipe to a storm drain or to a paved area. If downspouts discharge next to the structure onto flatwork or paved areas, the area should be watertight in order to eliminate infiltration next to the building. FW /I /4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95fs:4 13 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150 -004 -001 • 1 �.� 6.1 Site Grading General site grading should be such that water will not pond under or next to structures or paving following periods of rainfall. Water standing near structures may result in soil erosion or swell if the soil is expansive. In general, a slope of 1.5 to 3 percent should be maintained along the ground surface both during and after construction. I . 1111. • -I . • Stripping should consist of the removal of all topsoil, roots, vegetation, and rubbish not removed by the clearing and grubbing operation. The actual stripping depth should be based on field observations with particular attention given to old drainage areas, uneven topography, and excessively wet soils. The stripped areas should be observed to determine if additional excavation is required to remove weak or otherwise objectionable materials that would adversely affect the fill placement. The subgrade should be firm and able to support the construction equipment without displacement. Soft or yielding subgrade should be corrected and made stable before construction proceeds. The subgrade should be proof rolled to detect soft spots, which if they exist, should be reworked. Proof rolling should be performed using a heavy pneumatic -tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar equipment weighing approximately 25 tons. The proof rolling operations should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Prior to placement of compacted fill in any section of the pad, after depressions and holes have been filled, the foundation of such sections should be compacted to the same density and moisture requirement as the pad. The traffic of heavy equipment, including heavy compaction equipment, may create pumping and general deterioration of the soil. Occasionally, some soils have to be excavated, mixed and dried, and replaced. At times, excavating and replacing with selected soils and/or chemically treating in -place materials is required before an adequate subgrade can be achieved. Therefore, it should be anticipated that some construction difficulties will be encountered during periods when these soils are saturated. FW/V4150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 14 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 The existing near surface soils may be used for fill during site development. The clayey sands, silty sands, and sandy clays with a plasticity index less than approximately 15 may be classified as select fill and used to construct the building pad. Although not a structural requirement, it is preferable that the select fill have some clay binder, that is a plasticity index of at least 4 and preferably 7. Silty sands and sands with a plasticity index less than approximately 4 will generally experience sloughing and rutting problems and be difficult to maintain excavated slopes. Depending on site conditions, it may be feasible to mix and blend sandy clay and sand to create a desirable select fill mixture. Highly plastic clay, if encountered, should not be used as fill in building pad or pavement areas unless it is lime treated. 6.4 Moisture and Density Control Following the spreading and mixing of the soil it should be processed by discing throughout its thickness to break up and provide additional blending of materials. Discing should consist of at least two passes of the disc plow. Additional passes of the disc plow should be made necessary to accomplish breaking up and blending the fill. The recommended loose lift thickness is eight (8) inches. The moisture content of the soil should be adjusted, if necessary, by either aeration or the addition of water to bring the moisture content within the specified range. Water required for sprinkling to bring the fill material to the proper moisture content should be applied evenly through each layer. Any layers which become damaged by weather conditions should be reprocessed to meet specification requirements. The compacted surface of a layer of fill should be lightly loosened by discing or roughened with the compactor before the succeeding layer is placed. When the moisture content and the condition of the fill layer are satisfactory, compaction should be made with a tamping -foot roller (sheepsfoot with cleaner teeth) either towed by a crawler -type tractor or the self - propelled type. The tamping -foot length should be a minimum of eight (8) inches. Vibratory tamping rollers may be required for compacting some types of granular fill material. The fill material should be compacted to a minimum of ninety -five (95) percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the moisture- density relations test method ASTM Designation D 698. The moisture content should range between two (2) percentage points below optimum to five (5) percentage points above optimum (2 to +5) for soils with a plasticity index (PI) of less than 20. For soils with a PI of 20 or greater, the moisture content should range between optimum and five (5) percentage points above optimum (0 to +5). The moisture content ranges specified are to be considered as maximum allowable ranges. The contractor may have to maintain a more narrow range (within the maximum allowable) in order to consistently achieve the specified density for some soils or under some conditions. The FW /U4150 /0041DFW -R.DOC /621- 95fs:4 15 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 moisture content and density of all fill material should be maintained at the specified range of moisture and density. Fill behind below -grade walls should be compacted with hand - operated tampers or light compaction equipment immediately adjacent to the wall. A loose lift thickness of four to six inches is typically required for hand- operated tampers. Backfill on structures receiving fill on both sides should be kept within two feet of the opposite side. Field density tests should be taken as each lift of fill material is placed. One field density test per lift for each 10,000 square feet of compacted area is recommended. A minimum of two (2) tests per lift should be required. The earthwork operations should be observed and tested on a continuing basis by an experienced geotechnician working in conjunction with the project geotechnical engineer. The contractor should assist the geotechnician in taking tests to the extent of furnishing labor and equipment to prepare the areas for testing and curtailing operations in the vicinity of the test area during testing. Each lift should be compacted, tested, and approved before another lift is added. The purpose of the field density tests is to provide some indication that uniform and adequate compaction is being obtained. The actual quality of the fill, as compacted, should be the sole responsibility of the contractor and satisfactory results from the tests should not be considered as a guarantee of the quality of the contractor's filling operations. Trench backfill for utilities should be properly placed and compacted. Dense or dry clay backfill can swell and create a mound along the ditch line. Loose or wet backfill can settle and form a depression along the ditch line. Distress to overlying structures, pavements, side walks, etc, can occur if heaving or settling happens. A granular bedding material is recommended for pipe bedding. Clean coarse sand, pea gravel, or well graded crushed rock make good bedding materials. Care should be taken to prevent the backfilled trench from becoming a french drain and piping surface or subsurface water beneath structures or pavements. The use of concrete cut -off collars or clay plugs may be required to prevent piping from occurring. If off -site borrow material is used, the contractor should be required to arrange and pay for the services of a laboratory preapproved by the Owner to collect samples and perform chemical analysis of the soils. A toxic contaminant scan of composite soil samples representative of each separate off -site borrow source should be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protocol for Total Metals (eight metals, EPA Method 3010/6010), pH (EPA Method 150.1), Chlorides (EPA Method 330.4), Volatile Organics (EPA Method 8240), and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPA Method 418.1). FW/ 114150 /004/DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 16 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150-004-001 Copies of the results of the laboratory tests should be submitted with chains -of- custody to the Owner by the Contractor prior to proceeding to furnish soil materials to the site. Any potential off -site soil borrow on which scan test results indicate the presence of contaminants above background levels will be rejected as an off -site soil borrow source. The laboratory performing the scan test for contaminants for the Contractor should provide a written certification along with the test which states that the laboratory is EPA approved, that the tests were performed according to EPA guidelines, and that the samples were collected using EPA protocol. The Contractor should obtain a written, notarized certification from the landowner of each proposed off -site soil borrow source stating that to the best of the landowner's knowledge and belief there has never been contamination of the borrow source site with hazardous or toxic materials. These certifications should be submitted to the Owner by the Contractor prior to proceeding to furnish soil materials to the site. The lack of such certification on a potential off- site soil borrow source will be cause for rejection of that source. Soil materials derived from the excavation of underground petroleum storage tanks shall not be used as fill on this project. FW/U4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 17 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150 - 004 -001 In any geotechnical study, the design recommendations are based on a limited amount of information about the subsurface conditions. In the analysis, the geotechnical engineer must assume the subsurface conditions are similar to the conditions encountered in the borings. However, during construction, anomalies in the subsurface conditions are quite, often revealed. Therefore, it is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to observe earthwork and foundation installation and perform materials evaluation during the construction phase of the project. This enables the geotechnical engineer to stay abreast of the project and to be readily available to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required and, when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to unanticipated conditions. It is proposed that construction observation commence at the outset of the project. Experience has shown that the most suitable method for procuring these services is for the owner to contract directly with the geotechnical/materials engineer. This results in a clear, direct line of communication between the owner or his representative and the geotechnical /materials engineer. FW/I/4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 18 Rev. 0; 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 The borings made for this report were located in the field as close as practicable to the surveyed location. The elevations given on the boring logs were provided by Goodwin and Marshall, Inc., for the surveyed location. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used in their determination. The boring logs shown in this report contain information related to the types of soil encountered at specific locations and times and show lines delineating the interface between these materials. The logs also contain our field representative's interpretation of conditions that are believed to exist in those depth intervals between the actual samples taken. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information. It is not warranted that these logs are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. With regard to groundwater conditions, this report presents data on groundwater levels as they were observed during the course of the field work. In particular, water level readings have been made in the borings at the times and under conditions stated in the text of the report and on the boring logs. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater table can occur with passage of time due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. Also, this report does not include quantitative information on rates of flow of groundwater into excavations, on pumping capacities necessary to dewater the excavations, or on methods of dewatering excavations. Unanticipated soil conditions at a construction site are commonly encountered and cannot be fully predicted by mere soil samples, test borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made by the owner to attain a properly designed and constructed project. Therefore, provision for some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra cost. The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our field investigation and further on the assumption that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings at the time they were completed. If, during construction, different subsurface conditions from those encountered in our borings are observed, or appear to be present beneath excavations, we must be advised promptly so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if building locations, structural loads or finish grades are changed, we urge that we be promptly FW/l /4150 /004 /DFW -R.DOC /621- 95/js:4 19 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150 -004 -001 informed and retained to review our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and/or time lapse. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the soil boring logs regarding odors noted or unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client. This report has been prepared for use in developing an overall design concept. Paragraphs, statements, test results, boring logs, diagrams, etc.; should not be taken out of context, nor utilized without a knowledge and awareness of their intent within the overall concept of this report. The reproduction of this report, or any part thereof, supplied to persons other than the owner, should indicate that this study was made for foundation design purposes only and that verification of the subsurface conditions for purposes of determining difficulty of excavation, trafficability, etc., are responsibilities of the contractor. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Industrial Developments International and its designated consultants for specific application to design of this project. The only warranty made by us in connection with the services provided is that we have used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty, express or implied, is made or intended. FW/1/4150 /004 /DFW- R.DOC/621- 95/js:4 20 Rev. 0, 8/1/95 64150- 004 -001 a 1 .} v f `_-® as MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECTS aaeraroc}rr eserp as eoweew �..saee om er H/A atAPEVW JOINT VENTURE 44 T ' 1Aesa stn ern Paw. Tmc� 79 02 (915) 533 -7122 I' I I M01 frl10, ftf-W. Ais 4a. Fat Mwo T•000 70fK Mwi (om 4 ^^M teN X21 38.53 #4 • 95.63 • LEOM L tlORE LOCATIONS »r6 A' BORE LOCATIONS �5b PIT LOCATIONS Q PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY FIGURE A.I GENERAL NOTES SOIL OR ROCS TYPES (shown in symbols column) DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS: Ej ® ® 0 Clay Lean Sandy Silty Sandstone Clay Clay C Double Tube Core Barrel ° ° O O ® (S�nd r —' Sandy Conglom- Weathered Shale Gravel orate Shale Unconfined Compressive DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS: Ej M Clayey Sand Sand Wash Sample Q PM Sandstone Limestone 70 10 1 r%. Gravelly Clayey Sand Gravel W Wash Sample Solid Waste Igneous or Debris * D Gravel El Volcanic a —y b" —.4 in —hin.. tion with othw typo+ U Thin - wailed Tube - 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted A Auger Sample S Split Barrel Sampler - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted W Wash Sample Example: 25 = 25 blows/12" after 6" seating interval; 50/7 = 50 blowe/7" P Packer Test after 6" seating interval; REF = 50 blows <6" D Denison Sample C Double Tube Core Barrel T THD Cone Penetrometer Example: T60 = 60 blows/12 "; T4.5" = 100 blows/4.5" RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE - GRAINED SOILS: CONSISTENCY OF FIN& GRAINED SOILS: Penetration Resistance Relative Unconfined Compressive Blowsifoot Density Strength, Qu, tsf Consistency 0.4 Very loose Less than 0.25 Very soft 4.10 Loose 0.25 to 0.50 Soft 10-30 Medium dense 0.50 to 1.00 Firm 30.50 Dense 1.00 to 2.00 Stiff over 50 Very dense 2.00 to 4.00 Very stiff 4.00 and higher Hard �i' „ • 51' YAt ' • 1 Slickensided Having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance. Fissured Containing shrinkage cracks, frequently filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical. Laminated Composed of thin layers of varying color and texture. Interbedded Composed of alternate layers of different soil types. Calcareous Containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate. Well graded Having wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of all intermediate particle sizes. Poorly graded Predominantly of one grain size, or having a range of sizes with some intermediate size missing. Unweathered Rock in its natural state before being exposed to atmospheric agents. Slightly weathered Noted predominantly by color change with no disintegrated zones. Weathered Complete color change with zones of slightly decomposed rock. Severely weathered Complete color change with consistency, texture, and general appearance approaching soil. Soil and rock descriptions on the boring loge are a compilation of field data as well as from laboratory testing of samples on those strata for which laboratory classification test results are presented on the boring loge. These classifications are based only on the actual samples tested, and the classification is then assigned to the remainder of the stratum interval based on visual classification. If laboratory classification test results are not presented on the boring log for a particular stratum, then that stratum was classified by visual- manual procedures only. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between materials and the transition can be gradual. Classification of soils based upon visual - manual procedures was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 2489. Classification of soils based upon laboratory test results was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 2487. Water -level observations have been made in the borings at the times indicated. It must be noted that fluctuations in the ground- water level may occur due to variations in rainfall, hydraulic conductivity of soil strata, construction activity, and other factors. FIGURE A.2 LOG OF BOIUNG NO. A -51 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, 'Texas Location: See Figure A.l rx V) Surface EL: 489.2' MSL v � o � �� � �_ ���+ ��! 0 � > 'N N � �= 'U G 1 G VI y 6 e� C > �� wo a� .= `? o u Ca—° v u er $ ono U q E c a. F4 a s z U �t w ti a �N z c In MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ' -1 SAND (SP), tan to red, medium dense, fine 17 grained, some gravel - 24 485.7 SAND (SP), brown, very dense, w /cemented layers & sandstone layers 5 TOX r_3 _ -4 ... TO. 8' 5 10 •• 477.2 SANDY SHALE, gray, moderately hard, — w /interbedded cemented sand seams & sand - layers T1.5" r 15 _ 469.2 TLO" 7 20 25 30 35 40 Coinpletion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 2' during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/24/95 measured in the auger hole was 1' below the surface at completion. At end of day Date Boring Completed: 5/24/95 t the water level was 2' below the surface & the hole was closed at 13'. Engineer/ Geologist: Pro'ect No. 64150- 004 -001 s titi ..A. .r.■ rn r. a 'f El ®N m (Yl esuat itiull iVlIIIIIGilc�laaa,,a iiv ..... »----- • - - - - -- 1'1V:l1 \li(1.J In situ, the transition may be gradual. r i i l i 2. e i LOG OF BO MG NO. A -52 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 U Surface El.: 492.4 b1SL E y C v w 'U y O 6t 0 0 LL of T. C .yam y ,. C N C E E ... •y h Q. C N ��' N [ 3 o w H p aad�� E o c CL O D V) .0 E 0., �v o ai a p z O v A^ a• b •y U N c x a a z cN D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 -1 SANDY CLAY (CL), tan, stiff 1.5 490.9 1 -2 SILTY SAND (SM), tan, w /sandy clay 81 13.4 t3 10 3 36 seams 489.4 3 SAND (SP), orange to tan, very dense 66 5 - —4:: 485.4 5 .: CEMENTED SAND (SP), orange to tan; very dense, w /sandstone seams & gravel T0.3 r -6 10 480.4 SANDY SHALE, gray, hard, _= — w /interbedded cemented sand seams & sand — T0.8 r- IS — 472.4 T0.5 20 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4.5 ft. during auger drilling. Water Date Boring Started: 5/24195 level measured in the auger hole was 17 ft. below the surface at completion. Date Boring Completed: 5/24/95 Engineer/Geologist: — Pro'ect No.: 64150 -004 -001 EMC ®N I tie stratltication lines represent approzunaLe strata OVOnUal MD. FI(iUKI✓ A.4 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -53 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.i lu Surface El. : 494.0' MSL E o, 43 y H rn LL o o Z LL E o o .2 E g o E C n v) a> 4 a z U ' m U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x 1 SAND (SP), red, medium dense, medium to 12 coarse grained w /gravel " 16 489.5 5 C AY SAN (SC), tan, medium dense ; w /cemented sand seams t8 24 15 9 40 0.5 1-t 10 482.0 -- SANDY SHALE, gray, moderately hard to — hard w /interbedded sand laminae & - cemented sand seams T1.8* r 15 — — — 474.0 T0.8» — r -6 _,0 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 7 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: measured in the auger hole was 6 ft. below the surface at completion. Date Boring Completed: Engineer /Geologist: -- Project No.: 64150 -004 -001 CMCdN ttt estrauneaaonimesrepresent applunuuaw�uaa, ,�,.....�.a. tItJUKL" H.J Tn situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -54 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.l N U Surface El.: 488.3' N1SL C O E\ �, C� '� pq .. _ .. _ EJm 4. J J O- j O O �" T U V1� N K ••Ry�j '" �_ ►f �_ ...1 C y.y. a E o J Vi vF ar " o a� �_� v_u�1 i �$ Ga a. a 6L O .•o G O U Q -4 •� Cr ^1 a7 se U v N N z a a'. ii Z a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x t SILTY SAND (SM), reddish brown, 28 medium dense, w /gravel 486.8 CLAYEY SAND (SC), reddish brown, 26 13.9 17 9 8 39 medium dense, w /sandy clay seams & layers 484.3 3 — SANDSTONE, tan, hard 5 - SHALE, gray, moderately hard to hard, - _— w /interbedded sand & clay laminae, — cemented sand seams —_ T0.5" r -5 -10 — — 6 T1.5" r- 15 _— — — 8 = 468.3 T0.8" r -9 ?0 25 30 35 -40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted a a depth of 2.5' during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/23/95 measured in the auger hole was 2' below the surface 0 completion. At end of the Date Boring Completed: 5/23/95 day the hole was closed 0 13' & the water level was 2' below the surface Engineer /Geologist: --- Project No.: 64150- 004 -001 EMCON The stratification tines represent approximate strata boundaries. FIGURE A.6 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -55 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 U Surface EL: 493.21 NISL .E > w � y J U y N E O O v C y V7 ` � •y .�C.. C w b O w E-" C 3 O h C'�Y' � ❑ ? Lam'+ ,ywy •� f1. rl O r [3, w VS d IS. w 0 ° ist 4� a O .e0� .4 O v A O" ? W a z Vw.. N Z n MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x i SANDY CLAY (CL), reddish brown, soft, 0.5 w /sand seams 491.7 SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, medium 21 81 19.0 15 12 3 13 dense, medium to coarse w /gravel 489.2 SAND (SP), tan, very dense, medium 5 ; grained 50/2" 3 485.2 _— SHALE, gray, soft to moderately hard, 0 /4.5 16.6 35 15 20 35 _ clayey, w /interbedded sand laminae & 10 — seams & sandstone seams T2.5" IS- _ -- - 473.2 T1.5" r-h 20 -35- 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Water level measured in the auger hole was 1.5 ft. below the surface at Date Boring Started: 5/23/95 completion. Date Boring Completed: 5/23/95 Engineer /Geologist: — Project No.: 64150 -004 -001 EML®N t ne strau�MULIM! iuica �c1��wc,u aYt,..,,.�.,...... �........ .................... rR3UKC H. / In situ, the transition may be gradual. x 3 y i G i, LOG OF B®MG NO. A-56 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 J U Surface EL: 492.9' MSL � E � > N � 'y �_ � °� v Z W N 1. L..',. -. " �jy E c 4 a o aF d G 3 ° a� .o g �o 'L u a° = ag o �� Q B vo ° oo �o Z U a Z °eti V x D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 -1 CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, red & gray 3.5 17.4 18 10 8 40 491.4 SILTY SAND (SM), tan, very dense 50/3" 5t:-3:--::: - - w /cemented layers & sandstone seams below 4.5 ft. REF T0.3" r_4 10 481.9 = SHALE, gray, moderately hard to hard, _ clayey, interbedded sand laminne & seams — & sandstone seams T1.3" IS — — — 472.9 r -6 20 25 30 i 35 i t ( 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4.5 ft. during auger drilling. Water Date Boring Started: 5/23/95 level measured in the auger hole was 3 ft. below the surface at completion. Date Boring Completed: 5/23/95 4 Engineer /Geologist: -- Pro`ect No.: 64150- 004 -001 I ne srranncauon uncs rc prescnt EMCON In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -53 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.l N Surface El.: 486.8' MSL 4 � v o a '? ai E E cEN.. U. > mo v mg Eon n 0 m N E ° m w o 0i boo .? :5 !fin v u_ u P�� U� c ° cq ce Z U . [ a b� z . of MATERIAL DE5CR11'TION a a 1 SILTY SAND (SM), tan, loose, w /sandy 7 clay seams 483.3 50/2" 2 GRAVELLY SAND (GP), tan, very dense 482.3 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown, stiff w /sand 3 seams 2.0 480.3 CLAYEY SHALE, gray, moderately hard w /interbedded sand & clay seams & cemented sand seams 4.5+ 13.4 43 17 26 81 J4 10 T1.8" r IS / F'4 6 20 466.8 T2.0" T-7— 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 12 R. during auger drilling. Water Date Boring Started: 5/26/95 level measured in the auger hole was 10 ft. below the surface at completion. At the Date Boring Completed: 5/26/95 end of the day, the water level was at a depth of 10 ft. below the surface. Engineer /Geologist: -- Pro'ect No.: 64150- 004 -001 EMCON 7 he stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries. FIGURE A. In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -59 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.I U Surface EL: 492.7 MSL v � � � •y N e C s o o to 3 a � a V, U n a m 3 ° ad o �'� = ti yg o N a°iF" a uo a� boo ° ° Q m � bE CJ2 a5 a z U ..1 04 Z u v7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, medium 4.5+ 5.5 27 15 36 dense 490.7 r14 J- SANDY CLAY (CL), reddish brown, soft 0. 1 5 0.5 -3 485.7 SAND (SP), tan, very dense, w /gravel & cemented seams 50/5" 4 10 479.2 = SHALE, gray, moderately hard to hard, I5 — - clayey w /interbedded sand laminae & seams T0.8" - & sandstone seams — 412.7 T0.8" 6 -20- 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 7 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/23/95 measured in the auger hole was 5 ft. below the surface at completion. Date Boring Completed: 5/23/95 Engineer /Geologist: Project No.: 64150- 004.001 EMCON The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries. FIGURE A.11 In situ, the transition may be gradual. 1 LOG OF BO MG NO. A -60 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A. t u VS Surface EL: 487.5' MSL G o O G ' •a) E E ; G u .y .. y u � .. ty O y U. 'mtn � C '�• � .a ...1 w .� H N y d.G a ° ��' a 3 ° o a� o �� 2 °^ y, 0.g o c u a aUio ° 4° ° (,y a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x i SANDY CLAY (CL), reddish brown, very 486.5 2.5 4 stiff SAND (SP), light red to tan, medium dense, - 22 17.4 23 18 5 3 _ w /clay seams 483.5 SAND (SP), tan, very dense, w /cemented 5 seams & layers 50/2" •_3 T0.8" i0 475.5 CLAYEY SHALE, gray, soft to moderately hard, w /interbedded sand laminae & seams & sandstone seams T2.0* r IS 467.5 T1.8" r -6 20 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: measured in the auger hole was 2 ft. below the surface at completion. Date Boring Completed: Engineer /Geologist: — Pro"ect No.: 64150- 004 -001 EMCON 1 no stratuicatlon Imes represent appruxnnato suave vVunua -0. t'l"UKi✓ A.1L In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BO MG NO. A -61 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 u Surface EL: 492.01 MSL x > U ..�. v y G O O O > p N 'yN �_ U �_ _E � .�Oi } H ... a d E y V, �[- o nod C o ir` -i =� .-t v u .y y 8..G E m p N E ° c3 0. 2 V seo ° A� a _ ag c 0 U 9 N Co cx Z U .� a a te° uin MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a CLAY {CL), at brown, very stiff, 2.5 w /sand, organics & possible rill to I ft. 3.5 1 -2 490.0 SANDY C (CL), tan, firm to stiff, w /clayey sand seams & layers & some 1.5 42 13 3 gravel 2.0 29 77 5 1.5 486.0 SAND (SP), brown, very dense w /gravel & cemented seams - 71 10 " 479.0 _— SHALE, gray, moderately hard, _ w /interbedded sand laminae & seams & T0.8• r- IS — sandstone seams -20- _ 472.0 T1.5" C -7 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 7.5 ft. during auger drilling. Water Date Boring Started: level measured in the auger hole was 4 ft. below the surface at completion. Date Boring Completed: Engineer /Geologist: — Pro'ect No.: 64150- 004 -401 EMCON 1 he stragtication lines represent approximate strata boundaries. FIGURE A.13 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -62 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 U Surface EL: 488.7' NISL X ; y G G N =�' w > o a! O a° u b a7 8 acv E oq o a A w V) ° a�iE a c; e o a. a� o o a c U cn a z V a a z° va a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x • SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC -SM), light 2.5 12.6 19 12 7 49 brown, medium dense 487.2 SILTY SAND (SM), orange to tan, dense to 32 very dense, fine grained, w /gravel 5- 69 16.3 19 18 1 43 ' -3 82 10 475.7 —_= SANDY SHALE, gray, hard, w /interbedded sand laminae & seams & TO. 5" I S — sandstone seams — — 4683 T0.3" r -6 30 35 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 3 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/24/95 measured in the auger hole was 18 ft. below the surface at completion. Water level Date Boring Completed: 5/24/95 was approx. 17 ft. below the surface at the end of the day (5:30 pm). Engineer /Geologist: — Project No.: 64150- 004 -001 EMCON the stratification lines represent approximate strata nounaartes. FIGURE A.14 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BOWNG NO. A -63 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.l Surface EL: 484.7' NISL ;; �, � .O �_ '�, v '- v O GO T C,� ti� C 3 E a E a" y C .� y N •.'�• as n E t. c o av AA o$ a. co se o z o V a a» z U rn MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 CLAYEY SAND (SC), tan, w /gravel 483.7 35 2 SANDSTONE, orange to tan, very dense 482.7 T0.5" C (CL), brown, very stiff 481.7 4 -- SANDY SHALE, gray, hard w /interbedded — sand laminae & seams & sandstone seams & T0.3" 5 5 — clay seams T0.3" r -7 - 10- — T0.3" r- 15 —. —_ 464.7 T0.3" r -9 20 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: No seepage was noted during aguer drilling or sampling. Upon Date Boring Started: 5/24/95 completion of drilling, there was no measurable water in the auger hole. Date Boring Completed: 5/24195 Engineer /Geologist: -- Project No.: 64150 - 004 -001 EMCON The stratification lines represent approximate strata uounaaries. FIGURE A.15 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -64 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 v U Surface El.: 491.6' MSL y v E o w 4 C N _ °w 0 H� n E a°iEr c 3 ° A. ° �a A y a a uo °" m aio° a z U•[ A ° ►1 tL a z[ C)� in cn x MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 CLAY (CL), brown to reddish brown, very 4.5 stiff to hard w /sand 4.5 2 2.0 6.8 33 13 20 80 �. 487.6 1.5 T-4 SILTY SAND (SM), red, medium dense, 5 fine grained 21 -5 484.6 SILTY CLAY (CL), brown & gray, soft to firm 0.5 11.2 108.4 29 11 18 65 0.4 J76 10 479.6 SAND (SP), brown, very dense, w /gravel 58 7 IS- • 474.6 SANDY SHALE, gray, hard, - _= — w /interbedded sand laminae & seams & - _— sandstone seams 471.6 W8" r 8 20 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 12' during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/24/95 measured in the auger hole was 10' below the surface a completion. At the end of Date Boring Completed: 5/24/95 day, the water level was 7' below the surface & the hole was cloaecl (! Engineer /Geologist: — Pro'ect No. 64150- 004001 L... .,.1s T r! ♦ 1 EMCON ♦ Itc nu autwau�u uuw �wu ,. ..........»_ .... ______ ___. 1'1V V!\L av In situ, the transition may be gradual. L ®� Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER UO Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 u Surface EL: 484.4 NISL 2 „ � � „ a Ott Z U. a v win �_ d n E > a0 a U a' E �q 0 g E w a 4) o n m oG Z o v CQ v>i x D a Z ti h MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dc J-► CLAYEY SAND (SC), tan to brown, 483.4 w /organics 2 SANDY CLAY (CL), orange to red, hard 4.5 w /sand seams & gravel 481.4 '3 CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, dense, 479.9 47 5 w /gravel r _ r " SANDY SHALE, gray, w /interbedded sand — laminae & seams & sandstone seams 5 — TL5" F67 -10 TLO" 19 13 6 46 IS — 20 — — 464.4 T1.0" r -8 35 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4.5' during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/24/95 measured in the auger hole was 4' below the surface at completion. Approx. 6 hrs. Date Boring Completed: 5/24/95 after completion of the hole, the water level was 3' below the surface. Engineer/ Geologist: — Pro'ect No.: 64150- 004 -001: EMCON The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries. FIGURE A.17 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -66 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 U Surface EL: 492.4' MSL � „ � � � .y .v 41 p O � o � C N '� 'pj w E [ •N '� a _ N y ` lu tit 3° : a y H ti as a —° U p—° ° se U vTi rA a z z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x 1 SAND (SP), tan, medium dense 491.4 14 2 SANDY CLAY (CL), reddish brown to 1.5 brown, firm to stiff 18.7 30 15 15 55 2.0 24 13 11 38 3 5 1.0 -10 480.4 • • • SANDSTONE, brown, very dense, poorly cemented w /gravel seams 477.4 T1.5" l5 -- SANDY SHALE, gray, moderately hard, — w /interbedded clay & sand laminae & seams & sandstone seams -- _ 472.4 T I V r -6 20 2s 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 13' during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5/24195 measured in the auger hole was 7' below the surface 0 completion. At the end of Date Boring Completed: 5/24/95 day, the water level was 6' below the surface & the hole was closed a 12' Engineer /Geologist: Project No.: 64150- 004 -001 EMC ®N I ne strattrtcauon tines represent approximate strata oounuartes. FIGURE A. 18 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. A -67 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 v ti Surface EL: 487.0 MSL lu [ o to H n ��it, c a F ti > O °"�U u v_ 8 °' G on a o � z a a Q �z U ° n' Gv' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x SILTY SAND (SM), tan, loose 8 485.5 SANDY CLAY (CL), brownish red, very stiff 25 35 15 20 80 483.0 SAND (SP), brown, very dense, w /gravel 5 5013" • -3 480.0 SAND (SP), cemented, tan, very dense, w /sandstone seams T1.0" 4 10 475.0 CLAYEY SHALE, gray, moderately hard, w /interbedded clay & sand laminae & seams 5 & sandstone seams 1'2.0* r IS 467.0 T1.5" "7 20 25 30 35 40 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Started: 5/26/95 measured in the auger hole was 2 R. below the surface at completion. Boring was LDepth: Completed: 5/26/95 shifted approx. 8' ft. north & 3 R. west. eologist: — : 64150- 004 -001 EMCON the stranncauou uncs represcut appwnuuutc aunts t....,,.., a. Vl(JUKC A.ly In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BOWNG NO. A -68 Project Description: BUILDING A, D /FW 'TRADE CENTER U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 U Surface E(.:. 485.0' MSL v H O O o U v y N N �, N � O emu, '�" C>2 •�,� _ a a y1 a 3 o n"° 'o a �� 7 = v n°'g o C V Q N a a uo a at `�a a z �o V Q'—° m a a. a Uw rn � z° a a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x 1 -1 X CLAYEY SAND (SC), brownish red, 2.5 26 11 15 41 • medium dense to dense 3.5 1.2 w /gravel below 2 ft. 33 33 480.5 5— SILTY SA (SM), cemented, red to tan, w /sandstone seams 2" to 7" thick 50 /1" T1.5" r -5 10 471,5 CLAYEY SHALE, gray, moderately hard, T0.8" 15 sandy, w /interbedded sand laminae & seams & sandstone seams 7 465.0 T1.5" r -8 20 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 3 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 5126/95 measured in the auger hole was 7 ft. below the surface at completion. Boring was Date Boring Completed: 5/26/95 shifted approx. 6 ft. north. Engineer /Geologist: -- Project No.: 64150- 004 -001 �' MC ®N t ne strau"catton Imes rcptcxnt appivnuna�c ,t.aw. ... �.. a. rluuKrI N.Lu In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. B -10 Project Description: GRAPEVINE 180 U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: E 8547.3 N 7325.4 Ln U Surface EL: 485.8' MSL a bw u yN y c u m N wl' N o o 8 o w� a3 o o �� - u_ art E U u q act a. Fa a Gez V .� �i a a �zo ain MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x a 1 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown, yellow & 0.8 red, firm to stiff, w /sand seams & layers, - w /gravel below 3.5 ft. 2.0 19.0 26 12 14 69 1.2 5 -3 477.8 50/1" SAND (SP), brown, very dense, w /gravel 10- T3.5" 474.8 CLAYEY SHALE, gray, moderately hard, sandy, w /interbedded sand seams & laminae 15 T3.5" 465.8 -20-f-6-- 25 30 35 -40 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 9 ft. during auger drilling. Water level Started: 4/21/95 measured in the auger hole was 3 ft. below the surface at completion. LDepth: Completed: 4/21/95 eologist: : 64150- 004 -001 EMC ®N l tie stratification Imes represent approximate strata vutuweuiea. 1 1CiU1t1~ A.11 In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG Or BORING NO. B -11 Project Description: GRAPEVINE 180 U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: E 8818.9 N 7618.7 V3 Surface EL: 487.9' MSL v o °o ; .y w u H rVit o �w y� y N y N L T o " ~ . O U Q -• Q' y Uc N N Gn i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 SANDY CLAY (CL), brown, soft to very 0.8 stiff w /sand layers 3.5 - 482.9 2 5 SAND (SP), brown 50/4" 478.9 SANDSTONE, gray to tan, calcareous, 477.8 IO moderately cemented 4 = — SANDY SHALE, gray to dark gray, dense - & well cemented w /interbedded sand — laminae & clay seams & sandstone layers & IS — lignite -5 20-F- — 6 — tan w /indurated siltstone seams 23 ft. to 27 — ft. T1.5" 17-7 25 - 30 — T1.0" 35 T0.3" 40 T0.5" 45 T0.3" —_ 437.91. T0.5" 12 sa Completion Depth: 50.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4 ft. during auger drilling. At Date Boring Started: 4/22/95 completion of drilling, the water level was 2 ft. below the ground surface. Date Boring Completed: 4/22/95 Engineer /Geologist: P 64150- 004 -001 roject No.: EMC ®N I ne strattttcatton tines represent upprvx„uwc bit— �.,u,. o,. �. t IUUK� H.L6 1. situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING NO. B-12 Project Description: GRAPEVINE 180 Grapevine, Texas Location: E 9090.1 N 790.1 0 U Surface EL: 490.01 NISL S > W >U s '21 M 2 0 0 - 0 41 A � U z U z 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION X SAND (SP-SM), brown, medium dense w/gravel & silt 17 3-1 8 486.0 SANDSTONE, brown, moderately 5011" 5 cemented, very dense 482.0 SHALE, gray moderately hard, w/sandstone layers & clay layers T3.3" 15 - 470.0 T1 R-1 -20-r-' 25- 30- 35- -40 Completion Depth: 20.0 ft. Remarks: Seepage was noted at a depth of 4 ft. during drilling. Water level Date Boring Started: 4/1/95 Date Boring measured through the auger was 17 ft. below the surface at completion. On 4/1/95 Date Boring completed: 4/1/95 or d the water level was 2 ft. below the surface & the hole was close at 2 ft. — Pro ect No . - 64150-004-Ml Pro*ect No. -T- A „ 1111, ZILK at at r-I.A.1i EMCON In situ, the transiti.Z'may M;'j�-T1- LOG OF BORING \lJ NOa TP41 Project Description: GRAPEVINE 180 U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 v Surface EL: f 483' MSL E C o Cu o E E > ay '� w v N V t3. 0 0 .� yNi � N urr y r7' ...t ri N CL. CL av a o o p CQ n Q H E c63F b aCio a— w `� be o z �° j GtO Er :"a `� n. , GQ o Uu > w z [ti MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SANDY CLAY, gray & brown SAND, tan, water at 3.5 ft. - 5 476.0 GRAVEL, wet 475.0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 8.0 ft. Remarks: Significant water in gravel. Date Boring Started: 4/19/95 Date Boring Completed: 4/19/95 Engineer /Geologist: MMS Project No.: 64150- 004-001 E ^�l. ^tit 1nesi rouucnuvniu,ca,cFtcac,uaFF. ......u. EMC ON N (n situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF PORING NO. TP-44 Project Description: GRAPEVINE 180 U0 Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 V) Surface EL: f 489 141SL o ��, �; H y r. n LF c 3 o yb o u 2 u y ag o[ u q n a u o a m ai o4 �z o U A—° •G Q =i a U .' vt � a z u � MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x SAND, tan 484.5 SAND & GRAVEL, wet 483.0 10 l5 ?q 25 30 35 40 Completion Depth: 6.0 ft. Remarks: Excavation terminated due to caving. Significant water in gravel. Date Boring Started: 4/19/95 Date Boring Completed: 4/19/95 Engineer /Geologist: MMS Fro'ect No.: 64150- 004 -001 EMC ®iv lne stratutcatton ones represent appruanumv suave wuuaaa�co. t 1tiUtCJu A.LO In situ, the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BO G NO. TP45 Project Description: GRAPEVINE 180 e Grapevine, Texas Location: See Figure A.1 U Surface EL: 4871 MSL U p D4 0 > N 4r °w 0 0 EW CL E F- C: > 0 a. U 0 C: U E 0 0 a. 2B z U z ';z; MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAND, tan 492.5 5- SAND & GRAV wet 481.5 -to- 20- 25- 30- -35- -40- 5.5 ft. Remarks: Excavation next to co ncrete rubble at ground surface. Significant water Completion Depth: Date Boring Started: 4/19/95 in gravel. Date Boring Completed: 4/19/95 Engineer /Geologist: mms Proiect No.: 64150-004-001 The stratification lines represent approxitnatc btgaua —uti ailza. rRiumZ t"d EMCON In situ, the transition may be gradual. r � , r 1 1 I A A 1 I A I I N M M M Boring/ Exploration Point No. Sample Depth (ft) Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) Moisture Content M Unit Dry Weight (pcf) Percent Finer Percent Percent Passing Passing #200 #40 Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) A -52 1.5 13 10 3 13 _ 36 81__ A -53 5.0 24 IS 9 40 A -54 2.0 17 9 8 14 39 A -55 2.0 15 12 3 19 13 81 A -55 8.5 35 15 20 17 35 A -56 0.0 18 10 8 17 40 A -57 2.0 17 16 l 22 34 A -58 9.0 43 17 26 13 81 A -59 0.0 27 12 15 6 36 A -59 2.0 24 14 IO 7 59 A -60 2.0 23 18 5 17 3 A -61 3.0 42 13 29 77 A -62 0.0 19 12 7 13 49 A -62 5.0 19 18 1 16 43 A -63 0.0 35 A -64 2.0 33 13 20 7 80 A -64 9.0 29 11 18 11 108.4 65 0.4 A -65 14.0 19 13 6 46 A -66 2.0 30 15 15 19 55 A -66 4.0 24 13 11 38 A -67 2.0 35 15 20 80 A -68 0.0 26 11 15 41 . A -68 2.0 33 Summary of Material Properties BUILDING A, D /FW TRADE CENTER Grapevine, Texas July 6, 1995 1 Sheet 1 of 1 FIGURE B.I PROJECT NO. 64150- 004 -001 ...... ..0 __. _.:.: -u, us. s•zzx �vt._. Yv t. a.iva September 22, 1995 Mr. Scott Williams Building official City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 Re. DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Proj No 9544 �L1 MV M&W LUL MACGREG ©R ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS [?ear Mr. Williams: In accordance with the provisions of Section 105 - Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction of the 1991 Uniform Building Cade, we are extended requesting consideration feet too25o alternate eet for methods of providing life project. safety to allow the travel distance to iv exten The building is designed as a speculative warehouse facility for the purposes of storage and distribution ose of goods. The building is classified under the UBC as a Group B, Dorm specializing n fire protection to furnish a Fire Safety Report prepared by The Barrington Group, engineering, which documents that the following features provide a satisfactory level of life safety to allow an extended travel distance: 1. Provide an Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) sprinkler system. 2, Provide a manual fire alarm system as a means of providing early warning to the building occupants. , number of 3, Provide stipulations from the building owner which limit l gross square feet.occupants within the the storage area to no greater than person t}._ Provide a manually controlled mechanical ntation to meet heaequi�yements of the 1991 Uniform substantiated by engineering docume Fire Code. this matter very carefully in 5. Draft curtains will be provided as rWee are aware of information which indicates that draft order to provide a safe facility curtains may not enhance the level of the sprinkler system. The Ba scenario, Group potentially be detrimental to the effectiveness report will address this issue. consideration as soon as possible. This information will be prep ared and submitted for your review and reciated_ Your attention to this request is greatly app cc. Craig Gum Bruce Macgregor Jeff Harrington 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW o Suite 210 AP,CHITECTURF Atlanta, Georgia 30339 • (770) 432 -9400 (FAX) 432 -9934 P L A N N I N G ® t N T F R I O R S MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS September 8, 1995 Mr. Scott Williams Building Official City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 Re: DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Proj No 9544 Dear Mr. Williams: In response to your letter of September 7th, the following list of projects represents very large buildings which have been constructed �Odfoot deep. CIt in our and understanding that a key factor buildings range in depth from 400 to 6 the approval of these buildings was that they were using ESFR sprinkler systems. The buildings are: M.). Designs, Coppell, Texas Radio Shack, Ft. Worth, Texas Haggar Distribution., Ft. Worth, Texas Mervyn's Distribution, Waco, Texas lans have been Interceramics Expansion, Garland, Texas (Not under construction; p approved). Please consider our request in light of there being other precedents for approval within Texas, under the UBC code. Sincerely, Richard P. Leonard, AIA �---2— RPL:Ic j 4 1 f� j1 �i cc: Craig Gum - Industrial Developments International Bruce Macgregor - Macgregor Associates Architects 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW • SUite 210 • Atlanta, Georgia ��, 39 NAT E�i R�IO3R S400 (FAY 432 -993 ARCHITECTURE • PLAN h i N G LUL MACGREGOR FACSIMILE &w" ASSOCIATES LUL ARCHITECTS Mail Original: U Comments: From'. Proj No: Project: 2675 Pads FCM Road, NW 0 suite 210 0 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 4 (770) 437-9400 0 Fax 1770) 432-993 MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS September 8, 1995 Mr. Scott Williams Building Official City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 Re: DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Prof No 9544 Dear Mr. Williams: In response to your letter of September 7th, the following list of projects represents very large buildings which have been constructed under the UBC in and around Dallas/Ft. Worth. These buildings range in depth from 400 to 600 foot deep- It our understanding that a key factor in the approval of these buildings was that they were using ESFR sprinkler systems. The buildings are: MJ. Designs, Coppell, Texas Radio Shack, Ft. Worth, Texas Haggar Distribution, Ft. Worth, Texas Mervyn's Distribution, Waco, Texas Interceramics Expansion, Garland, Texas (Not under construction; plans have been approved). Please consider our request in light of there being other precedents for approval within Texas, under the UBC code. Sincerely, Richard P. Leonard, AIA RPL:Ic cc: Craig Gum - Industrial Developments International Bruce Macgregor - Macgregor Associates Architects 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW * Suite 210 * Atlanta, Georgia 30339 * (770) 432-9400 (FAX) 432-9934 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS September 7, 1995 Mr. Bruce McGregor, AIA 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW Suite 210 Atlanta GA 30339 Mr. McGregor: A Future With A Past Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the evening of September 6, 1995, 1 would like to request some information in addition to the letter and data you set to me on August 30, 1995. Your request for an alternate method relative to travel distance is thorough and well researched. However, I am interested in investigating how other jurisdictions under our Building Code have justified approval of such buildings. I have called several municipalities in our area and can find no situations similar to your request. Please understand that my decision does not depend upon documentation of similar decisions by other Building Officials. However, I think I would have a greater level of comfort if we could see that this alternate method was a common approach to solving the problem at hand. Do not hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance. Thank ou, 6c tt Williams Building Official SW /kd 0AS1MMCGREGOR THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE P.O. Box 95104 • Grapevine, Texas 76099 • Phone Metro 817/481 -0300 an TO: FROM: �Al DATE: c)l t SUBJECT: # OF PAGES: COMNEMS: Re: DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Proj No 9544 Dear Mr. Williams: of In numerous telephone conversations recently, we have s distance for discussed speculat� e warehouse lity receiving an administrative variance to extend the travel currently under design. The Developer's program for s me rethat g o s. is attractive to prospective tenants. building (400 feet) which provides a highly functional p We have designed this type building for the Developer in he UBC wit to al amendments. under the requirements of the Standard Building Code, BOCA and In our jurisdiction, we understand the 1991 Uniform Building Code is the applicable building code. Y This code restricts the maximum travel distance ff eGu� ped DithsannautOOmatpc sprinkler system of combustible products) to 150 feet or 200 feet q p throughout. The code allows for a 300 foot travel if the last ventilation feet be provided forth s hour fire- resistive corridor. The code will require smoke and heat accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Our building design will include a sprinkler system throughout affected by the onephour corridor. function of the speculative warehousing operation would be adversely e dock have designed our building with exit doors at 100 feet on e t t avel t any oneaex t be ng 2 OOfeet on center at the rear wall. This layout results in the long Since the building is of a speculative nature, we 'therlaste100'feet be withinsa the 200 foot travel distance to 300 feet with out the requirement that one hour fire - resistive corridor. We offer the following facts for your consideration. 1. The Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) specifies a 200 foots ra eeddistance for a storage occupancy and permits 400 foot travel if the building Y 2. The Standard Building Code specifies a 200 foot travel distance, permits 250 feet if sprinklered and permits 400 feet if also provided with heat and smoke venting. 3. The BOCA National Building Code specifies a 200 sdmoke e, pting�ts 250 feet if sprinklered and permits 400 feet if also provided wit h heat and 4. The Uniform Building Code permits 400 feet travel he build ng for a yroupnkleDivision and 4 occupancy (non- combustible product storage) if provided with heat and smoke venting. Atlanta, Georgia 30339 (770) 432 -9400 (FAX) 432 -9934 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW • Suite 210 I T E R 1 O R S ARCH ITECTURE • PLA(v KING LUL ` August 30, 1995 L L Mr. Scott Williams MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES Building Official ARCHITECTS City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 Re: DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Proj No 9544 Dear Mr. Williams: of In numerous telephone conversations recently, we have s distance for discussed speculat� e warehouse lity receiving an administrative variance to extend the travel currently under design. The Developer's program for s me rethat g o s. is attractive to prospective tenants. building (400 feet) which provides a highly functional p We have designed this type building for the Developer in he UBC wit to al amendments. under the requirements of the Standard Building Code, BOCA and In our jurisdiction, we understand the 1991 Uniform Building Code is the applicable building code. Y This code restricts the maximum travel distance ff eGu� ped DithsannautOOmatpc sprinkler system of combustible products) to 150 feet or 200 feet q p throughout. The code allows for a 300 foot travel if the last ventilation feet be provided forth s hour fire- resistive corridor. The code will require smoke and heat accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Our building design will include a sprinkler system throughout affected by the onephour corridor. function of the speculative warehousing operation would be adversely e dock have designed our building with exit doors at 100 feet on e t t avel t any oneaex t be ng 2 OOfeet on center at the rear wall. This layout results in the long Since the building is of a speculative nature, we 'therlaste100'feet be withinsa the 200 foot travel distance to 300 feet with out the requirement that one hour fire - resistive corridor. We offer the following facts for your consideration. 1. The Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) specifies a 200 foots ra eeddistance for a storage occupancy and permits 400 foot travel if the building Y 2. The Standard Building Code specifies a 200 foot travel distance, permits 250 feet if sprinklered and permits 400 feet if also provided with heat and smoke venting. 3. The BOCA National Building Code specifies a 200 sdmoke e, pting�ts 250 feet if sprinklered and permits 400 feet if also provided wit h heat and 4. The Uniform Building Code permits 400 feet travel he build ng for a yroupnkleDivision and 4 occupancy (non- combustible product storage) if provided with heat and smoke venting. Atlanta, Georgia 30339 (770) 432 -9400 (FAX) 432 -9934 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW • Suite 210 I T E R 1 O R S ARCH ITECTURE • PLA(v KING Mr. Scott Williams August 30, 1995 Page 2 [ -777 WTI In Section 5 -6 of the Life Safety Code Handbook, it lists the 5 factors upon which the Committee on Safety to Life bases maximum travel distances: • The number, age, and physical condition of building occupants and the rate at which they can be expected to move. • The type and number of obstructions that must be negotiated. • The number of people in any room or space and the distance from the farthest point in that room to the door. • The amount and nature of combustibles expected in a particular occupancy. • The rapidity with which fire might spread, which is a function of the type of construction, the materials used, the degree of compartmentation and the presence or absence of automatic fire detection and extinguishing systems. In our opinion, the warehousing operation envisioned for this facility compares favorably with the above listed factors in terms of granting a travel distance variance. The typical warehouse worker must be mobile, either by foot or by motor operated forktruck in order to cover the long distances required by the operation. The facility is not designed for access by the public, but rather by employees who are very familiar with the layout. A functional warehouse operation must be laid out orderly with clearly defined pathways and aisles in order to move product efficiently. Generally the bay or two bays (50 to 100 feet) adjacent to the exterior wall is left open as a working and staging area, making identification of exits very easy. Generally, warehouse operations involve relatively few employees in relation to the building area. The people are generally located in stationary working areas near exterior walls and travel into the depths of the building on an intermittent nature, and are very mobile. Obviously the amount and nature of combustibles may be great in a warehouse occupancy which makes the presence of an automatic sprinkler system crucial for safe operation. Finally, the rapidity of the spread of fire and smoke must not be minimized but rather understood in relation to the type of sprinkler system provided and the characteristics of the building. We propose to protect the facility with a fully automatic sprinkler system utilizing Early- Suppression Fast - Response (ESFR) sprinkler technology. An informative report commissioned by the Owner and prepared by a highly reputable fire protection engineering firm is included for your review. The building described in the report is quite similar to the proposed design here. The purpose of the report was to determine how much smoke would be generated in a warehouse building with ESFR sprinkler systems providing protection. A typical fire scenario was computer modeled and demonstrated the effectiveness of the ESFR system in limiting the growth of fire and extinguishing the fire within approximately ten minutes of the start of ignition. The amount of smoke generated from a fire based upon high rack storage of Class A plastic commodity was less than 2 feet down from the roof deck. It was demonstrated that a mechanical operated and manually controlled smoke exhaust system based upon an air change rate of 3 per hour could exhaust the quantity of smoke developed within 30 seconds of operation. A copy of the Factory Mutual Data Sheet 2 -2 "Early Suppression -Fast Response Sprinklers" is enclosed for your information. In particular, please note the FM recommendations stated in 2.2.3 Heat and Smoke Venting, and 2.2.4 Draft Curtains. Draft curtains will provide little benefit because heat and smoke generation will be minimized. Automatic roof venting is not desired because they Mr. Scott Williams 6uL Ar August 30, 1995 `i Page 3 Etuaw may prematurely open allowing release of heat which is needed to activate ESFR sprinkler heads quickly. In order to provide heat and smoke venting as required by evious projects. se The first option is to systems, each of which have been accepted with fu Able links rated at a minimum of 360 °F. provide manually operated roof vents equipped ' These vents would be UL listed and FM approved smoke vent/sky50 )resulting in a 100 foot maximum x 81 smoke vent/skylight in every other bay (bay size spacing of vents and a vent area to floor area ratio of 1:1x5 . exhast other option would s be to provide a mechanical operated and manual controlled powered similar to the mechanical system described in those to f�ovidermechanical exhaust fans in Development and Removal Study enclosed). We prop p nd roof equally spaced along the ridge line. Fans would be rated at will muprovided000n fm ave be provide approximately 3 air changes per hour. Air in The fans hei g ht along the full length of both long walls for make-up air air for the control aans. control panel l be wired ahead of the main and will be capable o individual of mounted on the exterior wall and accessible to adsr requeed by the ESFR spri kleh system and will provide the limited amount of mop -up smo ke exhu be manually controlled for ultimate flexibility. and In conclusion, we are requesting an administrative variance ntainled w thin at onerhour dfire- resist fire-resistive eliminate the requirement for the final 100 feet to be co corridor. We base this request on the fact that many nationally o at ponklerdsysstemfwill beeanpESFR even greater travel distance of 400 feet, and that the a system which was developed to limit and contain heat and smoke ghat the heat andesfmokeevent venting Y heads stems. We are also requesting conventional standard spray Y be accomplished with either manually operated smokedeec�bed'abover Wehbas'ethprequest on manually controlled powered roof exhaust system as Factory Mutual recommendations specifically developed for the ESFR sprinkler system. Your review of the above information and additional data attached is appreciated. We hope that this re uest will earn your favorable approval. If there is ale addonotnal inform tiontact arifi fatione which you may require in order to reach your decision, p await your decision. Sin , J.,Br Macgregor, A JBM:lc w/ enclosures cc: Doug Johnson, Industrial Developments International 5 -6 Measurement of Travel Distance to Exits 129 Tr avel Distance and Dead —End Limits (By Occupancy) (continued) Travel Limit to an Exit rA-5-6.1 ype of Dead —End Unsprinklered Sprinklered cupancy Limit (ft) (ft) (ft) WRIAL 50 (15 m) 200 (60 m) 250 (75 m) ociall Purpose (Low or Ordinary Hazard) 50 (15 m) 300 (91 m) 400 (122 m) Wh Hazard 0 75 (23 m) N.R.b 75 (23 m) N.R.b den Structures N.R.b (RAGE 0 Hazard N.R. N.R. N.R. Hazard 1 m 200 60 m 400 122 m VUh r 0 75 (23 m 00 30 m 6" Garages, Open 50 (15 m) 200 (60 m) 300 (91 m) i r" Garages, Enclosed Floor 50.(15 m) 501 (15 m) 150 (45 m) Variesl 200 (60 m) Variesi jycraft Hangars, Ground I6xraft Hangars, Mezzanine Floor 5d (15 m) 75 (23 m) 75 (23 m) ;rain Elevators i 20d (60 m) 40d (122 m) isoeltaneous Occupancies, Towers, Piers, and Water Surrounded Structures,Vehicles, and Vessels, and Emergency Shelters 50 (15 m) 100 (30 m) 150 (45 m) • Chapters 8 and 9 for aisles and mezzanines. requirement or not applicable. is cknension is for total travel distance, for travel distance within the room, and from the room exit access door to the exit. See the appropriate occupancy chapter. opinklered facilities 50 ft (15 m). is dimension is from the room exit access door to the exit. See Chapters 16 and 17 for exceptions and limitations within the room /suite. 6 dmension is from the room exit access door to the exit. See Chapters 18 and 19 for exceptions and limitations within the room /suite. w Chapters 22 and 23. is Chapters 24 and 25 for exceptions and special considerations. e Chapter 28 for special considerations. e Chapters 28 and 29 for special requirements. n and the floor below, the distance shall include the travel le stairway or ramp and the travel from the end of the stair - or ramp to an outside door or other exit in addition to the traveled to reach the stairway or ramp. Travel Distance Limitations. Travel distance to at least �ne exit shall not exceed 200 ft (60 m) in buildings not sprin- ,Oered or exceed 250 ft (76 m) in buildings protected through - "by an approved supervised sprinkler system in accordance 311tt Section 7 -7. jception No. 1: Where other travel distance limitations are wed in Chapters 8 through 30. option No. 2: Travel distance for areas having high haz- '� contents as specified in Section 5 -11, Although Chapter 5 establishes general travel distance limitations, almost all occupancy chapters establish their own limits, and therefore Exception No. 1 is very impor- tant. 5-6.5 Where any part of an exterior exit is within 10 ft (3 m) horizontal distance of any unprotected building opening, as permitted by 5- 2.2.6.3 for outside stairs, the travel distance to the exit shall include the length of travel to ground level. The intent of this paragraph is to clarify that, if the exterior stair is exposed by unprotected building open- ings, it is not considered as an exit but as an exit access, and the travel distance is measured down the stair. (Also see commentary in 5- 2.2.1.) LIFE SAFETY CODE HANDBOOK OOW- WN A OD ,7G w C CL m Q. Co Q 0 CL rn O T w C CL n. a) o: n Occupancy Classification a Group A vi Group B Group E Group F Group H Group I Restrained Group I Unrestrained Group M Group R roup S y $ a CD RE G pQ A C O x Q° ,{a CD CD CD CG C1 vO ?� G w ry G wi f1, w ►w- G Cr CDC! CAD =d COD o ' oc O. CD p o G G Gz M CD CD C' Yw �•Yw W 0 "O w w N n NO W zr :+ K `� G. N < rJC N .wS 0. 0 G 7' °, R o � Cs O gin' w !^'o CD M CD CD (p CD 0 �'4 CL W M K a O ra G 0 Owe o to CD c� oar CD $, o co O 4 • < tD N C'S Cr p N O Q i7 C N Oh C<D Q fD W C:. $5 °o a o. °o °+°o pot w S, ., w 3 n w 0 -3 0 0 CO o o w c 0 o E3 o' . CD n c C4 Qn w a� cis' o c s G' rtc CCDD �' CD Maximum Travel Dist. To Exit (ft) Unsprk. Sprk. 200 250 200 250 200 250 200 2507 NP 10013 O� .. G O O is .D N CD N O �• G W lGD �' �, � N � � 0 O cD ~' N "t 1 O 0q _ O ,,� � M m .-• C G. G Cep w ^•s «y O w a x y =;* o w r iv or- CL G CD rn � A G w G M 0 Eg �'. �' n CD - o. a. . °c o •p R o E 2Drc� N CD N CD 0 CD c CD x. ors y a. CD 0 M °' rA � CD cc, CD CCDD CO �'. C ~ = C w CL d ,< w (D CD Table 1004 Dead -End Length, Exit and Means of Egress Width Maximum Egress Width Per Dead End Person Served (in) Corridor Length (ft) 12 Level `12 Stairs _ 0 _ -- 0.2 0.3714 20 0.2 0.3714 20 0.2 0.3714 20 0.2 0.3714 20 0.4 0.7 Varies" Varies' l 20 150 200 20 20 200 250 0 208 208 00 200 2006 2506.7 20 Minimum Corridor/ Aisle Width (in_ ) 441,10 4410 722.10 44 4410 0.2 0.3714 48 0.2 0.3714 443 44 410 0.2 0.3714 0.3714 445.10 02 0.2 0.3714 44 10 Minimum Clear Op'g Of Exit Doors (in) 32 - 32 32 32 32 Minimum Stair Widthto (in) 44 44 44 44 44 32 44 369 `4 32 44 32 32 `4 44 1 in = 25.4 mm / • 1ft= 0.305m Notes: 1, See 1019.10.2. 2 For occupant loads less than 100 persons. 44 Inches may nt used 3. 96 inches shall be provided in areas requiring the movement of beds. 4. See 413 for covered mail buildings. 5. 36 inches shall be permitted within dwelling units. 6. Maximum travel distance shall be increased to 300 ft if unsprinklered and 400 ft if sprinklered for Group S2 occupancies and open parking structures constructs per •. 7 See 1004.1.4 for exceptions. 8. See 1026.1.1 for exceptions. 9, 44 inches required in areas requiring movement of beds. 10. 36 inches acceptable if stair or corridor serves occupant load of less than 50. 11. See 1024.2.6. Np 12. Applies to ramps, doors and corridors. 13. For HPM Facilities, as defined in 408, the maximum travel distance shall be 100 ft. 14. Use 0.3 for stairs having tread depths 11 inches or greater and riser heights between 4 inches minimum and 7 inches maximum. THE BOCA NATIONAL BUILDING CODE/1993 Table 1006.5 LENGTH OF EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL' Without I With Use Group sprinkler system I sprinkler s) A, B, E, F -1, 1 -1, M, F -2, S -2 H-1,:.. X k H-72 H -4 1-2,1-3 200 ® 250 300 400 125 175 150 200 Note a. See the following sections for modifications to travel distance require- ments. Section 402.5.1: For the exit access travel distance limitation in malls. Section 404.7: For the exit access travel distance limitation through an atrium space. Section 416.6: For the exit access travel distance limitation in HPM use facilities. Section 1006.5.1: For increased limitation in Use Groups F -1 and S -1. Section 1006.5.2: For increased limitation in Use Group A -5. Section 1010.3: For buildings with one exit. Section 3104.9: For the exit access travel distance limitation in temporary structures. Note b. Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 906.2.1 or 906.2.2. Note c.1 foot = 304.8 mm. 1006.5.1 Roof vent increase: In buildings which are one story in height, equipped with automatic heat and smoke roof vents complying with Section 922.0 and equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Sec- tion 906.2.1, the exit access travel distance limitation in Table 1006.5 for occupancies in Use Group F -1 or S -1 shall be increased to 400 feet (122 m). 10065.2 Use Group A -5: Occupancies in Use Group A -5, where all portions of the means of egress are essentially open to the outside, shall have an exit access travel distance of not more than 400 feet (122 m), except that such occupancies in buildings and structures of Type 1 or 2 construction shall not have an exit access travel distance limitation. 1006.6 Elevators, escalators and moving walks: Elevators, escalators and moving walks shall not be accepted as a required element of the means of egress. Exception: An elevator conforming to Section 1007.3 shall be permitted for an accessible means of egress. 1006.7 Common path of travel: The common path of exit access travel distance for occupants to reach a point where two separate and distinct paths of travel are available to two exits shall not exceed 100 feet (30480 mm) in occupancies in Use Group I -3. SECTION 1007.0 ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS 1007.1 General: All spaces required to be accessible by Chapter I i shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress that complies with this section. Where more than one means of egress is required from any required accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress. Each accessible means of egress shall provide a continuous path of travel from a required accessible space to a public way which is usable by a mobility impaired person and shall include accessible routes, ramps, exit stairways, elevators, horizontal exits or smoke barriers. MME 1007.2 Exit stairways: An exit stairway to be considered part of an accessible means of egress shall have a clear width of at least 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails and shall either incorporate an area of refuge within an enlarged story-level landing or shall be accessed from an area of refuge complying with Section 1007.5 or a horizontal exit. Exceptions I. Stairs serving a single dwelling unit or guestroom. 2. Occupancies equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 906.2.1. 3. The clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails is not required for exit stairways accessed from a horizontal exit. 10073 Elevators: An elevator, to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, shall comply with Section 3006.0 and standby power shall be provided in accordance with Section 2707.0. The elevator shall be accessed from an area of refuge complying with Section 1007.5 or a horizontal exit. In buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above or below a level of exit discharge serving that floor, at least one elevator shall be provided and shall serve as one required acces- sible means of egress. Exceptions 1. In buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 906.2.1, the elevator shall not be required to serve floors which are located at or above the level of exit discharge and provided with a horizontal exit complying with Section 1019.0. 2. Elevators are not required to be accessed from an area of refuge or a horizontal exit in occupancies equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in ac- cordance with Section 906.2.1. 1007.4 Platform lifts: Platform (wheelchair) lifts shall not serve as part of an accessible means of egress except within a dwelling unit. 10075 Areas of refuge: Every required area of refuge shall be accessible from the space it serves by an accessible means of egress. The maximum travel distance from any accessible space to an area of refuge shall not exceed the travel distance permitted for the occupancy in accordance with Section 1006.5. Every required area of refuge shall have direct access to an exit stair way complying with Section 1007.2 or an elevator complying with Section 1007.3. Where an elevator lobby is used as an area of refuge, the shaft and lobby shall comply with Section 1015.0 for smokeproof enclosures except where the elevators are in an area of refuge formed by a horizontal exit or smoke barrier. Exception: Areas of refuge are not required in open parking structures. 1007.5.1 Size: Each area of refuge shall be sized to accom- modate one wheelchair space of 30 inches (762 mm) by 48 inches (1219 mm) for each 200 occupants or portion thereof. based on the occupant load of the area of refuge and all areas served by the area of refuge. Such wheelchair spaces shall not reduce the required means of egress width. Access to any of the required wheelchair spaces in an area of refuge shall not be obstructed by more than one adjoining wheelchair space. E Loss Prevention Data 2`2 December 1990 Supersedes May 1988 Rev. April 1993 page 2 EARLY SUPPRESSION -FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SCOPE ....... .......................................... 1 2.0 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS .......................... 1 2.1 General ........... ............................... 1 2.2 Construction ......................... ............................... 1 2.3 Storage Arrangements ................................... I.... 2 2.4 Sprinkler System Design ..... ............................... 4 2.5 Sprinkler System Components .......................... 4 2.6 Location and Position of Sprinklers .................. 4 3.0 SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 5 3.1 Characteristics of ESFR Sprinklers .................... 5 3.2 Applicability .......................... ............................... 6 3.3 Basis for Installation Requirements .................... 6 3.4 Discussion Relating to Specific Installation " °•" " "' 6 Guidelines 4.0 APPENDIX— DEVELOPMENT OF ESFR SPRINKLERS_ .......................... ............................... 7 4.1 Background ..... ............................... . 7 4.2 Theo ...... ............................... 8 4.3 Development ........................ ............................... 8 4.4 Retrofit Considerations ....................................... 9 4.5 Cost Considerations (New Systems)—ESFR Sprinklers at the Ceiling vs Standard Sprinklers at the Ceiling Plus In -Rack Sprinklers ............... 11 1.0 SCOPE This standard provides requirements for the Installation of Early Suppression -Fast Response (ESFR) sprinklers and discussion on the theory and development of these sprin- klers. The ESFR sprinkler relies on the concept of fire sup- pression, rather than fire control. Fire control is the basis for standard or large -drop sprinkler protection. The ESFR sprinkler has undergone extensive testing and is backed by much scientific research. As with any such product, its reli- ability is based on close adherence to the guidelines estab- lished for its use. Many of the engineering judgments appropriate to standard or large -drop sprinklers do not necessarily transpose to ESFR sprinklers. Use of conventional judgments for ESFR sprinkler installations may not uniformly transfer to this unique technology. Thus, it is important that the installation requirements contained herein be closely followed. r 1990 Factory Mutual Engineering Corp All rights reserved. 2.0 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS 2.1 General installation requirements for ESFR sprinklers provide ade- quate flexibility for achieving excellent economy while main- taining reliability. Data Sheet 2 -8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, applies for installation details not addressed here. Table 1 of this data sheet gives a summary of ESFR sprin- kler installation guidelines. 2.2 Construction 2.2.1 Roof Construction and Slope Acceptable types of roof construction, are not dependent upon the combustibility of the roof. Rather, acceptability is primarily a function of the roof shape and configuration, needed to assure fairly uniform sprinkler response to a growing fire. ESFR sprinklers are not suitable for use beneath roofs that may prevent relatively uniform heat movement, thereby causing a delay in sprinkler operation. 2.2.1.1 Roof Construction ESFR sprinklers can be installed in buildings with the follow- ing types of roof construction: (a) smooth ceiling; (b) bar joist; (c) beam and girder; (d) panel, up to 300 sq ft (28 sq m). (this includes ply- wood diaphragm roofs where the purlins and subpurlins are framed into the sides of, rather than on top of supporting members to eliminate open communicating spaces at the roof between panel areas.) Note: Data Sheet 2 -8N, installation of Sprinkler Systems, contains detailed information regarding definitions of roof types. 2.2.1.2 Roof Slope Roof slope up to and including 1 in. /ft (83 mm /m) is accept- able. For roof slope in excess of 1 in. /ft (83 mm /m), a sus- pended ceiling with acceptable slope may be installed above the storage with sprinklers installed below the ceil- ing. Sprinkler protection should be provided above the cell ing at roof level also if the roof, contents in the concealed space, or ceiling are combustible. (See Data Sheet 1 -12, Ceilings.) Ig"gi 9M EARLY SUPPRESSION -FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLERS ®2 Page 3 Storage arrangements used during the testing to develop and determine water demands for ESFR sprinklers were generally symmetrical, well- arranged simulated storages with uniform and well defined flue spaces, with the excep- tion of one successful test involving irregular flue spaces. The following storage area requirements reflect other con -c ditions for. protection with ESFR sprinklers. (See also Secw lion 3.2 Applicability.) 2.3.1 Flue Spaces It is not necessary to provide flue spaces uniformly through- out the racks. Minimum 34n. (76 -mm) flues in the trans-, verse direction at least every 8 to 10 ft (2.4 to 3.0 M) of rack length are sufficient to allow sprinkler water penetration through the racks to the seat of the fire. Spaces Table 1. Summary of ESFR Sprinkler Installation Guidelines. Type of Single , double , multiple -row and portable rack Storage' storage (no open -top combustible containers or solid shelves), solid plied or palletized stor- age, and bin -box storage. Commodity Class I, il, III and N commodities. Cartoned unexpanded plastics. Cartoned expanded plastics. 'Other types of storage can be protected with ESFR sprinklers when Indl- cated by the data sheet covering the particular type storage. formed by vertical rack uprights between each rack bay will provide adequate flue spaces. Spaces normally available to allow accurate loading of pallet loads will provide addi- tional flues randomly located within each rack bay. Flue spaces are not necessary for solid -piled or palletized storage. 2.3.2 Solid Shelves Uke other ceiling -only sprinkler arrangements, ESFR sprin- klers should not be used to protect rack storages that have solid shelves. (Solid shelves are defined in Data Sheet 8 -33, Rack Storage of Materials.) Because solid shelves pro- mote horizontal fire spread while simultaneously shielding burning combustibles from sprinkler discharge, they are not conducive to ESFR protection. 2.3.3 Open -top combustible containers ESFR sprinklers should not be used to protect rack stor- age of open -top combustible containers. Successful ESFR sprinkler performance depends on sufficient sprinkler water penetration through the racks to the seat of the fire. This penetration is accomplished by direct water spray through the flue spaces, as well as by runoff down the sides of the stored commodities from the top surfaces of the array. Open -top combustible containers will collect a significant portion of the sprinkler water spray, preventing' water run- down to the seat of the fire at the lower tiers of storage. Con- ventional ceiling -only sprinklers are similarly handicapped in this regard. 2.3.4 Special Considerations 2.3.4.1 Roof Height Higher Than 30 ft (9.1 m) When roof slope requirements result in roof peak height up to 32 ft (9.8 m) maximum, ESFR sprinklers may be used if sprinkler_ design' discharge pressure is 60 psi (4.14 bar, 414 kPa) rather than 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa) as out- lined in Section 2.4.1. Maximum storage height is still 25 ft (7.6 m). 2.3.4.2 Solid Mezzanines When solid mezzanines with storage beneath are installed within a building protected by ESFR sprinklers, provide ESFR sprinklers beneath the mezzanine also, with no stor- age placed between the outside line of ESFR sprinklers beneath the mezzanine and any edge of the mezzanine which is open to the main building area. Limit storage height beneath the mezzanine to 12 ft (3.7 m) high and design the ESFR sprinkler system beneath the mezzanine to pro- vide six sprinklers (three on two lines) at 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa). Water demand may be independent from the ceil- ing ESFR sprinkler system. 2.3.4.3 Conveyors and Walkways For conveyors and walkways up to 6 ft (1.8 m) wide which can obstruct ceiling sprinkler discharge, provide �atiee of ESFR sprinklers beneath designed to supply o sprin- klers at 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa), and add the water demand for the two sprinklers to that for the ceiling ESFR sprinkler system. (All the above either encapsulated or nonencap- sulated) Maximum 25(7.6) Height of Storage, It (m) Maximum 30 (9.1) Height of Building, rt (m) Roof Smooth ceiling. Construction Bar joist Beam and girder. Panel (including plywood diaphragm) Also, Maximum roof slope of 1 in./ft (84 mm/m) No exposed expanded plastic No automatic roof vents Sprinklers Type: ESFR pendent, 165 °F (74 °C) nominal. Location: Centerline of thermal sensing ele- ment maximum 13 in. (330 mm) and minimum 4 in. (102 mm) below ceiling preferably 6 to 10 in. (152 to 254 mm) below ceiling. K Factor. 14.0 Hydraulic Design: Minimum 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa) from most remote 12 sprinklers flow- ing 4 sprinklers on 3 brartch lines. System type: Wet -pipe (no dry -pipe or preaction). Spacing: 80 to 100 sq ft (7.4 to 9.3 sq m spac- ing, minimum 8 ft (2.4 m) and maximum 12 ft (3.7 m) between sprinklers or branch lines. Nose Streams 250 gpm (946 cu dm/min), 11f2 in.(38 mm) hose lines, maximum 100 ft (30.5 m) to reach all areas. Water Supply One hour duration. 'Other types of storage can be protected with ESFR sprinklers when Indl- cated by the data sheet covering the particular type storage. formed by vertical rack uprights between each rack bay will provide adequate flue spaces. Spaces normally available to allow accurate loading of pallet loads will provide addi- tional flues randomly located within each rack bay. Flue spaces are not necessary for solid -piled or palletized storage. 2.3.2 Solid Shelves Uke other ceiling -only sprinkler arrangements, ESFR sprin- klers should not be used to protect rack storages that have solid shelves. (Solid shelves are defined in Data Sheet 8 -33, Rack Storage of Materials.) Because solid shelves pro- mote horizontal fire spread while simultaneously shielding burning combustibles from sprinkler discharge, they are not conducive to ESFR protection. 2.3.3 Open -top combustible containers ESFR sprinklers should not be used to protect rack stor- age of open -top combustible containers. Successful ESFR sprinkler performance depends on sufficient sprinkler water penetration through the racks to the seat of the fire. This penetration is accomplished by direct water spray through the flue spaces, as well as by runoff down the sides of the stored commodities from the top surfaces of the array. Open -top combustible containers will collect a significant portion of the sprinkler water spray, preventing' water run- down to the seat of the fire at the lower tiers of storage. Con- ventional ceiling -only sprinklers are similarly handicapped in this regard. 2.3.4 Special Considerations 2.3.4.1 Roof Height Higher Than 30 ft (9.1 m) When roof slope requirements result in roof peak height up to 32 ft (9.8 m) maximum, ESFR sprinklers may be used if sprinkler_ design' discharge pressure is 60 psi (4.14 bar, 414 kPa) rather than 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa) as out- lined in Section 2.4.1. Maximum storage height is still 25 ft (7.6 m). 2.3.4.2 Solid Mezzanines When solid mezzanines with storage beneath are installed within a building protected by ESFR sprinklers, provide ESFR sprinklers beneath the mezzanine also, with no stor- age placed between the outside line of ESFR sprinklers beneath the mezzanine and any edge of the mezzanine which is open to the main building area. Limit storage height beneath the mezzanine to 12 ft (3.7 m) high and design the ESFR sprinkler system beneath the mezzanine to pro- vide six sprinklers (three on two lines) at 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa). Water demand may be independent from the ceil- ing ESFR sprinkler system. 2.3.4.3 Conveyors and Walkways For conveyors and walkways up to 6 ft (1.8 m) wide which can obstruct ceiling sprinkler discharge, provide �atiee of ESFR sprinklers beneath designed to supply o sprin- klers at 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa), and add the water demand for the two sprinklers to that for the ceiling ESFR sprinkler system. EARLY 2.6.3 Clear Space Below Sprinklers Maintain at least 3 ft (0.9 m) between sprinkler deflectors and the top of storage. This minimum clearance isrom s sary to ensure adequate distribution of water spray f charging sprinklers over the top of storage into flue spaces and down the aisle faces. 2.6.4 Obstructions to Distribution 2.6.4.1 General Effective fire suppression requires direct and prompt attack upon the burning fuel by the sprinkler discharge. There- fore, obstructions to distribution and interference with the discharge pattern must be taken into account in the over- all design. 2.6.4.2 Obstructions Located at or Near the Ceiling Where spri nkler deflectors are located above the bottom of beams, girders, ducts, fluorescent lighting fixtures or other obstructions located near the ceiling, position the sprinklers so that the maximum vertical distance from the bottom of the obstruction to the deflectors is within the guidelines specified in Table 2. Use Figures 1 and 2 in conjunction with Table 2 in positioning sprinkler deflectors. 2.6.4.3 Obstructions Located Below the Sprinklers When the position of sprinklers with respect to fluorescent lighting fixtures, ducts, and other obstructions wider than 2 ft (0.6 m) is such that the Table 2 deflector distances above obstructions are exceeded, install additional sprinklers beneath obstructions, and include such sprinklers in the water demand. Additional sprinklers beneath obstructions are not needed when: l) obstructions up to 2 ft (0.6 m) wide are located below a single sprinkler, but not below two or more adjacent sprinklers (including diagonally), or; 2) con- tinuous obstructions, such as sprinkler piping, utility pip- ing or ductwork up to 1 ft (0.3 m) wide are located below sprinklers and offset at least 2 ft (0.6 m) horizontally from the vertical centerline of the sprinklers. 3.0 SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Characterlstics of ESFR Sprinklers 2 -2 Page 5 the ceiling, as is the case with the fire control concept, is nearly eliminated. This approach results in a much smaller fire area and sprinkler operating area than control -mode protection, making it a particularly good choice where there are high -value contents. . It is important to realize that the effectiveness of the ESFR sprinklers depends on the combination of fast response and the quality and efficiency of the sprinkler_ discharge. Other sprinklers, possessing only one of these characteristics, cannot be relied upon to achieve early fire suppression. Table 2. Position of Deffllector ObstLocated c t d Above Bottom of Beam Other Horizontal Distance from Maximum Distance Deflector Sprinkler to Side of Beam or Above Bottom of Beam or Other Other Obstruction Obstruction, in. (mm) Less than 1 ft (0.3 m) 0 (0) i It (0.3 m) to less than 11/2 It (0.5 m) 11/2 ft (0.5 m) to less than 3 (76) 2 It (0.6 m) 2 ft (0.6 m) to less than 51/2(140) 21/2 ft (0.8 m) 21/2 ft (0.8 m) to less than 8 (203) 3 ft (0.9 m) 3 ft (0.9 m) to less than 10 (254) 31/2 ft (1.1 m) 31/2 ft (1.1 m) to less than 12 (305) 4 ft (1.2 m) 4 It (1.2 m) to less than 15 (381) 41/2 It (1.4 m) 41/2 ft (1.4 m) to less than 18 (457) 5 It (1.5 m) 5 It (1.5 m) to less than 22 (559) 51/2 ft (1.7 m) 51/2 It (1.7 m) to less than 26 (660) 6 ft (1.8 m) ESFR sprinklers were developed for use against high - challenge fires with the goal of achieving lower loss expect- ancies. They may be economical with ordinary storages as well. The sprinklers are designed to respond quickly to growing fires and to deliver a heavy sprinkler discharge to "suppress" the fire, rather than "control' it, as occurs with standard and large -drop sprinklers. ESFR sprinklers pro- vide a direct attack on the burning fuel by improved sprin- kler discharge to achieve early suppression of the fire. Because of the effectiveness of these sprinklers, the need for prewetting storage in surrounding areas and cooling at 6 ft (1.8 31 ESFR sprinklers will provide excellent, reliable protection for those occupancies that have been shown by testing to be suitable. As with any new technology, careful design and close adherence to the rules given in this data sheet are essential. Therefore, judgments intended to extend their use or amend installation requirements may not be consistent with those attributed to other types of sprinklers. The char- acteristics of ESFR sprinklers are further discussed in the Appendix of this data sheet. EARLY SUPPRESSION -FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLERS 2 ®2 Page 7 been relaxed to 1 in./ft (84 mm /m). An FMRC. research project to evaluate roof slope effects on ESFR sprinkler operations showed that the 1 in./ft (84 mm/min) slope rep- resents a practical maximum for the purpose of avoiding a skewed sprinkler operating pattern. The goal of any analysis involving heat and smoke vents should be to prevent delayed sprinkler operation if the fire starts under or near a vent. Early vent operation could pre- vent the buildup of the heat layer beneath the roof which is necessary to operate the sprinklers. At the very mini- mum, when avoidance of automatic vents is impossible, mechanically operated types should be used with the fus- ible elements rated 360 °F (182°C) or more to allow sprin- klers to operate before the vents. Plastic drop -out type vents should be avoided. 3.4.3 Storage Arrangements The intent of this standard is to allow ESFR use for only those storage arrangements and commodity hazard levels where either 1) successful fire testing has been completed, or 2) a rigorous engineering study allows judgment on the basis of favorable comparisons between existing fire test using data with other types of sprinklers and the intended application using ESFR sprinklers. 3.4.4 Sprinkler System Design Sprinkler system design criteria is based on results of full - scale fire testing. Because of the rigorous approval require- ments for water distribution and fire plume penetration, deviations from the specified design requirements cannot be made. 3.4.5 Sprinkler System Components Generally, components that are FMRC - Approved for sprin- kler system use are acceptable. 3.4.6 Location and Position of Sprinklers There are four factors which need to be considered when locating sprinklers beneath a ceiling: 1) the sprinkler must be close enough to the underside of the ceiling to ensure that the sprinkler will discharge water quickly enough to sup- press the fire; 2) the sprinkler must be located far enough above the top of storage to allow proper distribution of the water discharge over the area covered by the sprinkler; 3) obstructions located horizontally from the sprinkler which could interfere with proper lateral distribution must be min- imized; 4) obstructions located beneath the sprinkler which could interfere with both water distribution and penetration of the fire plume must be minimized. 4.0 APPENDIX - DEVELOPMENT OF ESFR SPRINKLERS 4.1 Background The continuous study of automatic sprinkler protection by FMRC led to the establishment of a sprinkler optimization program initiated in 1968. Under this program, a study was begun into drop size distribution and the aerodynamics of sprinkler sprays. This work led to the design of a large - drop sprinkler which received its first practical demonstra- tion in 1971 when a large -scale fire test of warehouse commodities was conducted, and it culminated in 1980 with FMRC's publication of installation rules for large -drop sprinklers. In 1976, FMRC accepted a contract with the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to evaluate sprinkler perfor- mance in residential occupancies. During the course of that work, FMRC engineers and scientists determined that fast response sprinklers would be required to maintain a safe environment in occupied residential areas. Conse- quently, research with "fast response" residential sprin- klers was undertaken and an effective prototype was developed by 1979. The success with fast response residential sprinklers prompted FMRC engineers to consider the use of fast response sprinklers for industrial applications. High - challenge fires were of particular interest. Since large -drop sprinklers had been developed for use against high - challenge fires, it was natural to speculate on the benefits to be derived from the use of fast response large -drop sprinklers. In October 1982, large -drop sprinklers were armed with fast response (Response Time Index [RTI] 50) links and a series of large -scale fire tests was conducted in double -row rack storage of plastics. In accordance with standard fire test- ing practice, the ignition point was centered below four sprinklers. The result of these tests clearly demonstrated that a dramatic improvement in the protection of high -chal- lenge hazards could be achieved by combining fast response with a sprinkler possessing high suppression capability. Following the large -scale tests, a series of intermediate scale tests was conducted to study the effects caused by chang- ing various parameters. In these tests, fast response large - drop sprinklers were not as effective when the ignition point was located directly below a sprinkler. This problem is caused by a hollow spot in the discharge pattern, located directly below the sprinkler. A fire started in this area may develop with little hindrance from the sprinkler discharge. As the fire plume develops, it causes the discharge pat- tern to open up further and even less water will reach the area directly below the sprinkler. The fire will soon reach a size where early suppression cannot be achieved. Although the extent of this deficiency was never quanti- fied, at best the sprinklers would then act in the control mode where the level of performance will approximate that of large -drop sprinklers having normal sensitivity (RTI 300). The benefits of fast response will then be lost. Obviously, ESFR sprinklers must perform at an acceptable level regardless of the location of the ignition point. Large - drop sprinklers, therefore, were not suitable for ESFR pur- poses for the conditions tested. However, the tests conducted with fast response large -drop sprinklers did prove that the ESFR concept was viable. Consequently, EARLY SUPPRESSION -FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLERS - -2 Page 9 4.3.1 Apparatus RTI is measured using the Plunge Test Apparatus. In a plunge test, the sprinkler is suddenly immersed in a uni- form gas flow of constant temperature and velocity. The acti- vation time determines the sprinkler time constant, which E E a` c E P RDD � IIII, Early Suppression Achieved i i ths I II n i Zone II ADD time Fig. 3. Generalized RDD ADD concept can be used to predict the activation time in any fire envi- ronment defined in terms of temperature and velocity versus time. The RTI value for a sprinkler is the product of the sprinkler time constant and the square root of the air velocity. RDD is determined using a specially designed water appli- cator in conjunction with a large- capacity calorimeter called the Fire Products Collector. The water applicator uses a sys- tem of small closely spaced nozzles to deliver a known rate of water directly onto the top surface of the burning fuel array. The fire environment of a particular storage array in terms of temperature and velocity versus time is defined by knowing the RTI of prototype ESFR sprinklers and by using j the Fire Products Collector. This information is used to pre- dict expected sprinkler operation. When this prediction is input into a computerized heat - release -rate monitoring sys- tem, time to turn on the water applicator is known, allow- ing determination of the RDD needed to suppress a fire in the particular storage array. By varying the water applica- tion rate in repetitive tests, minimum RDD needed to achieve early fire suppression in a particular storage array is pinpointed. ADD of sprinklers is determined using a specially designed automated system for measuring the water flux (density) of sprinkler sprays. The system is comprised of a fire source, simulated commodities, and an ADD measuring system. Using a precisely controlled heptane spray fire source, sim- ulated fire - resistive commodities and a computerized water collection system, the apparatus defines the amount of sprinkler spray that actually penetrates a fire plume and is deposited on to the top horizontal surface of a burning com- bustible array. Neat - release rates determined from RDD testing are simulated. An analysis of ADD data is com- pared to RDD requirements to determine whether a sprin- kler is capable of providing an ADD in excess of the required RDD. If so, then early suppression would be expected in a real -life fire; if not, early suppression would not be expected in a real -life fire. The major factors that affect ADD and that can be measured using the ADD apparatus are 1) intensity of the fire; 2) clearance between sprinklers and the top of the burning array; 3) spacing of sprinklers on pip- ing beneath the ceiling; 4) sprinkler discharge pressure; 5) number of discharging sprinklers; 6) fire ignition loca- tion with respect to the discharging sprinklers, and; 7) sprin- kler characteristics, such as geometry and uniformity of water density and drop size distribution. 4.3.2 Full -Scale Fire Tests Full -scale fire tests were conducted. using an ESFR proto- type sprinkler. This prototype had been tested using the ADD apparatus and had been shown to be theoretically capable of providing early fire suppression in actual full - scale storage arrangements. The purpose of the full -scale testing was two -fold: 1) to confirm the validity of the theory that a fire will be suppressed when ADD exceeds RDD, and 2) to establish ESFR sprinkler system hydraulic design cri- teria. Both of these purposes were confirmed by full -scale tests. A summary of these fire tests is presented in Table 3. Full -scale fire testing did confirm the validity of the ESFR concept while simultaneously providing data to permit deter- mination of ESFR sprinkler system hydraulic design criteria. 4.4 Retrofit Considerations When evaluating the potential for ESFR sprinklers to be ret- rofitted into existing sprinkler systems, the following items should be considered: 1. Because of the criticality of maintaining proper ceiling -to- thermal sensing element distances, and the fact that the vast majority of existing sprinkler systems use upright sprin- klers, retrofitting the pendent ESFR sprinkler to an exist- ing system could require major piping relocation. 2. The presence of existing lighting, ductwork, etc., may create obstructions to distribution. 3. Sprinkler systems originally designed for high -hazard storages are usually more able to supply ESFR water demands than those designed for low to moderate hazards. A ceiling system designed for use with in -rack sprinklers would have significantly less capacity then a ceiling sys- tem designed without in -rack sprinklers because of the credit given for use of in -rack sprinklers. 4. The most hydraulically favorable systems are loops, followed by tree - shaped systems and grids. 5. Calculations generally show that a system capable of pro- viding 15 k =11.2 (large -drop) sprinklers at 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa) would also be capable of supplying 12 k =14.0 sprinklers at 50 psi (3.45 bar, 345 kPa). EARLY SUPPRESSION -FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLERS 2 -2 Page 11 6. The number of variables involved in system design makes it difficult to formulate any specific guidelines regard- ing reinforcement. Each system has to be evaluated on its own merits, based generally upon what changes are needed to achieve the largest decrease in friction loss. 4.5 Cost Considerations (New Systems) —ESFR Sprin- klers at the Ceiling vs Standard Sprinklers at the Ceiling Plus In -Rack Sprinklers Cost comparisons for new sprinkler systems to protect 25 -ft high (7.6 m) double -row rack storage of unexpanded plastics in a 30 -ft high (9.1 m), 40,000 sq It (3720 sq m) building indicate that ESFR sprinkler systems are less costly than providing standard sprinklers at the ceiling and in the racks. Where a strong water supply is available and a pump is not needed for either type of system, the cost of an ESFR sprinkler system is approximately 75 percent of the cost of ceiling plus in -rack sprinkler systems. Where the water supply is adequate for a ceiling plus in- rack sprinkler system, but not adequate for an ESFR springy kler system (i.e., a fire pump is needed), the cost of the two types of sprinkler systems would be approximately equal. Note: NFPA 13 also covers installation of ESFR sprinklers, with some slight deviations from this standard. / FM Engr. Comm. September 1990 T:� October 26, 1995 Mr. Bruce MacGregor MacGregor Architects 2675 Paces Ferry Rd #210 Atlanta, GA 30339 A Future With A Past Mr. MacGregor, er Building I am writing in reference to the I.D.I. project, 4050 dhTrFde Pot ct onkEngineer, Jeff #1. In my preliminary discussions with you need to be Harrington, es it has been indicated that certain code relateed from is the Code on the addressed. It is my understanding that you wish to ev following items: distance from the Code permitted maximum 200' to a 1 Increased travel maximum of 250'. s required by the Building Code and the Fire 2. Deletion of curtain boards a Code. 3. Deletion of gravity vents as required by the Building Code. q., Reduction in capacity of manual smoke control system as required by the Fire Code. Use of an ESFR type sprinkler system above the height for which it has 5° roved. been tested and app In return for these deviations, you have proposed to use an ESFR sprinkler system. On several o ccasions, we have discussed other measures that could be provided so and the that an equivalent level of protection could be affordebetcalled upondt building fight fires occupants within, as well emergency measures have who may included: in this structure. These possible 1, A manual fire alarm system in addition to the Code mandated automatic fire alarm (including strobes). THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE Phone Metro 817/481 -0377 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 FAX #817/424 -0545 yy> 2. An owner documented reduction in allowable occupant load from 1/500 square feet to 1/1000 square feet. 3. An increase in end head pressure of the ESFR sprinkler system stem corresponding to the increased mounting height of the heads. This should be a linear relationship and should be accompanied by calculations. It would be appropriate at this time to submit to Dick Ward, the Fire Marshal, and m a formal request. This should be in letter form, should reference the report by Mr. Jeff Harrington, and should outline the alternate methods you propose to r vid Upon receipt of this request, which may be faxed, we will respond in kind. p e. Do not hesitate to call if I may be of further service. nk you, J. COTT WILLIAMS kui ing Official cc: Dick Ward, Fire Marshal H. T. (Tommy) Hardy, Director Development Services Jeff Harrington Craig Gum, I.D.I. November 9, 1995 Mr. Bruce McGregor, AIA Mr. Richard Leonard, AIA 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW Suite 210 Atlanta GA 30339 A Future With A Past Mr. Macgregor and Mr. Leonard: We are in receipt of your letter dated November 2, 1995, requesting alternate methods of construction for the I.D.I. Project, Building A, 4050 Trade Center Parkway. After careful consideration, we have determined that your proposals provide an equivalent level of protection, for the building and it's occupants, to that required by the Building Code. We hereby accept the equivalencies outlined in previous correspondence and in the engineering analysis prepared by Mr. Jeff Harrington. Please be advised that these alternate methods of construction are based on the shell building plans that have been submitted. Future, alterations and /or additions are subject to re- evaluation. Thank you, S ott Williams ilding Official Richard Ward Fire Marshal THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. Box 95104 • Grapevine, Texas 76099 Phone Metro 817/481 -0377 FAX #817/424 -0545 November 2, 1995 Mr. Scott Williams Building Official City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 D^: MMAr 1'ra-Ae f � '-en+­ TIN U Lc. RAGA Pre%j Nlt% QrA.A . � , ­ __ . , rl,,, IlAr L­ -1 0­1. ­ ....... ­ "MOM, 7 z ta—M, MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1, 1. k r - accol-ulance wilk,11 ile -roVI'S;^ , _; - 1; - 1 AA Lr;,L0 and JkAef-L_A� _f P IWO-1.7 %J4 .�CCUG. �_` Alternate Ns"'t "A 1" ­4 1_10� -1 We "� , ___';A� ;^n f�' inn-i I I-.T- 0141A'mg.o. N I - I e still o.... - erati _., 16. al ft _ern t e_ .-onstructl on of thile I,:, a 1 1-1 A I 14 " I's-ilk f- Ae I— __f__,4_A f­ mn UIVUS, UK PIOV1113115r, 11M SaRIULY tG a.1110-4-V thle I(E-C-AVC11 dig"tt�k, L� �%­ �^­.U�- 11-411 �W- '. L lit LJV C-.-.i r__ kL,- --C- A 'ed Lo 41�1 5 .. ­ - .­.-Y yr le- ', The ilding Life Purposes of Storage and UI L1fUUtf%JIt MR gOOGI.S. The building Is classiflecd und-er tine Un-C' r,l-.. - 'on -) t^t 'as. eaJ 'Giroup Bu, L�I I I I upancy. Thse Harrington Group, a f44-rrr. specializing in. fire a -4 C-1— 1­%_­_1_____t � n A 12 ; 'Aing r­­ Ci­A., A *^A f1�tr��nr 91 engineering, Igo-# vil-'Palr�U a .1mliroz CL " iaultul L.51 czrzl rl� 71 L: L . 1— '7:Y , `­ `- fol'-wing ir—wres provide a sa-shicto- if- saf-ty to allow �r wilicil val:1kJaLt::Z) 1_111= IkJf1*JVYMr' I"-atulk-a lu tisladoy liavel of lfl� 1�_ky I- _­_ an. exf.G­flidledi timaveA distanic-- PrfmfiAm an r-nAv qitnnrnjzcinn F;i t Rrxcnnnrp fF'CFRI znr;nL-1pr RzV'qtPm._ 9R`15 fJ�rl" r1le �� as n ntzinnc rd nirnwirAina nnrlkr -.Arni-nino tri tha 'Y'tenl -1 a 71. "Jon -e building ov.,ner which "im." the numfl_'er of occupan" F roVlue sUpulcti.1 Is from tl I IJ I IRAN All 41 as AL Lit W :I,-I : it ti 1G stora-ge CtU CL to no g-ea+-' I ­ I / --- Sloss senluur�.° °i. Itanicall smoke exhla-ust sistel-41. t. VIUVIUU Ct 111CMUCIlly k_V1tLIUII1-_U lltecL� !-- L_ -;-- — meet the mquirciments of the UU SU&JZ.ILa11I.11aLUU VY L%-F IM4- r I_! - _4 ­A &AeA, AID or Jr- JUL)) ect to your acceptClInCle VI LING" I , _'f­­._1-;__ we prupose it) subrnit til-le necessary P-11C-11-15 4111.1 ivr YUU1 111irneLA11:11.1t: 11:_V1t__VY III uluct to secure a full building permit. Please notify us at your earliest convenience when we may beg-in this process. On behaif of our client, we thank you for your wiiiingness to review this request. t wz'f�uqvv Richard P. Leonard, AjA Vice President CC. Lev i f 26/5 Paces Ferry Roaud, ),ivy & _l U i " e- 2 - "'_' ­­­ "­- i T IF (_ T U R E a c' C I- Harrington Group Ina Fire Protection Engineering RIM Property Loss Control 385 Kilian Hill Road, N.W.; Suite B * Ulburn, GA 30247 Phone: (404) 564-3505 * Fax: (404) 564-3509 ,6 rucT �F) 10' WE ARE SENDING YOU -5HATTACHED []UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA IE]ii THE FOLLOWING: THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: 0 FOR APPROVAL REMARKS: --�OR YOUR USE #=rl% AS REQUESTED 7 September 12, 1995 Mr. Scott Williams Building Official City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 Re: DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Proj No 9544 Dear Mr. Williams: LttL LUL MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Enclosed you will find a floor plan indicating maximum travel distance of 250 feet for the proposed building. Another plan indicates the manually controlled smoke exhaust system proposed for the building. Additionally, you will find a report prepared by Schirmer Engineering Corporation for the Interceramic Facility in Coppell, Texas. This report reiterates the advantages of the ESFR sprinkler system and the fact that draft curtains and smoke venting are not appropriate for use with ESFR systems. Their response was to provide a manually controlled smoke exhaust system as we are also proposing. Finally, let me add one other facility to the list of projects in the Dallas area. We designed and recently completed construction of a 400' x 800' distribution facility for The Container Store in Farmers Branch, Texas. The building is very similar to what we are proposing to construct in Grapevine, including an ESFR sprinkler system, manual smoke exhaust system and no curtain boards. The maximum travel distance in this facility was approximately 300 feet in one small area, but generally everywhere else at 250 feet. No fire rated enclosures were required. The building official is Dan Gajdica and his phone number is (214) 919 -2250. Please review this additional information and let us know if this provides the level of comfort you are seeking in order to provide a safe building. We await your response. cc: Craig Gum Bruce Macgregor Enclosures • � ..?;� i. Gen �;i�i i;'? ® •l)' -132 -`) ♦( "? ;r , , 131-')93a RCHITECTL RE • PL A T, RI r) p: N m 4 J I u. o. IE � xx ®8 fa9Y iYO MAY iA® � Moi k`.✓ � .g 5:1 _ C C f! �g y ID n e w i J `a a 11 ti JII\ 4 �y Lc) (M CY) II Vi N, 0 or N, ,au'a "' - , -11-95 i 1 :38PM ; HARDY MCCULLAH /MU, SEP 11 95 04:23PM I D I P 2e/26 1/ 1 The following representatives of Dallas area authorities having jurisdiction have agreed to discuss their experience and knowledge of Early Suppression past Response technology with representatives of the City of Coppell. John Gillette Firs Protection Engineer Denton Fire Department 217 West McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 (817) 566 -8158 Jerry D. Dempster, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer City of Dallas Fire Department Education and inspection Division 2014 Main Street Room 401 Daises, Texas 75201 (214) 670 -3782 SEP 2 1 U SEC No. 17-93027-97-01 -26• September 23. 1993 SEP 11 '95 04:07PM I D I P.4/2e b . .0 . INTERCERAMIC FACILITY COPPELL, TEXAS Prepared for: Rogers-O'Brien Construction Company Dallas, Texas SEC No. 17-93027-97-01 Prepared by SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Life Safety Engineers/Building Code Consultants CC Larry M. Romine, P.E Texas No. 56353 September 3, 1993 SEP 11 '95 04 :07PM I D I P.5/2e II:Ei TOA1 IoiltufR The Interceramic Facility planned in Coppell, Texas will contain approximately 260,000 square feet on one level, with partial mezzanine in the office area. Two issues of code compliance have been identified at this early stage of design. They are as follows: 1. Equipment Tower 2. Fire Suppression System Equipment Tower In order to accommodate the equipment necessary for the manufacturing process, an equipment tower of approximately 6,500 square feet is planned, having a clear height of approximately 65 feet_ this height is necessary in order to accommodate the raw materials feed "hopper ", which supplies-raw materials for the ceramic the manufacturing process. These raw materials include various types of clay and sand and are completely non - combustible. The Uniform Building Code Section 3602 provides the following requirements for towers and spires: 1,_ Towers .when enclosed shall have exterior walls as required for the building to which they are attached. 2. No tower or spire shall occupy more than % of the street frontage of any building to which it is attached. 3. in no case shall the base area exceed 1,600 square feet, unless (a) it conforms entirely to the type of construction requirements of the building to which it is attached, and (b) it is limited in height as a main part of the building. Uniform Building Code Section-507, Exception 1 allows an exception to the height limitations of Table 5 -0 for towers; spires and steeples. it states that towers, spires and steeples erected as part of a building and not used for habitation of storage are limited as to height only by structural design, if completely of non - combustible material. s LSEC N4. 17- 93027 -97 -01 .2- J} J5 LjS p em er , SEP 11 '95 04 :07PM I D I P. 6/26 These two sections of the Uniform Building Code appear to be somewhat in conflict. One section implies that the tower is to be limited to the height as the main building, which would seem to imply the limitations of Table 5 -D, while the other section says the : height shall be limited only by structural design features. The building is proposed to be of type II -N construction and will be protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system. The automatic sprinkler will be provided in the equipment tower at the roof, as well as below all equipment or platforms having a width greater than 48 inches. Table 5 -D limits the height of Type II -N construction to 55 feet. It is the position of Schrimer Engineering Corporation that the Uniform Building Code allows towers to be of a height limited only by structural design. Because of the unique character of the equipment to be utilized in this facility, it is requested that the equipment tower be allowed an area of 6,500 square feet, completely of non- combusti- ble construction, of a height of 65 feet clear inside the enclosure, and protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system. The 65 -foot height will be substantiated by structural engineering analysis. Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinklers As previously stated, the building is to be protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system. The owner of the building could use conventional automatic sprinkler protection to meet the requirements for an automatic sprinkler system. However, the owner wishes to use Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) sprinklers for maximum flexibility and marketability of the building over its life. Early Suppression Fast Response sprinkler technology became commercially available in approximately 1988. This technology is based on extensive tests conducted by Factory Mutual Research Corporation. ESFR technology is also recognized by National Fire Protection Association Standards, by Uniform Building Code Standard 38 -1 and Uniform Fire Code Standards 81 -1 and 81 -2. The detailed parameters for the design of ESFR automatic sprinkler systems are outlined by Factory Mutual in the Loss Prevention Data Sheet 2 -2, first published in May of 1988 and revised last i Appendix A for copy of this Loss Prevention Data Sheet). SEC No. 17- 93027 -97 -01 .3- ''✓ ��+ September 23, 1 G- SEP 11 '95 04 :08PM I D I P.7 /2e UBC Section 3206 and Uniform Fire Code Article 81 require automatic smoke and heat venting with draft curtains. The code requires these items without regard to the type of fire suppression system provided for the building. However, the FM Loss Prevention Data Sheet 2 -2 states in Section 2.2.3, "recommended protection is based' on construction without roof vents. fire tests have not shown automatic vents to be cost effective; they may even increase sprinkler water demand. Thus, the use of permanent heat and smoke vents should be avoided." Section 2.2.3 continues by stating, "ESFR sprinklers, as compared to conventional sprinklers, are expected to reduce greatly the amount of smoke generated during a fire. As an alternative to automatic roof vents, smoke removal during mop -up operations can frequently be achieved through eave -line windows, doors, monitors, non- automatic exhaust systems (gravity or mechanical), or manually operated heat or smoke vents." The Uniform Fire Code in Article 81 permits acceptance of mechanical smoke removal systems by the chief (Table 81- 105 -A, Note 10) for buildings ranging from 20,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet and storing Class I through Class IV commodities. Section 3206 of the Uniform Building Code does not specifically allow the use of mechanically operated venting system, but does refer to the Uniform Fire Code for requirements for smoke and heat venting in buildings with high -piled stock. The building will be provided with a mechanically operated exhaust system capable of providing approximately 12 air changes per hour in the building, primarily intended for environmen- tal temperature control. However, a panel will be rpovided to allow the fire department to manually operate the system as necessary. Regarding the subject of draft curtains, Factory Mutual Loss Prevention Data Sheet 2 -2 in Section 2.2.4, Item 1 states, "draft curtains used in conjunction with smoke or heat vents should be avoided, if possible. With the early fire suppression expected;-.it is anticipated that draft curtains will provide little benefit because heat and smoke generation will be minimized." This section clearly states that draft curtains, as well as automatic heat and smoke venting, should be avoided except to divide roof areas protected by ESFR sprinklers from the various areas protected by SEC No. 17- 93027 -97 -01 -4- D l sprinklers. C 1P ,F 0915 L September 23; "f9 SEP 11 '95 04 :08PM I D I P.e /2E Early Suppression Fast Response sprinkler technology is designed and tested to ® extinguish (not iust control) the high challenge fire of high piled storage with a m� i[mum of 12 sprinklers operating. This rapid extinguishment of fires can be visualized as compared to fires controlled by conventional sprinklers in the video tape furnished with this report. It is the judgment of Schirmer Engineering Corporation that a fire suppression system utilizing Early Suppression Fast Response sprinklers with manually operated mechanic smoke exhausts is equal to or better than a system utilizing conventional automatic sprinklers with automatic smoke and heat vents and draft curtains. In fact, some test data shows that automatic smoke and heat vents may be detrimental to the operation of conventional sprinklers by increasing the water demand by as much as 35 percent. Therefore, it is requested that the Early Suppression Fast Response sprinkler protection be accepted without automatic smoke and heat vents with draft curtains based on the strong recommendation of FM Loss Prevention Data Sheet No. 2 -2, prepared by the agency that tested Early Suppression Fast Response technology. r F _ rt 1 1 SEC No. 17. 93027 -97 -01 -S- September 23, '1993 From: Kevin B. Miller (817) 4732189 To: DOUG LONG Date: 6/16/03 Time: 4;05:56 PM Page I of 2 !111 711 11 To Whom It May Concern: The following policy change affects all Final Construction Documents submitted for "asbuilt records" to the City of North Richland Hills, Public Works Department. Effective immediately, Asbuilt Drawings shall be submitted as follows- 3 sets of black lines (or blue lines) annotated with all changes that occurred during construction labeled — "Asbuilt" or "Record Drawings". 1 PDF file on CD-R recordable media. The Portable Document Format (pdf) shall be generated from one of the following processes — 1. If the original drawings were generated from a CAD system: a) The same system should be used to create an Encapsulated PostScript (eps) file with line weights and types similar to the originally plotted drawings. b) All drawings shall generate eps files at a minimum resolution of 600 dpi. c) Each individual eps file shall be converted utilizing Acrobat Distiller to a full size pdf file at a minimum resolution of 600 dpi. d) Each drawing shall have landscape orientation. e) All pdf files shall be combined into one pdf project document. Each sheet shall be inserted in sequential order, starting with the Cover Sheet. f]I Once all files have been added to the project document, bookmarks representing each sheet shall be created. The bookmarks shall provide a direct hyperlink to the appropriate sheet. g) The project document general information shall include - Title: Common Name for the Project Subject: Legal Subdivision Name Author: Engineering Company responsible for the drawings Keywords.- Engineer(s) Name responsible for the drawings h) The project document shall also include thumbnails of each of the drawing sheets. i) The project document shall be configured to open with the Navigation Pane open and the drawing fit to the window. • mechanical means: a) The original mylars or sepias shall be scanned at a minimum of 400 dpi. b) The scanned image shall be a minimum of 16-gray shades. c) Each drawing shall have landscape orientation. From: Kevin B. Miller (817) 473-2189 To: DOUG LONG Date: 6/16103 Time: 4:05:56 PM Page 2 of 2 d) The scanned image shall then be converted to a pdf file at a minimum resolution of 600 dpi. e) All pdf files shall then be combined into one pdf project document. Each sheet shall be inserted in sequential order, starting with the Cover Sheet. f) Once all Files have been A,4^,4 +^ +k^ e-+ A­ Mpn+' bookmarks qui ent bookinasks representing each sheet shall be created. The bookmarks shall provide a direct hyperlink to the appropriate sheet. Yk� I-- sk_l TI le Title: Common Name for the Project Subiect- Legal Subdivision Name Engeneenng Compny resno I nsible f,--., t! te drainri F­_ ­ ' VVMV am Keywords: Engineer(s) Name responsible for the drawings h) The Project document shall also include thumbnails of each of the drawing S11 ENS. il'lx -1 he project document shall be configured to -pen with the Navigation u ' v v �ane open'a`nd 'ItIl le drawin. fit to the ... 'ndow. Once the final project document has been created, the file shall be optimized. if the Engineer so chooses., the file may be save with security invoked to prevent changing or (z­ vi w hiyNelrer shall be to 0ow YY J! ng Of �k printing. Mike dill is, Public Works Director SNAFAAI- V10 IVIIFw UZ * «} /\ * << d y � d \ � V*MQ nlnzlnn e � � � � � ƒ y � . 11w♦w JV1/1%Ll.JI\L1Jvi &&& ASSOCIATES LUL ARCHITECTS Date: . Company: Fax No: FACSIMILE /go-- (including cover) Mail Original: O From, Proj No: Project: 2675 Paces ferry Road, NW • Suite 2 ia • Attanta. Georgia 30339 • i770) 332 -9400 • Fax (7701 432-q,934 Comments: 2675 Paces Ferry Road, Nw ® Suite 210 t Atlanta, Georgia 317339 ® i77Q4 432 -9400 ® Fax (770) a32 -993' U.7! 14/ 7fil lo: ul rn.a. 4Vv * 404 VU04 MUIL'"Icr.vvn iiaovk. I,g002 /0't() Mr. Scott Williams Building Official City of Grapevine 307 Dallas Road Grapevine, Texas 76099 Re: DFW Trade Center Building "A" MAA Proj No 9544 Dear Mr. Williams: Enclosed you will find a floor plan indicating maximum travel distance of 250 feet for the proposed building. Another plan- indicates the manually controlled smoke exhaust system proposed for the building. Additionally, you will find a report prepared by Schirmer Engineering Corporation for the Interceramic Facility in Coppell, Texas. This report reiterates the advantages of the ESFR sprinkler system and the fact that draft curtains and smoke venting are not appropriate for use with ESFR systems. Their response was to provide a manually controlled smoke exhaust system as we are also proposing. Finally, let me add one other facility to the list of projects in the Dallas area. We designed and recently completed construction of a 400' x Soul distribution facility for The Container Store in Farmers Branch, Texas. The building is very similar to what we are proposing to construct in Grapevine, including an ESFR sprinkler system, manual smoke exhaust system and no curtain boards. The maximum travel distance in this facility was approximately 300 feet in one small area, but generally everywhere else at 250 feet. No fire rated enclosures were required. The building official is Dan Gaidica and his phone number is (214) 919 -2250. Please review this additional information and let us know if this provides the level of comfort you are seeking in order to provide a safe building. We await your response. cc: Craig Gum Bruce Macgregor Enclosures 2675 Paces Ferry Road, NW + Suite 210 + Atlanta, Georgia 30339 • (770) 432 -9400 (FAX) 432 -9934 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS I In � < � \ fl'� �Z jz nlnzrnn 531 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER GRAPEVINE, TEXAS Prepared by Harrington Group, Inc. Fire Protection Engineering Consultants Jeff L. Harrington, P.E. Georgia No. 16722 % Texas Applied For October 13, 1995 Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE i STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 PART 2 FIRE MODELS .......... ..............................3 PART 3 FIRE PROFILES ....................................... 5 PART 4 SPRINKLER ACTIVATION ................................ 7 PART 5 SMOKE LAYER PREDICTIONS ............................ 9 PART 6 OCCUPANT EGRESS PREDICTIONS ...................... 10 PART 7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................... 12 REFERENCES .......... .............................17 APPENDIX A - BUILDING A ARCHITECTURAL PLANS APPENDIX B - ASETB INPUT/OUTPUT SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX C - DETACT-QS INPUT /OUTPUT SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX D - FIRE CURVES APPENDIX E - SMOKE LAYER PICTORIALS APPENDIX F - EGRESS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX G - FIRE EVENT TIME LINE Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 1 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS Building A is a new distribution warehouse facility under design and construction in Grapevine, Texas. The City of Grapevine enforces the Uniform Building Code - 1991 ed. and local ordinances. There are several requirements in the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code which are being looked at by the Owner to determine if there are reasonable alternatives or equivalencies. The primary Code issues are as follows: 1. The Uniform Building Code requires a limitation on travel distance for egress purposes of 200 ft. The building configuration is such that at least 250 ft. is needed. The Code allows the extra 50 ft. but only if it is enclosed within a 1 -hour fire rated corridor. 2. The Uniform Fire Code requires that the building be provided with curtain boards for the purpose of facilitating smoke removal in the event of a fire: The Uniform Building Code also has a requirement for curtain boards. There are valid arguments that curtain boards in Building A, which will be protected by Early Suppression -Fast Response (ESFR) sprinkler technology, will not appreciably enhance overall building fire safety and may, in fact, be detrimental to overall building fire safety. 3. The Uniform Fire Code allows smoke removal to be accomplished by means of mechanical exhaust fans. The Uniform Fire Code contains a formula for determining the aggregate exhaust fan capacity which results in a capacity requirement of over ten air changes per hour. It can be argued that this is excessive, particularly in a building protected by ESFR sprinkler technology. These three issues are all effected by the potential severity of a fire and the resulting products of combustion (smoke) produced. These issues are also impacted by the building population (occupant load) and the time necessary for the occupants to complete egress from the building in the event of a fire. This study will evaluate these three issues to better understand how each one influences the overall level of the building fire safety for Building A. Both computerized and manual mathematical models are used to approximate reasonably conservative predictions of fire growth, smoke development and egress time in a way which is specifically meaningful for Building A. E- a Harrington Group, inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 2 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS Building A is a one -story structure of light- weight, non - combustible construction. The building footprint measures 400 ft. X 1350 ft. covering an area of 540,000 sq. ft. The building has a sloped roof with a center - ridge. Eave height is 32 ft. and ridge height is 36 ft. Total building volume is 18,360,000 cu. ft. There are approximately 32 exit doors around the perimeter of the building which lead from the warehouse space directly to the outside. The arrangement is such that the maximum travel distance is approximately 250 ft. Smoke removal will be accomplished by mechanical exhaust fans installed in the roof. The fans will be positioned in a line adjacent to and parallel with the roof ridge. There will be approximately 31 exhaust fans, each with an individual capacity of 30,000 cfm providing a total exhaust capacity of 918,000 cfm which is equivalent to three air changes per hour. Building A will be provided with full automatic sprinkler protection utilizing Early - Suppression Fast - Response (ESFR) sprinkler technology. The performance of an ESFR sprinkler system is uniquely different from the standard spray head configuration. An ESFR sprinkler system is designed to fully extinguish a fire with no more than 12 operating sprinkler heads. A system which utilizes standard spray heads, on the other hand, is designed only to minimize and control a fire with approximately 20 -40 sprinkler heads operating. With this system, the final fire extinguishment must be accomplished manually, usually by the responding fire department. The performance characteristics of the ESFR sprinkler system should significantly limit the production of smoke from a fire in comparison to a standard spray head system because the ESFR head actuates quicker and the fire is fully extinguished in a relatively short period of time thereafter. The cost of providing over ten air changes per hour in Building A instead of three air changes per hour is significant. Based upon the expectation of reduced smoke production with ESFR sprinkler technology, the benefit derived from the expenditure of providing more exhaust fans is questioned. E - a Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 3 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS When a combustible item (fuel package) burns, complex phenomena occur which are difficult to fully define theoretically with a high degree of accuracy. Mathematical models continue to be developed which attempt to define and predict fire behavior in terms which can be used by engineers and code officials for the purpose of design. Most models contain relationships which were developed from empirical data from small and large scale fire tests. Under certain conditions and limitations, these models have been proven to be reasonably accurate in predicting certain fire behavior. In simplistic terms, when a combustible item burns, its mass is reduced by conversion into heat, water, carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2). These are the primary combustion by- products, although there are others including many toxic chemicals which can be produced. Under free -burn conditions where oxygen available to the fire is unlimited, the combustible item may be completely consumed reducing its mass to essentially zero. As the item burns, the heat and combustion by- products rise in a plume with considerable velocity toward the ceiling. As this plume rises, it entrains surrounding air which is relatively cool, heats it up and carries it to the ceiling. As the plume rises, it therefore grows in volume and cross sectional area as it approaches the ceiling. Once the plume reaches the ceiling, it impinges on the ceiling and moves radially in all directions parallel to the ceiling surface. At this point, the plume is converted to a ceiling jet. The ceiling jet, fed by the plume and fire below, continues to spread radially across the ceiling until it reaches the walls. Once it reaches the walls, the ceiling jet doubles back on itself and develops into what is known as a smoke layer across the entire ceiling. The smoke layer continues to be fed by the fire plume, grows in volume and descends continually down from the ceiling. As this occurs, the smoke layer gets thicker and there is a definable interface between the smoke layer and the fresh air below. The distance above the floor at which the descending smoke layer will be a serious impediment to building occupants is largely judgmental. Obviously, smoke which has descended below head level is a serious impediment due to decreased visibility and respiratory impairment. A smoke layer above head level can also be an impediment due to radiant heat. For the purpose of this study, head height is considered to be at a level of 7 ft. above finished floor (AFF). This will be referred to as the Critical Level. The greater the distance between the smoke layer interface and the Critical Level, the greater y _� Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 4 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS the margin of safety. In the absence of fire suppression activity, a defined smoke layer will develop and there will not be a significant amount of air movement across the layer interface at points which are outside the fire plume zone. The operation of a roof level sprinkler head or application of a hose stream can create localized convective currents which can cause smoke from the smoke layer to drop down across the interface layer and mix with the relatively clean air below. In a relatively small building, this effect can cause smoke from the upper smoke layer to mix throughout the entire volume. In a relatively large building, this effect would remain localized. With a given set of physical conditions, ie: building height, building area, ambient temperature, etc., a fire's rate of heat release (kW) over time is the primary determinant of the volume of smoke generated and thus the rate of descent of the smoke layer interface. It is therefore most important to define the heat release rate profile (fire curve) of a fire which is both as realistic as possible and closely matches the worst case fire potential which is likely to be present within Building A. Once an appropriate fire curve is determined, it can be used to predict the growth of the smoke layer and the position of the descending smoke layer interface within the building. The fire curve will be greatly affected by the operation of the roof level automatic sprinkler protection. It is therefore important to predict the actuation time of the first opening sprinkler head. For this purpose, the computer model DETACT -QS can be utilized. This computer model is described in detail in a report by Stroup and Evans'. Once the fire curve has been determined, predictive mathematical models exist which allow the growth of the smoke layer to be modeled as the fire progresses. These mathematical procedures have been incorporated into a computer model called ASETB, written by Walton 2. ASETB can be used to predict the changing position of the smoke layer interface over time as measured by the distance of the interface above the base of the fire. Both DETACT -QS and ASETB are conveniently packaged in a computer program FPETOOL3. FPETOOL is updated periodically by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Center for Fire Research. These fire models were utilized to predict the approximate growth of the smoke layer for a range of possible fires within Building A. The results are described in the following sections. k LJ E� �_ � Harrington Group, Inc. nn INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 5 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS PART 3 FIRE PROFILES Building A is a speculative distribution warehouse facility. Ideally, one, or no more than two, single tenants will be found to occupy the building. The building is designed to accommodate storage of goods within storage racks to heights of up to 28 -30 ft. The combustibility of the commodities that will be stored in the building could range from non - combustible to highly- combustible. NFPA 724 contains some basic theoretical and empirical information relative to modeling fires. Many fires have been found to grow in direct proportion to the square of time. These are known as fires which obey the power -law fire growth model. Power -law fires are categorized as Slow, Medium, Fast and Ultra -Fast. It is considered likely that a variety of commodities will be stored in Building A which have the ability to produce fires over the full range of possibilities from Slow to Ultra -Fast. DETACT -QS and ASETB each have the ability to model fires which grow according to any of these standard curves. In fact, the data needed to model these curves is already contained in data modules within these two programs. A fire growth curve is defined as a series of heat release rate (Q) and time (t) data pairs. Q is measured in kilowatts (kW) or Btu /sec. and time is measured in seconds. These fire curves were used in conjunction with ASETB in order to get a feeling for the sensitivities of input variables and their effect on the ASETB predictions of smoke layer growth and descent. ASETB and DETACT -QS require a set of input data in order to describe the building environment as well as the fire. The computer model then performs its calculations and produces the output results. In order to assist the reader's understanding, all of the input and output data for each modeling run is tabulated on a series of spread sheets. The ASETB spread sheets are included in Appendix B and those for DETACT -QS are included in Appendix C. All of the fire curves utilized and developed in this study are included in graphic form and in tabular form in Appendix D. Pictorial representations of the smoke layer predicted from selected ASETB model runs are included in Appendix E. r y . Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 6 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS First, an attempt was made to develop a customized fire curve which would represent the most severe fire hazard likely to be stored within Building A. A Class A plastic commodity, as defined by NFPA 231 C5, in cardboard cartons on open wood pallets is representative of the most severe storage hazard which can be successfully protected by ESFR sprinkler technology. The data in NFPA 72, Table B- 2.2.2.1(a), Item 20 — "Polystyrene jars, packed in cartons, compartmented, stacked 15 ft. high," was used to develop a customized fire curve. This curve is labeled ID11. This curve was then compared to the Ultra -Fast curve (ULTRFAST) contained within the ASETB program. ID11 was found to be a more severe fire profile than ULTRFAST. ID11 was then, therefore, used initially to determine the effect of changing certain variables within the ASETB input options. BATCH A, RUNS 1 -10 are a series of runs essentially done for the purpose of determining the effect of certain variables on the outcome. ASETB has basically three outputs: Upper (smoke) Layer Temperature (degrees fahrenheit), Upper Layer Height (distance of the smoke layer interface above the floor in feet), and Heat Release Rate (Btu /sec). The simulation time period was chosen to be 1,200 sec. or 20 min. This was chosen because it spans all of the critical events including sprinkler activation, fire extinguishment by the ESFR system, fire department arrival, etc. The objective was to determine the total volume of smoke produced by the fire and height of the smoke layer interface at this point in time. Other important variables include Heat Loss Fraction and fire height. The Heat Loss Fraction is a variable which ranges from 0.60 — 0.95. The BATCH A runs show that the Heat Loss Fraction selected has a major impact on the smoke layer prediction (see Appendix B). Based upon Building A's unique configuration, a Heat Loss Fraction of between 0.60 — 0.70 would probably be valid. A value of 0.60 was chosen for subsequent runs because it represents the most severe and conservative prediction. Fire height also has a significant impact on the smoke layer predictions. The smaller the number, the more severe and conservative the predictions. Subsequent runs utilize a fire height of 1 ft. which is considered realistic and reasonably conservative. 1 Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER GRAPEVINE, TEXAS STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS PART 4 SPRINKLER ACTIVATION HGI #59324 OCTOBER 12, 1995 PAGE 7 ASETB can only model a building which has a flat roof; therefore, the ridge height of 36 ft. was used in order to predict the most conservative sprinkler response time. Subsequent calculations utilized a roof height equal to the eave height of 32 ft. because it would predict a lower or more conservative smoke layer height. Manual calculations were then performed for key runs to adjust the smoke layer height to account for the slight roof pitch. BATCH A RUNS 11, 12 and 13 model the less severe fires FAST, MODERATE, and SLOW. The volume of smoke produced by these slower fires was so much less than that produced by the ID11 fire that these slower fires were not used in subsequent runs. The input values for BATCH A, RUN 10 were determined to be those which are reasonably conservative, with the exception of the fire curve. The fire curve ID11 is unrealistically severe because it represents a free -burn condition for the entire 1,200 sec. duration. It is known that the ESFR sprinkler system will eventually operate and subsequently extinguish this fire. Thus, the fire curve used to predict the smoke layer development should conservatively reflect the impact that the sprinklers will have on the fire growth. A fire curve which more accurately describes a real fire situation, often may be composed of three sections along the time line on the X axis. The first section is the free -burn or growth phase. This occurs early in the fire when there is plenty of oxygen and plenty of fuel to burn. The second phase is the steady or quasi- steady state phase where the exponential growth rate of the fire stops and the fire begins to burn more or less at a constant rate of heat release. This may start when oxygen begins to be limited, fuel begins to be limited or when suppression activities begin such as the activation of a sprinkler head. The third phase is the decay phase which begins when the rate of heat release reverses direction and begins to decline steadily toward eventual fire extinguishment. DETACT -QS was used to determine when the steady state phase of ID11 might occur. First the ESFR sprinkler head was modeled based upon an activation temperature of 165° F. and a spacing of 10 ft. x 10 ft. BATCH A, RUNS 1 -18 represent the effects of changing numerous input variable to determine the sensitivities of the DETACT-QS calculations so that a reasonable conservative set of input data could be selected for final predictions (see Appendix C). Ultimately, BATCH A, RUN 6 was found to produce the most reasonably conservative results using the most severe fire scenario, ID11. This run predicts that the first ESFR sprinkler head to operate will do so in approximately 100 seconds from the time of established ignition. Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 8 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS FM Data Sheet 2 -26, Table 3 provides actual fire test data which is directly comparable to the input data used in DETACT -QS, BATCH A, RUN 6. The FM fire test data was obtained through large scale fire tests of high -rack storage of the same Class A plastic commodity used to develop the fire curve ID11. The table contains data from 16 full - scale tests. In each test, the time from ignition to first ESFR sprinkler head operation was measured. In 14 out of 16 tests, the first ESFR sprinkler head operated within one minute or less. In two cases, the sprinkler head operated in more than one minute; 61 sec. in one case and 72 sec. in the other case. It is felt that the FM fire test data provides excellent validation for the DETACT -QS prediction of 100 sec. using the fire curve ID11. Therefore, a sprinkler activation time of 100 sec. is used in subsequent calculations and was used to develop a more realistic fire curve by defining the time at which the steady -state phase begins. DETACT -QS predicted a sprinkler operating time of approximately 207 sec. for a standard spray head rated at 286° F (BATCH C, RUN 2). The FM test data indicates that not all fires are extinguished by the first ESFR head that operates. Most fires were extinguished with between 1 and 4 ESFR sprinkler heads operating. Several fires were extinguished with between 8 and 11 ESFR sprinkler heads. The FM design criteria take into account that up to 12 ESFR sprinkler heads may need to operate in order to extinguish the fire. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that all 12 sprinkler heads will open before extinguishment is achieved. Furthermore, between the time the first sprinkler head operates and the twelfth sprinkler head operates, it is assumed that the heat release rate of the fire will be steady- state. According to the FM test data, an ESFR sprinkler head operates on an average of every 20 -30 sec. TEST 6 resulted in 11 ESFR heads opening and successfully extinguishing the fire. The time between the first operating head and the eleventh operating head was approximately 6 min. 20 sec. It can, therefore, be extrapolated that the twelfth head would have operated at a time of between 6 min. 30 sec. and 7 min. from the time the first head operated. Seven minutes is therefore chosen as the time duration for the steady -state phase of a realistic fire for the purposes of this study. The FM test data shows that all fires were extinguished in less than 30 sec. after the final ESFR sprinkler head operated. Therefore, the decay phase duration is set at 30 sec. Curve ID13 (see Appendix D) shows a growth phase according to ID11 curve for a period of 100 sec. The first ESFR sprinkler head then opens beginning the steady -state phase. Curve ID13 models the steady -state phase for the remaining duration of the 1,200 sec. run and does not include a decay phase. Curve ID15 incorporates a decay phase which begins at 520 sec. from ignition which is equal to 7 min. from the start of the steady - state phase. Curve ID15 includes a decay phase which lasts 30 sec. The fire is shown to be completely extinguished with the heat release rate of zero at a time of 550 sec. Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 9 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS from the start of ignition. It is felt that the decisions made to create the customized fire curve ID15 are valid, conservative and substantiated in part by comparison to actual large scale test data provided in FM Data Sheet 2 -2. As an additional check, the ID15 curve has been superimposed onto a graph with two other fire curves which were obtained by the burning of actual commodities with data measurements taken in the large scale cone calorimeter at Factory Mutual Research Center. See Appendix D. The curve to the left with the shortest growth time is the Factory Mutual standard plastic commodity. The next curve highlighted in yellow is the ID15 curve which models high -rack storage of plastic commodities in Building A protected by ESFR sprinkler protection. The third curve represents rubber tires burning in a warehouse protected by ESFR sprinkler protection. The rubber tire curve was produced from an ADD (actual delivered density) test at Factory Mutual. The rubber tire curve shows that the ignition source was relatively slow to establish ignition. Established ignition does not occur until after one minute on the X- axis. For a more direct comparison between the rubber tire curve and ID15, the rubber tire curve can be shifted to the left approximately 1.25 min. By so doing, one can see that there is excellent correlation between the growth phases and the steady -state phases. In fact, the steady -state phase of ID15 predicts a higher heat release rate during the steady -state period than actually was measured for the rubber tire fire. At about the time that the ID15 fire begins to decline due to successful ESFR sprinkler operation, the rubber tire fire rate of heat release begins to accelerate again. This represents the point at which the ESFR sprinkler discharge on the rubber tires failed to extinguish the fire and the fire begins to overpower the sprinkler system. This test is one of the reasons that rubber tires are not included within the scope of commodities which can be successfully protected by ESFR sprinkler heads. In conclusion, it is felt that the fire represented by Curve ID15 can be used with a reasonable degree of confidence to achieve conservative smoke layer predictions using ASETB for Building A protected by ESFR sprinklers. The fire curve ID15 was utilized in conjunction with ASETB to develop reasonably conservative smoke layer development predictions within Building A. BATCH D, RUN 1 predicts that the smoke layer will drop 1.2 ft. to a height of 30.8 ft. AFF. The volume of this smoke layer is 648,000 cu.ft. Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 10 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS This prediction is based upon a flat roof 32 ft. AFF. The actual smoke layer height will be somewhat higher than these predictions due to the fact that a certain portion of the smoke layer will actually be above the 32 ft. eave height within the space created by the pitched roof. The volume of the pitched roof section (within the warehouse portion) is approximately 1,080,000 cu.ft. Taking into account the volume of the pitched roof, the adjusted smoke layer height is approximately 33 ft. (BATCH D, RUN 1). In this case, the smoke layer does not even drop below the eave line. Pictorial representations of the smoke layers predicted are included in Appendix E. Some additional fire scenarios were run to help the reader get a feel for the validity for the smoke layer predictions and understand the consequences if Building A is subdivided for multiple tenants. BATCH E has three runs. The first run models the case where Building A is divided into two equal tenants each occupying half of the building. The second run models the case where Building A is subdivided to accommodate four tenants with equal space. It is not likely that Building A will be subdivided further, however, the third run models one - eighth of Building A which is 50,000 sq.ft., just for comparison. Pictorial representations of the smoke layer for each of these runs are included in Appendix E. PART 6 OCCUPANT EGRESS PREDICTIONS The Uniform Building Code limits travel distance in Building A to 200 ft. The building footprint measures 400 ft. x 1,350 ft. Exit doors are arranged around the perimeter in such a manner that the maximum travel distance to any exit is 250 ft. This exceeds the Code limit by 50 ft. The Uniform Building Code allows for the travel distance to be increased up to 300 ft., provided that the last 100 ft. is within a fire - resistive corridor. Such a corridor would seriously impair the operational efficiency of this building due to the nature of its intended use. F Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 11 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS Egress time calculations were performed in addition to the fire modeling, in order to explore other means to satisfy the intent of the Uniform Building Code while still providing up to 250 ft. of travel distance. Egress time can be estimated using the methodology and assumptions described in Section 3, Chapter 13, of The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering'- This approach will provide simple, first- approximation calculations. This methodology, although incomplete, is adequate for determining approximate egress times and is considered to be accurate to within a 30% variance. The occupants of the building are expected to evacuate promptly following an evacuation signal because they will be able personnel who will be familiar with the interior layout of the facility. The results of the egress time calculations presented herein are therefore considered to be reasonably conservative. Each egress path consists of two components: a level passageway and an exit door. The total egress time for the building (that is, the time required from the start of egress until the last occupant has exited) is the larger of the travel time from a remote point to an exit, or the total time required for the building population to pass through the available exit doors. This facility will be used as a warehouse and will have a relatively low occupant load. As a result, a travel speed during egress of approximately 250 ft. per minute is assumed. Egress would begin at the time of occupant notification, such as through a local fire alarm system, and continue unimpeded until evacuation is complete. It is the intent of the architect to provide for a maximum travel distance of 250 ft., none of which will be within a fire rated corridor. As mentioned earlier, this exceeds the maximum travel distance allowed by the Uniform Building Code by 50 ft. Each doorway (3 ft. nominal width) can be expected to accommodate a flow of approximately 60 persons per minute under moderate flow conditions. There are 32 door leaves available for exiting the large open area which will be used for warehousing. Egress time calculations are dependent upon the occupant load. The Uniform Building Code assigns an occupant load to Building A of one person per 500 sq. ft. (Table 33 -A). The architect has considered limiting the occupant load to one person per 1,000 sq. ft. if this is a factor which would help increase the travel distance limit to 250 ft. Egress calculations are shown in detail in Appendix F. A total of eight cases were evaluated. Egress times were calculated associated with four separate travel distances: 200 ft., 250 ft., 300 ft., and 400 ft. Two calculations were completed for each travel distance, one using an occupant load factor of 1:1,000 and the other using an occupant load factor of 1:500. Harrington Group, Inc. k:: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 12 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS These calculations show that the occupant load is not a factor in determining the egress time. This is because both occupant loads used result in a sparsely populated building, which in turn allows for very smooth egress through the exit doors. The occupant load would generally have to be less than 1:200 in order to have a significant influence on the egress time. The data in the Appendix F shows that the egress time ranges from 48 seconds for a travel distance of 200 ft. to 96 seconds for a travel distance of 400 ft. This evacuation time data is also included on the event time lines in Appendix G. The time lines show when the start of egress and the completion of egress occurs relative to other fire events. For example, the first ESFR sprinkler operates at a time of 100 seconds after ignition. It is assumed that the sprinkler system is electronically monitored for water flow detection by a local fire alarm panel which is in turn monitored by a central station alarm monitoring company. It is assumed that the waterflow switch has a 90 second retard to avoid false alarms, which is common. The fire alarm panel receives the waterflow alarm, therefore, 90 seconds after the first ESFR actuates or 190 seconds after ignition. The fire alarm panel could then in turn initiate a local evacuation alarm starting occupant egress at about 200 seconds after ignition. To be conservative, however, it is assumed that a local alarm is sounded only by manual actuation of a manual pull station. Thus, there is additional delay and egress does not start until 270 seconds after ignition. The event time lines also show the smoke layer position above the floor at 10 second intervals as predicted by ASETB model runs. These data are conservative because they have not been adjusted to account for the pitched roof with a 36 ft. ridge. The data are based on a flat roof at 32 ft. so the actual position of the smoke layer will be higher than the data indicates. The pictorials in Appendix E do show smoke layer data adjusted for the pitched roof. PART 7 CONCLUSIONS ESFR sprinkler technology and a very large volume mega - warehouse such as Building A is a combination resulting in a very unique environment from the fire safety standpoint. The technical fire protection issues relative to this unique environment are not yet adequately addressed by the model building and fire prevention codes. Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 13 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS Let's look at our three primary issues one at a time. The Owner wishes to arrange the building egress facilities such that travel distance will not exceed 250 ft. The Uniform Building Code will allow this only if the last 50 ft. is within a 1 -hour fire -rated corridor. The event time -lines in Appendix G show concurrent building events and fire department events beginning with established ignition and ending with fire extinguishment. In general, occupants can egress safely from a building as long as they are not impeded by products of combustion from the fire as they proceed through the building to the exit doors. Humans can be impeded by products of combustion due to loss of visibility, presence of toxic gases, toxicity, and heat. As occupants move away from the fire toward the exit doors they can potentially be impeded by products of combustion as the smoke layer descends downwards from the roof towards the floor. The products of combustion will be an impediment to egress due to visibility or toxicity only if the smoke layer reaches down below the Critical Level, or below 7 ft. above the floor. Heat can be an impediment to egress even before the smoke layer reaches the Critical Level due to radiant energy from the smoke layer. The higher the smoke layer is above the Critical Level, the less of an impediment radiant heat will be. For a given fire, the smaller the area of the compartment, the faster the smoke layer will descend toward the floor. It is not likely that Building A will be subdivided to accommodate more than two tenants. In order to test the extremes, however, modeling has been done with Building A configured to accommodate four tenants, each occupying 135,000 sq. ft. The time line in Appendix G shows events for a four fire area scenario on the last of 3 pages. For a 200 ft. travel distance, egress is predicted to be completed 320 seconds after ignition. At this point in time, the smoke layer has only descended 2.6 ft. below eave level and is still 29.4 ft. above floor level. For a travel distance of 250 ft., egress is completed 330 seconds after ignition and the smoke layer is still 29.3 ft. above the floor level. For a travel distance of 400 ft., egress is completed 370 seconds after ignition and the smoke layer is still 28.9 ft. above the floor level. The ASETB Computer Model used to predict smoke layer development has a margin of error of +/- 20 %, approximately. Even so, it is clear that products of combustion from a fire in Building A even subdivided to accommodate four tenants will not be an impediment to egress for travel distances up to 400 ft. From this it can be concluded that a travel distance not to exceed 250 ft. should be accepted and that a one -hour fire -rated corridor for the last 50 ft. should not be required. The next primary issue is the requirement in the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code for curtain boards. This is a complex issue which will not be dealt with in its entirety in this report. The fundamental issue related to curtain boards is do they enhance the level of building fire safety in a large warehouse building such as Building A protected throughout by ESFR sprinkler technology? First of all, ESFR sprinkler protection is designed to �e r if Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 14 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS completely extinguish a fire in this Building, and it will do so in approximately 10 minutes from the point of established ignition. Do curtain boards do anything to enhance the performance efficiency of the sprinkler system? The answer is "no, they do not ". In fact, Factory Mutual recommends that curtain boards not be used in buildings protected by ESFR sprinkler technology'. Do curtain boards help make smoke removal equipment perform more efficiently? The answer is, "it depends on what smoke removal equipment is used ". If smoke removal is accomplished by means of gravity vents in the roof, then the answer is "yes ". In fact, curtain boards would be essential for gravity vents to perform efficiently because curtain boards help to create depth in the smoke layer thereby creating the buoyant forces necessary to eject smoke efficiently through the vents. If smoke removal is accomplished entirely by mechanical exhaust fans, then curtain boards do nothing to make smoke removal more efficient. The exhaust fans provide their own force to remove smoke from the smoke layer and buoyant forces are not necessary and are not figured into the calculations to make exhaust fans efficient. Will curtain boards do anything to enhance the level of life safety in Building A? The answer is "no ". In order for the products of combustion to be a threat to life, the smoke layer must descend down from the roof a large portion of the distance to the floor level. Curtain boards are required to be only 4 ft. or 6 ft. deep and will do nothing to prevent the descent of the smoke layer down to near the Critical Level. It has also been shown that for Building A, the smoke layer will not be an impediment to safe and timely egress. Curtain boards are completely suitable only in non- sprinklered buildings which are equipped with gravity -type roof vents. The expense of providing curtain boards in Building A does not enhance the level of building fire and life safety to any measurable degree at all, and in fact may be detrimental. The third primary issue concerns the capacity of the mechanical exhaust fans for the purpose of smoke removal. The smoke removal design criteria in the Uniform Fire Code are based on the use of gravity vents. The capacity of gravity vents is measured in terms of the ratio of aggregate vent area to total floor area. The Code provides a formula which is used to convert the aggregate gravity vent area to cubic feet per minute which is how the capacity of exhaust fans are measured. The application of this formula to a mega- warehouse such as Building A yields a exhaust fan requirement which is extremely high and impractical. For example, the formula requires that Building A be provided with exhaust fan capacity equaling over ten air changes per hour (cph). This is equal to 3,240,000 cfm, which would require a total of 108 exhaust fans rated at 30,000 cfm each. �t Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL HGI #59324 BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER OCTOBER 12, 1995 GRAPEVINE, TEXAS PAGE 15 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS This is particularly excessive in light of the fact that Building A is protected by ESFR sprinkler technology. ESFR sprinkler technology is designed to operate when a fire is relatively small and then completely extinguish the fire. The result is that a relatively small amount of smoke is generated during the life of the fire when compared to the case of conventional sprinkler protection. There are two primary reasons why smoke removal systems are required by Building Codes. The first is that ventilating heat and smoke from a building is considered almost always an essential part of the fire department's actions to control and extinguish a fire under emergency conditions. This helps to improve visibility in small spaces and also removes heat build -up at the roof which can lead to structural steel failure. The other reason is that smoke and heat removal during a fire under emergency conditions may be necessary to protect building occupants as they egress from the building. Neither of these two reasons are valid for Building A. The ASETB Smoke Development Modeling (Batch D, Run 1) predicts that only approximately 648,000 cu. ft. of smoke will be generated by a Class A Plastics Fire between the time of ignition and the time of extinguishment. This smoke is at roof level well above the floor and will not pose visibility problems for fire fighters. Also, the ASETB model predicts a maximum smoke layer temperature of 132 °F. This temperature is well below that which threatens the structural integrity of lightweight structural steel. It is generally that sustained temperatures of 1,000T or more are need to weaken structural steel and threaten collapse. Furthermore, the smoke can be removed under non - emergency conditions since the smoke will not be a serious impediment to occupant egress or fire fighting operations. The Owner proposes to provide mechanical exhaust fans with the capacity to provide 3 cph. This will be accomplished using 31 exhaust fans in the roof equally spaced along the ridge line, each with a capacity of 30,000 cfm. These fans will provide an exhaust capacity of 918,000 cfm and will be capable of removing all of the 648,000 cu. ft. of smoke within 40 seconds. Under these conditions, the expense of providing over 3,000,000 cu. ft. cfm of exhaust capacity simply is not necessary and cannot be justified. Harrington Group, Inc. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER GRAPEVINE, TEXAS STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS Summary: HGI #59324 OCTOBER 12, 1995 PAGE 16 • Building A is large even when subdivided for tenants and has a large capacity to contain smoke at the roof level. Egress from the building can be accomplished successfully without impediment from the smoke layer even with travel distances up to 400 ft. The 250 ft. travel distance proposed by the Owner will allow occupants to egress safely without the provision of a fire rated corridor for the last 50 ft. • Curtain boards do nothing to enhance fire safety in Building A and could potentially be detrimental to sprinkler system performance. The Owner proposal to provide an engineered smoke exhaust system with no curtain boards will provide adequate smoke removal capability. • The 10 air changes per hour required by the Code for smoke exhaust is excessive and unnecessary. A mechanical smoke exhaust system engineered to provide 3 air changes per hour has sufficient capacity to remove smoke from Building A. The predicted volume of smoke will be exhausted in 40 seconds of exhaust system operation, which is more than adequate. The Owner's proposals for 250 ft. Travel distance, no curtain boards and 3 air changes per hour smoke exhaust capacity provide an adequate level of building fire and life safety which meets or exceeds the intent of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. \wp6win \report\id i \dfw\smkedoc.wpd Harrington Group, Inc. r INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL BUILDING A - DFW TRADE CENTER GRAPEVINE, TEXAS HGI #59324 OCTOBER 12, 1995 PAGE 17 STUDY: SMOKE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING EGRESS REFERENCES 1. Evans, D. D. and Stroup, D. W.: Methods to Calculate the Response of Heat and Smoke Detectors Installed Below Large Unobstructed Ceilings; Report NBSIR 85- 3167; National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD, 1985. 2. Walton, D. D.: ASETB A Room Fire Program for Personal Computers; Report NBSIR 85 -3144; National Institute of Standard's and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD, 1985. 3 a N. FA FPETOOL, Version 3.2, September 1994; The National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD, 20899. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, 1993 Ed.; National Fire Protection Association, One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA. NFPA 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, 1995 Ed.; National Fire Protection Association, One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA. Factory Mutual Data Sheet 2 -2, December 1990; Early Suppression -Fast Response Sprinklers; Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation, Norwood, MA, 02062. The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 2nd Edition; National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1995. E `_ Harrington Group, Inc. XN LCCL ----- ------------ ------- ----------- wv ----- ------------ -- ------------ ---------- ------------ ----- - -- ----------------- ----------- --- ----- - ----- ----- -------- ---- ------ ----- Fi F1 . +&E%99 (s, G Ica S) (S; Tl- O jb. "IT Art ri cc�- o i6� D U , 11 jj�1TITTFUFY , 11111 MUM MH 1111111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I 1111 n I I I I I I I I I I I FIJI —]OVERALL KEY PLAN +0-0' FLOOR PLAN 1 SOURCE : LCCL R ]a -a OCT— 50'.0' !C10, L_ L U`_ LLL`_��_� &W® ®® U B b t5 4 I 7f O .'9 bt -PANS /■/■ P"AHrzs TCOPYI.E�PYEI�� ° iY » TS I rlXnRPd C4aYNCi M A C C R E C O R 0 n A S S O C I A T E S •._.. ......... ;,...., I ARCHITECTS i` I I /I I I` i 1 ♦� 1 I rl I♦ /1 I`♦ I I I�� ri irr ♦I I, ♦I IrI Ir ♦i 1, ♦I Ir4 ♦f ♦I Ir ♦I Ir ♦I it ♦I I I, ♦I I, irr ♦I ` ♦1 '.Ir ♦I Ir Irr ♦ ♦I 'e' .�• .': ENTPPNCL CNRX{ - —yJ t" NgIa.A119;C:1A:9 N •'• _ __ -__ -- __ ___.__. - __. -... ..___. _...__ __... - -_ _ _ - -___. _ ____ -_.. ________ _ _..____ - -____ __.. -.._ -__ -__ _ 4 -_ _ _ _ _ _ Eff�QIER P19 idW b?+PJ+ :: :NUDQPJ)'ALLNNIM ,.. . a ...... ....... ..,�.- _-- ________- ..,.._ ._ - -__- _. -____ ___ -_.... __._.._ _ ••: ,•• ''��11 LI^aMT -CWKi 9977��JL_ ::: 9T4EG9SCNr 9T ¢t, m. ••• N}N6 AM STEEL [X}tEfX •.. {.: M HNJ.YN vCTK (C� r'. 2675 Gass . N.W. ' '.: '• '� ; , y ! .. �__ ._- .___. �_. �� S'210 A.ttente, Georg a 30339 . - -_. . --- . . - ._. .__. ._.., .._. ._ -.• .. - -. (770) 432 -9400 Fax 432-9934 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION ARONTECTLPP e PINNING . ENTEIhMS t/16° 1' -O' I SOURCE : t CJILATIONS: TOTAL _kLc RIOR WALL AREA ll3618 SF xr -a sa' -o^ so'a' so' -o' sa�a Oa_D• sa -w sa -D- Ea -D' "OTAL MASOI•RY k-LL AREA. 113,— 5F PERCENTAGE CF WALL5 MA=T ° °`B2Y ' °....'• �Y�XPE1ts. rm. P _ PMEL9 N.M. DO P5 AND FRAMES SIRS AtCRPLS Ll PRINT RECORD TO BC GCLORSTL LADCERS A`D.. DOWtrPpfTS. tK 9 EASE E A tt PNnne, a -sncrx xo. um aacerTwR 1 rR.- LF ccNrxer uaJ. MT0CC, o mc 1 i♦ r I I I� r 1 1♦ / i i I♦ I♦ 1... f I♦ / f � R Ir ♦1 I♦ r 1 I♦ / I♦ / I♦ r 1 1♦ r 1 1♦ 1♦ , i I r ♦f I♦ / f I r ♦I r I♦ 1 Ir ♦ I I♦ r I 1 I♦ Ir ♦1 I♦ Ir ♦f it /'i n ,I I♦ r i I I♦ / I� I♦ / 1 1♦ I♦ i I 1 r ♦ r I I ♦ I r I r Ir ♦1 I r' I 1 I ♦ Ire ♦ ♦I r ♦ r ♦ r ♦ i r r � i I i i I i i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I t I 1 1 1 I ..... ... ....... ..•.._.__...__._ .._____._ --- __.-__ w___._-__ ___._.- ____— _- _.....- ...___ - - -. .---- ______-- ..._--- ____- _- __-r'T ____ .___- .--- _- _______..- .__......_ .-..--.-.____.. _...._- __.._+.__......___r__... _- ____....__.- .____ - -.__, _.__._- _..__w___.____.._ .__.__. - -. -_ ._..__..____._..._.__._.. ._.. a..-__- .- ._- _- a.___.._.._...r___. -l__ __ -------- �� .i f `xLd. FCT/.I- Ldok: • • 5UILDIFG 5CUMAGE `..HALL CCMPLT tdTH ALL I N NLGLCN AlTN- PtAM ', N' SICCWRE W5-NE TtIN OF SECTRJN F CF THE % j '; ;• CRDRRANCE OF TPE `. '. ;- '. ,, j I, � •' :% •• CIrT ' .. -.. ._. -. ..... .__. ._. -- ._ -. .. --. ._.. ._... _._.. ..._. .__. .._. ._.. ..._. CJTT OF GRAPEVNF. TE %A5. __. .___. . -._. - -': -'� .__. .__. Of GRAPE M. M 2 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION Nib" = I'-O' SOURCE : INVENTORV DISTRIBUTION 19 20 Zi 22 23 2^t 25 26 27 -28 FACILITY I CD',. Ea -a so•.a so'.a' BLDG. 'A' viz "9 o a I I �`k��— ° "♦�%�`ipr zl o I9 � n w �n, a u .n to ' B: 6 s .z ® ® 037 ® ® rT-1 ® ® ® ® ® ® 71161 ® ® ® ® Db7 ® ® ® OZ] ® rm OZ] Cf PAIfit DFWTS'1•' - TRADE TlP W fLICREIE taPlA. CENTER MWEVME/COMELL TEXAS ! 21 LI i♦ rl I♦ 'I rl 'I I♦ rl I♦ 'I ri 1♦ rl I♦ rl i♦ ri rl i♦ I rl I♦ r'I 'i "I 1♦ /1 J - ', �. / r ` r I ♦ / r `r I \ ♦r / I I 1: I r ♦♦f r ♦♦ r ♦1 ;r♦ 1 I I, / ♦♦I 1;/ .I �I I 1 � . R , _y— ---- ------ _.. -_ ------------- ----- _ --- _ -------------- __ -------- ---------------- --------------- .......... • ��AESYS I � M IICIJ.CaH AKRpI COG[ tRpyllr^,a Pd'D 3IPEl C(,�Mtl ••• ,•• N NfYJ,CW PJ. PRSAS •.. •� ,.. .., •.. �,. �.� ... I MET : % h+dEiUtal • • 3 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION THIS oEAWINa. AS AN INSTHNMENT OF SERVICE. lllb" = 1' -G' SOURCE : A AND SHALL REMAIN THE SE HETY OF THE I.LI.EO OR SED IN ANY WAY W�OVTO -NNE C B IHE S ARCHITECT. J H G F E D Ja -O' Oa_a' b' -O' DD' -a' T CONPACTDAI NALIYERIFY ALL DMENSIONS NO E%ISTINS DMITIONa AT THE SITE BEFORE PROCEED MS WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORK. PATE 55E DETAILS 1.4 Ate 6 -4.2 ®W WteOer Aeaocgtea Aran nc. `988 Fot LtMR5 Atm EXACT LOCATION OF PAM COLCRS AT REVEALS °.,EE S!£ET A-!, .I FOR PAINT CCLOR SCHEDULE Ol I '99 9] i6 V3 4 =T � S--r— �—r .m— �T`r/Sl` oArz nwstt w«e Meaao e. 929A9 9944 ® ® ® ® ®. ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® SUER a1riL WALL MJJIIRD IXYE[MJR LYaftN PE(NRC. BCC P1CG1RICla. � AON'$ ' ELEVATIONS i ( � =PP NL Ea EVRT T TK.T -t f C- TOM q I I c I i ri J R blW&IOLG I ' 1 -__ r ♦ i T _ ,.- _.:T_- ,:,_____- _'- ___;.^__-- __:______ ______ ___ __ ______ _____ __" _----- _ ------------ _ _____ x Bi Ni I '�Of: P1.z 3/n "0. AN CIH LKYfN -G� �. ET.raR KErex m. .. �- .__. -___. .__. ._... .__. . - -_. . -_. .. - -• •_... 4 SOUTH ELEVATION a FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/t6' ° 1 0. SOtJR E • rc II W-V '.% I - I- I. I Ill Im.. rMi ME I F 1 AL R PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION 06- IT-O- SOURCE : buLDW, SIGIAMGE SHALL Co 5"W-f, lFaLAT015 01 51 CCWn5IeN5rJE ZONT ORDIN CJrY 0F GRAPEVINE, TEXAS. 14-1 C I TCX,LRN`r` COATOCI ALL CONCRETE PANELS RM. DOORS AND FRAMES' STAIRS. NAlDRAIL5. WAKDRALS, GUTTERS TVM&5TL LADDER5 AND MTL P-1 AT WEST rLtVATJDNC(ThE`5 11 2 1 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION 1/16' = 1'-0- 1 SOURCE : ALL CONCRETE PANELS HJM, D"5 AND FRA11155 5TALRS' I LS. GUARDRAILS, GUTTERS. 130,44SKUT'S 5TL LADDERS AND WL LOLNERS ,0 be COLOR P- I AT HEST IS-EVATC" ffyC.MPT AT PUWROOM AS NDTFID. TcPwr 3 1 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION 1,16- - I'-o' I SOURCE: NOTE; SEE DETAILS 1, 2 AND 6/iN,42 FOR LIMITS AM EXACT LOCATION OF PAINT COLORS AT REVEALS. SEE SHEET A-3.1 " PAINT Cot-OR XHEMLe 4 NORTH ELEVATION I — I116• - 1'-0' 1 SOURCE ® ® cm ® ® ® ® =3 ® ® ® ® ® M3 mm T- - ---------- I ....................... ------------ — ----- ------ ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .;i t:: 1 t:: IT aA� D. n. V M--w RSVTAL-TYi; 1 m— c iga!A� I L" dmw& &AEV LLL L M A C G RE G 0 R A S S 0 C ]A T E 5 A R C H IT E C T 5 2675 PaSes Ferry Rd. N.W. -, I I ' 21' AtI.Its. 30339 1770) 432,9400 Fax 432-9934 ARCHnECTUIE • PLAHIHM • IFITHOORS RECORD INVENTORY DISTRIBUTION FACLITY BLDG. 'A' DFW TRADE IUI THIS D AWRI9, AS AN INSTRUIVENT OF SERVICE, IS - A ALL RE— THE FROPREFTY OF THE ARCHITECT AIA SHALL HOT BE FERIAMM. FLRLISRED OR UST IF A" WAY WITHOUT THE PaR15310 F IM ARCHITECT. THE CONTRAST. $HAll 'ERET ALL CIVIRSHRIS A. EV ISTWS COMITIONS AT 'HE SITE ilERR5 PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WOqI. @.-HxV AeFmlitee Al0ft- - HIIS ELEVATIONS A-3.2 FOR CONSTRUCTION I O ti W) rn ,It cq O ti 9w z P. W U u bq < Z C) 0 C) tr) 0 cq cq tn U 00 Z C-4 N cn 0 o u W) CN W) to Ln C Z cn O v, 0 wl 0 C9 0 0 0 CA 4. C O r. 0 0 w w cn 0 00 0 0 C) 00 — C\ 00 r- rr CO wl > > > > > O 0 0 0 0 0 00 -0 -0 -a G -G cq 14 wl U < as Z o c> I f < U < 04 C4 Ga tl cz Q C>�, cu C>Zl co bq C. cn O cz cz 0 0 0 4. 4 O r. 0 0 w w cn 0 00 0 0 C) 00 — C\ 00 r- > > > > > O 0 0 0 0 0 -0 -0 -a G -G Q 0 14 ddd tn I NI tit CU O O Qw 9w �"q z a U u w U N Z 0 u < O cn C) tn co cq U [-. < Z a 0 C-1 M kn Z =) 6 cn C'4 00 Cq < Z 1 :4 Z 6 M C) � O O° rn Cn < cn U < Z `4° C) C> C, C� 0 =, cn < U C14 Z < 0 u Ir, C� 00 00 Cl� 0 0 cz ;.. T. 14 Qn — Q. 'n cz 10 c C). ou • I Z 0 O cu iw cz 4� 0 (D O im. aq cu o Z > Cc1 ;3 C) N t3 eH cn ax cn MI O ai O Qw Za cu cu 4.1 b4 I O Ql O 74 pw C.) u 14 V) C4 N 00 "T C,4 4. 4. 4. 0 0 0 aS r-- 00 4t C\ C, 94 W) 00 0 o M kf) 00 kn ca wl cn b4 tw rA 14 V) C4 N 00 "T C,4 4. 4. 4. 0 0 0 aS r-- 00 4t C\ I w QD ti tn O ti r -cc Hw O Qw qw Za ao U u 00 00 kn V) C) -,t 0 �c o C) cn 00 00 cn 00 GA LLB r� 00 04 u w 0 MI dt E- u Qw za U u cu �20 cz ct > Ow ct II ,tun cn cu 0. > u I > y is ocz U ct cn O r- cu CA 00 p ;L4 w In < U rn kn 02 LO M C.) kn 00 In Ln cn ti 7a� U con. cu �20 cz ct > Ow ct II ,tun cn cu 0. > u I > y is ocz U ct cn O r- cu CA 00 p ;L4 w In H Q [L H z C) W D co d U W o uj Cl u- Qz Q ) D z 0Z LL :D U) INS 1 � O a U) �� o ►_ o � � W o 00 o 0 o 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 o o 00 o rl- °m o 0 o 0 co N 0 (MN) 31V2J IISd3-13ZJ iV3H 3nllO3ANOO (0 NT It 000�rItr(0OCOrrrr(0O(0v "It m0 Cl C0(00)Opu)t,- MN t1:0co0LOM10O��ooNO YCDl�rM fl- OpMMM0MaOfi'd'I­ IT 'IT M _ r( ptn OpNON1�COdOc►'N�OQ>r(.CpOpd' �- N '1' (0 M O M O O "zr M M Imo- M O O t- � r�- �- NNNMMrrcr(()(OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U M (fl0)NLO COrcrt-- OM(00)NU")00rrr1,- 0 - rrNNNMMMMq rp'tLOL)LO(0 H 3 N CtS C N i Q F- U- C) w CD C) z LO W z C) D L LLI co C) U --C-4 ui o t F- p — U) C, Z < -10 0 U- ce) — LL p co z CN LL OW -CO (D -C) M FL i co C) CD C) 0 C) C) C) C) 0 1 C) 0 O C) LO C) C 0 L C14 T- (MN) 31�l 3SV3]Md iV3H 3AU03ANOO 0 Iq (D (D 1q, C) It w (0 cr CD v w (0 v 0 v CO (0 Iq C) C? 0) 1,- lzp C? U? 00 C) C) r– M 00 " Un (0 to U� M C) t-- r-- - w -q- m I-- CD (o 0 CD w C) (D v (D rl- r- d' C) LO W m m I- m w N m m N w v r- M (0 CD U') a M M — 0 C) 0 N qt r� — Lo r r� N m V LO CD rl- m m 0 N M LO (0 ... .... .... .... —CD CD 0 C) 0 a a C) CD C) 0 CD a 0 a C) 0 C) C> CD CD d m (0 m N U") w v rl- CD m w m N LO w r r 0 a) � — — N N m m m m 11, v 'IT LO U') LO (0 Is w r- P 3 N ca C: ui LU 0 0 2 W -0 ia CN z Z -Lop O UJ LLJ ob Z 0 UJ +&0 < U. Z --co 0 ■ L.L OW < Z uj ■ —T O IFN C) 0 CD LL 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 U') C) U-) 04 r T- (AA)4) 31V�l 3SV313?1 iVqH 3AliO3ANOO 0 N w w NON w w NON m m No cli 00 00 C14ZT C) — ,q* 0 m C) co co Co. rl- 0 U') N N U) M M ON wco mmmmm,N co U-)Wu-) r- NNO Low ,.q, CO f-- [,- U") T M M r T M CO r Lo t-- CO t-- IZ 0 'IT Co CO 0 U) 0 CO ":T N 0 0 T N "q, rl- — CO N M N N Co,.;Zr Lo Co fl- CO 0) 0 N M Lo CD ---.:,CDC) c CDOO CDOOO CD CDOO 0 OaaOOO a (D N w 'IT 0 cc N w I-T 0 (D N w T 0 (D N w IT 0 (D TTNMMc T lq* Lo Co CO I- rl- 00 0) 0) 0 0 04 w ............ C\i m Q 3: 0 0 m w m m to -T m m iONa 0"') 1- 'IT 0 m N r- m w I,- � I- U-) U') r- r W 0 r.- 0 "4, M "') 0 M CD N U') rl- 0 M r- 0 IMMINIMMINI 04 M CL cr C) C) 04 C) z --o 00 UJ z ry UJ OC) U- C) z (ZD in LL O z in y 1 C:) W z to i UJ Im ® C) 0 0 C) 0 0 C) C) 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) C) U-) IT m C\l (MN) 31V l 3SV3132J 1V3H 3ALL03ANOO 0 m w m m to -T m m iONa 0"') 1- 'IT 0 m N r- m w I,- � I- U-) U') r- r W 0 r.- 0 "4, M "') 0 M CD N U') rl- 0 M r- 0 IMMINIMMINI 04 M CL cr q C) Q0 'IT NT 0 0 (D IT 'cr (D C) 0 C) 0 C) CD C) CD 0 C) 0 0 r 0 Iq U*) 0 r-- 00 N M 0"T CD CD q 0 0 C4 00 OR C> 000 04 '-T LO t- C) CN (0' C3)* cei tl-' r (C) � CD [,- IT o) (0 r IT LO I�r r r- C) — C) 00 (Y) r- 00 00 ([) r q (D r- r-- C> r- OD cl) 'T C) C) CY) r CN I- (D M (D CO CD N M (D (0 M IT r r M I- "T M U) M 0 rrN q LO r- M T il- 0 M (0 (D V, M N r- r10 F r 1= la 10 ic I 0 I c I 0 I C I 0 r I C I 0 I 0 I 0 10 10 10 I (D N co N, 0 (o N o Nl 0 CD N co r C(D N co "T CD - - N M M 'IT "T ) (0 0 [- II- W M M 0 0 r ,. r r r I N m I 0(fl'IT 41 0 0 (0 rt rt (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OON�O tp �- d�000000000000000 O M N II. 00 (0 O M LO l� (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 O (0 (0 (0 CO CMMMNN Mr- � f,-00000000000 rrNNMMMMMMMMCOCOCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U �-NM"I'tn(DIl -MMO NM,- TL)(0r -0000 w uj 3 N tfS i i Q a' I �O W I I I 4 i i i I I I I I I I I 0 Z � I i i I I W Q i I I I r I 1 I i I I i i I I 0 i I I I I I r LLI Q I I I 1 I V TI i%i I I 1 O O •_ ��• lr UI 1 ! I 0 0 �00 U- o ul 'Q CO I CY ) `^i Q I I I . 0 N J U_ O O O O O O O O ® LOj O t� O (f) O tLO ® ® (h M N N r r (AAN) 31`d J 3SV31323 iV3H 3AU03ANOO 0(fl'IT 41 0 0 (0 rt rt (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OON�O tp �- d�000000000000000 O M N II. 00 (0 O M LO l� (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 O (0 (0 (0 CO CMMMNN Mr- � f,-00000000000 rrNNMMMMMMMMCOCOCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U �-NM"I'tn(DIl -MMO NM,- TL)(0r -0000 w uj 3 N tfS i i Q a' 0 0 Nr "T m CD m IT "q* 0 CD CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 00N Loo Lo— M Mm 00000000000 0 In N t-- co (o o 0) U-) 1-- (6 (D (o (o (o CD (o (o ci o 6 CO CO 0) C\l IN M r r fl- 0 0 C) 0 C) 0 CD 0 0 CD CN LO CO CD r (0 CO CO CO M CO CO CO M CD 0 C14 C14 M CO CO CY) CO CO CO CO N— M qr LO 0 Il- U') LO LO U) m ca C: A) CL rr U) Z z uj C) JLJ 171 c) CL U) P: to C:) Z C) 10 (D LL o0 00 � U- U.J. CD LO 1 0 C) C) C) 0 0 C) 0 C) C) C) 0 0 LO 0 LO C) LO 0 U") CY) co (14 CNI (AAN) 31V J 3SV3-13�1 iV3H 3Ali:D3ANOO 0 0 Nr "T m CD m IT "q* 0 CD CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 00N Loo Lo— M Mm 00000000000 0 In N t-- co (o o 0) U-) 1-- (6 (D (o (o (o CD (o (o ci o 6 CO CO 0) C\l IN M r r fl- 0 0 C) 0 C) 0 CD 0 0 CD CN LO CO CD r (0 CO CO CO M CO CO CO M CD 0 C14 C14 M CO CO CY) CO CO CO CO N— M qr LO 0 Il- U') LO LO U) m ca C: A) CL rr • O C) I t 00 C14 C) C) (D CF) Al C) 00 C co F4 Zo Ilk, c (D (D 00 LO oW o 00 3-- C-4 to CY) 0 C co CD CN (0 O co CD 04 O co to CN T- V.- (AAN) 31�! 3SV313?1 iV3H 3AU03ANOO ti U- 40 u,w/nj8 ) 31Yd 3SY3138 lY3H 3AII33AN03 %U ell% E r Ail. co CD to CD Ls_ to ui a a as a a x a 5 a rarer z C) Con z 4-4 O C) C) > O O Tr COO o � a) M U > O IV `G M tin y Q � H W L/1 H U Cd U 44 v� O O O d N sd U cd U � O O O � 3 k � a> ' N � O O U cn O �H d U bA N QQW��cn�G �7 Z � W® AWU ..WWU �w��HaA N U a� v cd U 0 C7 N 3 w Q a� -yd � bn F� M y S�r � i—I v� ..r Cd Q3 ct� lt� N �O p M � U cG N 4-i vi O O O M c7 3 Q v] cri «3 W N n to C) Q cn � H U cn U O � O v') Go U � co "C N �QW N�NIZI � C/1 II �Z W � O as Wvx = w �w�aHaA c7 3 Q ■ o U W C7 Z Q 3 w Q U R3 N 4-i O O v7 QJ N r- 4.1 o U � H V7 o to ct �CQWc�,�Np C/1 a w WUx xa xz �wraxFaA = 3 w Q EGRESS TIME CALCULATIONS The travel time Ti from a remote point in the building is given by: T,=d ri where: d = travel distance (feet), and ri = travel rate (feet/minute). Since each of these values is known from the information given above, it is a straightforward calculation to determine the result. The time T2 required for the building occupants to pass through the exit doorways is given by: T = (A/p) r2x n where A = building floor area = 540,000 square feet p = builing occupant load or density (square foot/person), r2 = door flow rate (persons/door leaf/minute), and n = number of door leaves available = 32. Again, each of these values is known from the information given above. The total travel time is the greater of T, or T2. 1 Case 1: d =20Q' and p =1 person /1,000 sq.ft. T - 200 ft = 0 8 min T2 (540,000 sq.ft.) / (1,000 sq.ft/person) = 0.3 minutes 1 250 ft/min z (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 0.8 minute. Case 2: d =200' and p =1 person /500 sq.ft. T _ 200 ft : 0 8 min T = (540,000 sq.ft.) / (500 sq.ft/person) = 0.6 minutes 1 250 ft/min a (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 0.8 minute. Case 3: d =250' and p =1 person /1,000 sq.ft. T, 250 ft _ 1 min T _ (540,000 sq.ft.) / (1,000 sq.ft/person) = 0.3 minutes 1 250 ft/min z (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 1 minute. Case 4: d =250' and p =1 person /500 sq.ft Tl _ 250 ft = 1 min T2 _ (540,000 sq.ft.) / (500 sq.ft/person) = 0.6 minutes 250 ft/min (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 1 minute. Case 5: d =300' and p =1 person /1,000 sq.ft T _ 300 ft : 1.2 min T = (540,000 sq.ft.) / (1,000 sq.ft/person) = 0.3 minutes 1 250 ft/min a (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 1.2 minutes. 2 Case 6: d =300,' and p =1 person /500 sq.ft T = 300 ft = 12 min T = (540,000 sq.ft.) / (500 sq.ft/person) = 0.6 minutes 1 250 ft/min z (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 1.2 minutes. Case 7: d =400' and p =1 person /1,000 sq.ft 400 ft (540,000 sq.ft.) / (1,000 sq.ft/person) T = = 1.6 min. T _ - = 0.3 minutes T, 250 ft/min a (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 1.6 minutes. Case 8: d =400' and p =1 person /500 sq.ft T = 400 ft = 1.6 min. T = (540,000 sq.ft.) / (500 sq.ft/person) = 0.6 minutes i 250 ft/min 2 (60 persons /door /minute) x (32 doors) So the total exit time is 1.6 minutes. The following table summarizes the data from these calculations: Case Travel Distance Occupant Load Travel Time 1 200 1:1000 48 sec. 2 200 1:500 48 sec. 3 250 1:1000 60 sec. 4 250 1:500 60 sec. 5 300 1:1000 72 sec. 6 300 1:500 72 sec. 7 400 1:1000 96 sec. 8 400 1:500 96 sec. mpow n \reporrxiaiva narvvuimecaic.wpa 3 qpw\clientsVidiVdidfwal.wb2 HARRINGTON GROUP, INC. - FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS tolm qpw\clientsVdi\ididfwal.wb2 HARRINGTON GROUP, INC. - FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS [to] qpw\clients\idiVdidfwal.wb2 HARRINGTON GROUP, INC. - FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS