Sprinkler Protection for

Multiple-Row Rack Storage

Systems – Phase 1
Final Report by:

Tracey Bellamy
Telgian Engineering & Consulting
Atlanta, GA, USA

May 2024 Year

© 2024 Fire Protection Research Foundation

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169 | Web: [Link]/foundation | Email: foundation@[Link]
Foreword

Historically, NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, has defined high-piled storage racks,
where solid shelves larger than 20 ft² (1.9 m²) have been installed, as solid shelf racks. In addition, when pallet
loads stored within open racks are not provided with minimum 6 in (150 mm) wide flues on all four sides of the
load, the storage arrangement is also defined as solid shelf racking. Because of the shielding effect created by
racks that qualify as solid shelf, in-rack sprinkler protection is required at every tier level. For several cycles prior
to 2022 Edition, NFPA 13 has permitted multiple-row racks that are provided with minimum 6 in (150 mm) wide
transverse flue spaces a maximum of every 5 ft (1.5 m) horizontally, but void of longitudinal flue spaces, to qualify
as open racking. In addition, the required ceiling-level sprinkler designs for multiple-row racks is generally based
on the full-scale fire test results obtained using double-row racks. However, in the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13, the
definition of open racking for multiple-row racks was changed and required either (1) minimum 6 in (150 mm)
flue spaces around each pallet load within the multiple-row rack, or (2) the multiple-row rack to be provided with
minimum 6 in (150 mm) wide transverse flue spaces no more than 5 ft (1.5 m) apart and the rack depth limited
to a maximum of 20 ft (6.1 m) as defined by minimum 3-½ ft (1.1 m) wide aisles.

The Technical Committee responsible for NFPA 13 used the results from a full-scale fire test conducted in March
1971, on behalf of the Rack Storage Fire Protection Committee, to establish these parameters. The multiple-row
rack depth for this test was based on two double-row racks placed back-to-back replicating the storage
arrangement at the time for multiple-row racks, and results applied to storage up to 16 ft (4.9 m) deep. Multiple-
row racks commonly found in today’s warehouses come in many shapes and sizes, most of which are deeper
than 20 ft (6.1 m) and do not qualify as open racking. As a result, the requirements of NFPA 13 would mandate
the installation of in-rack sprinklers at every tier level for these types of storage racks. Many stakeholders have
found this requirement to be very onerous to comply with. As a result, there is a need to determine what defines
open racking for multiple-row racks, if the ceiling-level sprinkler designs for them can be those indicated for
double-row racks, and the level of in-rack sprinkler protection needed when multiple-row racks qualify as solid
shelf racking.

The overall goal of this research study is to develop guidance on sprinkler protection for multiple-row racks
including determining a scientifically based definition of open racking for multiple-row racks as well as developing
guidance on appropriate sprinkler protection and/or other mitigation options (e.g., aisle spacing, vertical
barriers) for multiple-row racks that do not meet the definition of open racking. There is an emphasis on
identifying storage configurations where results from large-scale fire tests with double-row racks can be applied
to multiple-row racks. This project is a Phase 1 that involves a literature review, gap analysis, and development of
a research plan to work toward the overall goal.

The Fire Protection Research Foundation expresses gratitude to the report author Tracey Bellamy, who is with
Telgian Engineering & Consulting located in Atlanta, GA. The Research Foundation appreciates the guidance
provided by the Project Technical Panelists, the funding provided by the project sponsors, and all others that
contributed to this research effort.

The content, opinions and conclusions contained in this report are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Fire Protection Research Foundation, NFPA, Technical Panel or Sponsors.
The Foundation makes no guaranty or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information published
herein.

i
About the Fire Protection Research Foundation

The Fire Protection Research Foundation plans, manages, and

communicates research on a broad range of fire safety issues in
collaboration with scientists and laboratories around the world.
The Foundation is an affiliate of NFPA.

About the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Founded in 1896, NFPA is a global, nonprofit organization devoted to eliminating death,

injury, property and economic loss due to fire, electrical and related hazards. The
association delivers information and knowledge through more than 300 consensus codes
and standards, research, training, education, outreach and advocacy; and by partnering
with others who share an interest in furthering the NFPA mission.

All NFPA codes and standards can be viewed online for free.

NFPA's membership totals more than 65,000 individuals around the world.

Keywords: fire sprinkler system, NFPA 13, flue, flue spaces, pallet, longitudinal flue space,
transverse flue space, multiple row racks, sprinkler, sprinkler protection, storage systems,
definition, open racking, rack storage

Report number: FPRF-2024-04

Project Manager: Jacqueline R. Wilmot, P.E.

ii
Project Technical Panel

Roland Aps, NFSA (Linthicum Heights, MD)

Kerry Bell, UL (Northbrook, IL)
Chase Browning, City of Medford Fire Department (Medford, OR)
John Denhardt, AFSA (Richardson, TX)
Chad Duffy, NFPA (Quincy, MA)
John Frank, AXAXL (Stamford, CT)
Tom Goss, NFPA (Quincy, MA)
Pete Schwab, Wayne Fire (Ocoee, FL)
Will Smith, CCI (St. Louis, MO)
Steve Vargas, LA County (Los Angeles, CA)
Johannes Zimmermann, Schafer Automation (Charlotte, NC)

Project Sponsors

AIG
CNA Insurance
FM Global
The Hartford
Travelers Insurance
Verisk
Zurich Insurance Group

iii
Sprinkler Protection for
Multiple-Row Rack Storage
Systems – Phase 1
Fire Protection Research Foundation Report
Phase 1
Issued: April 19, 2024

Telgian Engineering & Consulting

900 Circle 75 Parkway
Suite 680
Atlanta, GA 30339

Prepared By:
Tracey D. Bellamy, PE, CFPS, CWBSP

1
 2

List of Figures
Figure 1: Test 96 Layout and Damage Assessment ................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: Test 107 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 10
Figure 3: Test 107 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 11
Figure 4: Test 151 Array Layout and Ceiling Sprinkler Operation ............................................................ 12
Figure 5: Test 151 Damage Assessment and In-Rack Sprinkler Operation ............................................. 14
Figure 6: Recommendations from Test 151 .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: ESFR Multiple-Row Rack Test Arrangement............................................................................ 16
Figure 8: ESFR Multiple-Row Rack Test Parameters and Results ........................................................... 17
Figure 9: Single-Flue Test Configuration. Figure 2 from “An RDD Test of Single-Flue Rack Storage Array of
Standard Plastic Commodity” dated July 1986. © 1986 FM Global. All rights reserved. .......................... 19
Figure 10: Convective Heat Release Rate – Single-Flue vs Double Flue Array. Figure 3 from “An RDD Test
of Single-Flue Rack Storage Array of Standard Plastic Commodity” dated July 1986. © 1986 FM Global. All
rights reserved. ................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 11: ESFR Multiple-Row Rack Test Damage Assessment ............................................................. 21
Figure 12: Test 1 Rack Arrangement ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 13: Test 2 Rack Arrangement ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 14: Test 3 Rack Arrangement ..................................................................................................... 25
Figure 15: Test 4 Rack Arrangement ..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 16: Test Parameters and Results ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 17: Test 1 Damage Assessment (Elevation) ............................................................................... 28
Figure 18: Test 2 Damage Assessment................................................................................................. 29
Figure 19: Test 3 Damage Assessment................................................................................................. 30
Figure 20: Test 4 Damage Assessment................................................................................................. 31
Figure 21: Loaded Portable Racks with Plastic Automotive Parts .......................................................... 32
Figure 22: Multi-Row Rack Configuration and Damage Assessment ...................................................... 34
Figure 23: Multi-Row Rack Test Parameters and Results ...................................................................... 35
Figure 24: Test 98 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 37
Figure 25: Test 66 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 37
Figure 26: Test 147 Layout and Damage Assessment........................................................................... 39
Figure 27: Test 89 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 39
Figure 28: Test 108 Layout and Damage Assessment ........................................................................... 41
Figure 29: ELO Retail Operations Test Summary .................................................................................. 44
Figure 30: ESFR Retail Operations Test Parameter Summary ................................................................ 45
Figure 31: ESFR Retail Operations Test Results Summary ..................................................................... 46
Figure 32: EC25 Retail Operations Test Summary ................................................................................. 47
Figure 33: Test 1 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................... 49
Figure 34: Test 4 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................... 51
Figure 35: ESFR Test 1 Layout and Damage Assessment ...................................................................... 53
Figure 36: ESFR Test 2 Layout and Damage Assessment ...................................................................... 55
Figure 37: Test B1 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................ 57
Figure 38: Test B2 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 59
Figure 39: Test B3 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 61
Figure 40: Test B4 Layout and Damage Assessment ............................................................................. 63
Figure 41: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class I Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria ........................... 65
Figure 42: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class II Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria .......................... 66
Figure 43: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class III Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria ......................... 67
Figure 44: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class IV Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria ........................ 68

[Link]
 3

Figure 45: NFPA 231C (1980) withdrawn - Class II Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria .......................... 69
Figure 46: NFPA 231C (1975) withdrawn - Multiple-Row Rack ≤16 ft (4.9 m)........................................... 71
Figure 47: NFPA 231C (1975) withdrawn - Multiple-Row Rack >16 ft (4.9 m)........................................... 72
Figure 48: TIA Log No.: 1560 ................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 49: Test 1 Configuration ............................................................................................................ 91
Figure 50:Test 2 Configuration ............................................................................................................. 93
Table of Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 6
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 7
Large-Scale Testing Literature Review ................................................................................... 7
Legacy Multiple-Row Fire Testing – CMDA Sprinklers......................................................... 7
Class I-IV Commodity .................................................................................................... 7
Test 96 ....................................................................................................................... 8
Test 107 ....................................................................................................................10
Test 151 ....................................................................................................................12
Group A Plastic .............................................................................................................15
Legacy Multiple-Row Fire Testing – ESFR Sprinklers .........................................................15
Specialty Multiple-Row Fire Testing – Plastic Automotive Parts Protection........................22
Alternative In-Rack Sprinkler Only – Multiple-Row Fire Testing ..........................................33
Legacy Solid Shelf Rack Testing .......................................................................................36
Test 98 ..........................................................................................................................36
Test 147 ........................................................................................................................38
Test 108 ........................................................................................................................40
Test 148 ........................................................................................................................41
Retail Operations Solid Shelf Testing ...............................................................................42
Retail Operations Solid Shelf ELO Test 1 ........................................................................48
Retail Operations Solid Shelf ELO Test 4 ........................................................................50
Retail Operations Solid Shelf ESFR Test 1 ......................................................................52
Retail Operations Solid Shelf ESFR Test 2 ......................................................................54
Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B1 ....................................................................56
Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B2 ....................................................................58
Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B3 ....................................................................60
Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B4 ....................................................................62

[Link]
 4

NFPA 231C / NFPA 13 Multiple-Row Rack Criteria ................................................................64

Design Criteria ................................................................................................................64
CMDA ...........................................................................................................................64
Large Drop ....................................................................................................................70
ESFR .............................................................................................................................70
Storage Height ................................................................................................................70
Multiple-Row Rack Depth ................................................................................................71
Flue Spaces Required for Multiple-Row Racks .................................................................72
Solid Shelving in Multiple-Row Racks ...............................................................................73
Specialty Protection Criteria ............................................................................................76
Alternative In-Rack Sprinkler Only Multiple-Row Criteria ..................................................76
Retail Operations Solid Shelf Testing ...............................................................................77
Fire Loss Data .....................................................................................................................77
Knowledge Gap Analysis......................................................................................................78
CMDA Protection of Class I-IV Commodity ......................................................................78
CMDA Protection of Group A Plastics ..............................................................................79
Large Drop (CMSA) Sprinklers ..........................................................................................79
ESFR Sprinklers ...............................................................................................................79
Multiple-Row Rack Flue Spaces .......................................................................................80
Specialty Multiple-Row Rack Large-Scale Fire Testing ......................................................80
Solid Shelf Large-Scale Fire Testing .................................................................................80
Knowledge Gap Summary ...............................................................................................81
Multiple-Row Rack Flue Space Arrangement .................................................................81
In-Rack Sprinkler Design Criteria ...................................................................................82
Commodity Class .........................................................................................................82
Sprinkler K-Factor / Design Criteria ...............................................................................82
Double-Row Rack Testing .............................................................................................83
Solid Shelf In-Rack Sprinkler Protection ........................................................................83
Aisle Separation Width ..................................................................................................83
Test Plan Development ............................................................................................................84
Tested Sprinkler Attributes ..................................................................................................84

[Link]
 5

Sprinkler Technology .......................................................................................................84

Sprinkler K-Factor ...........................................................................................................84
Sprinkler Orientation .......................................................................................................84
Sprinkler Spacing: Standard Coverage .............................................................................84
Design Density / Pressure ................................................................................................85
Ceiling Only vs Ceiling + In-Rack Sprinkler Design ............................................................85
Tested Storage Attributes ....................................................................................................85
Commodity Classification ...............................................................................................85
Available Flue Spaces .....................................................................................................85
Storage Support Method..................................................................................................86
Asle Width ......................................................................................................................86
Storage Depth .................................................................................................................86
Fire Test Attributes ..............................................................................................................86
Basis for Protection Criteria .................................................................................................87
Prioritized Large-Scale Fire Test Plan ...................................................................................87
Phase 2.1 – Evaluation of Predominate Market Need ........................................................88
Phase 2.2 – Evaluation of Legacy Protection Basis ...........................................................89
CMDA In-Rack Sprinkler Designs ...................................................................................89
ESFR / CMSA / CMDA – Use Of Double-Row Rack Test Criteria ......................................94
Phase 2.3 – Evaluation of Potential Solutions ...................................................................96
References ..............................................................................................................................97

[Link]
 6

Overview
This research project entitled, Sprinkler Protection for Multiple-Row Rack Storage System, was initiated by
the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) in response to changes made to the 2022 Edition of NFPA
13 regarding the protection of multiple-row rack storage. These changes effectively limited the depth of a
multiple-row rack storage systems to not more than 20 ft (6.1 m) in depth unless both 6 in. (150 mm)
longitudinal and transverse flue spaces are provided around each unit load (every 4 – 5 ft (1.2 – 1.5 m) in
each direction) or in-rack sprinkler protection is provided at every tier of storage in accordance with the
mandated provisions for protection of solid shelf storage. While the provisions of the 2022 Edition of NFPA
13 has not yet been widely adopted, it is expected that the implementation of these new requirements will
prove to be quite onerous for many stakeholders based on a significant portion of existing multiple-row
racking installations being more than 20 ft (6.1 m) in depth that utilize material handling methods that are
not conducive to providing both 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal and transverse flue spaces. As a result, the
installation of solid shelf in-rack sprinkler protection at each tier would be the only remaining option. While
not mandated retroactively by NFPA 13, an increase in the application of these requirements is being
mandated by a number of insurance providers. This has given rise to a number of questions regarding the
basis for the change along with the need for such increased protection. These questions include, (1) Is it
possible to protect some MRRs without longitudinal flue spaces with ceiling-only sprinkler options, and (2)
can I protect MRRs with in-rack sprinklers that are not installed at every tier level

The overall research goal of this project will be to develop guidance regarding the required protection for
multiple-row rack storage systems based on large-scale fire testing and sound engineering principles. The
protection might include the installation of in-rack sprinklers, aisle separation or installed barriers
between segments of multiple-row racking, etc. However, a desired emphasis would be to identify
multiple-row rack configurations that can be protected based on criteria developed from large-scale
testing completed for double-row rack configurations.

This report will serve to address the objectives of Phase 1 of the project. The objectives of this phase are
summarized through completion of the following Tasks:

Task 1 – A Literature Review and Gap Analysis

• Complete a review of available large-scale testing that involved multiple-row rack arrangements
and solid shelf configurations and compile the results.
• Complete a thorough review of the evolution of the requirements for multiple-row rack storage
sprinkler protection, including the development of criteria for solid shelf protection and mandated
flue space locations and sizing and compile results. This review will include the original rack
storage provisions from the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C (withdrawn) and subsequent incorporation
into the 1999 Edition of NFPA 13 up through the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13.
• Identify knowledge gaps between the current mandated protection criteria for multiple-row racks
and those supported by large-scale testing.

Task 2 – Test Plan

• Establish a prioritized large-scale testing program for the development of supported protection
criteria for multiple-row racks.

[Link]
 7

Literature Review
A literature review of available large-scale fire testing conducted in support of the development of multiple-
row rack protection was completed to catalog the publicly available resources on the subject. This review
should not be considered a complete listing of all large-scale fire testing completed as some testing
remains proprietary in nature and is not included herein. A summation of the available testing is included
in Section 2.1 of this report.

Additionally, a literature review of the development of the provisions of NFPA 231C and NFPA 13 relative to
the protection of multiple-row racks was conducted to provide a historical accounting of the inclusion of
specific criteria along with an explanatory basis where available. A summation of the historical
development of specific multiple-row rack protection is included in Section 2.2 of this report.

Large-Scale Testing Literature Review

Legacy Multiple-Row Fire Testing – CMDA Sprinklers

Class I-IV Commodity

The original development of sprinkler protection criteria for multiple-row rack storage arrangements was
included as part of the work completed by Rack Storage Fire Protection Committee (RSFP). This committee
was formed in 1967 with the aim of developing protection criteria for the full range of rack storage
arrangements and stored commodities supported by large-scale fire testing. This effort represented the
largest, most ambitious fire test program ever. It included over 190 large-scale and small-scale tests over
a period of time ranging from 1968 to 1975. The program included a wide range of representatives from fire
insurance interests, rack manufacturers, and fire protection equipment manufactures The RSFP
committee transmitted the collected information to the NFPA committee responsible for the development
of NFPA 231C, for use in the standard making process.

This undertaking proved to be extremely ambitious due to time and budgetary constraints. This
necessitated the use of creative assumptions to expand the available test data to cover the breath of
arrangements desired by the project. This included the development of a “base curve” for a specific rack
storage arrangement and commodity classification that would be used to represent the variation in
sprinkler performance based upon changes in applied water density in terms of the resultant area of
sprinkler operation. This curve was then utilized to populate additional curves that would be
representative of other changes in rack configuration, commodity classification, aisle width, sprinkler
temperature rating, etc. utilizing limited test data. The methodology primarily employed to generate the
additional area/density curves for the selected variation included a concept that was described as the law
of “parallelism” wherein a new curve representative of the variable adjustment being evaluated would be
drawn through a single test point parallel to the “base curve”. This was documented in the Committee
Notes for the project as follows:

[Link]
 8

“Due to financial considerations, it was determined at the outset of the test program that it would not be
possible to test the multitude of variables with rack storage. At that point, a concept of parallelism was
agreed upon. This involved the establishment of a base curve for the standard Class II Commodity at a 20
ft storage height as a constant condition in all variables with the exception of ceiling sprinkler discharge
density.”

Large-scale fire testing completed for the generation of the “base curve” were all conducted with a double-
row rack arrangement including 8 ft (2.4 m) aisles storing Class II Commodity to a height of 20 ft (6.1 m)
using a 165°F (74°C) (K-5.6 (80)) ½ in. orifice sprinklers. Tested variations included changes in storage
height, aisle width, sprinkler temperature rating, commodity classification, use of intermediate level in-
rack sprinklers, solid shelf installation, flue space position and multiple-row rack arrangements. The latter
three of these variables, solid shelf installation, flue space position and multiple-row rack arrangements
form the primary interest of this research effort.

The following relevant large-scale fire tests from the series are highlighted:

Test 96

The initial large-scale fire test conducted as being representative of multiple-row rack arrangements was
Test 96. The details of Test 96 are as follows:

Test Basis
37th Rack Test Conducted – July 15, 1970
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Multi-Row Rack (4 pallets deep/15.5 ft (4.7 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 10 ft (3.0 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.30 gpm/ft2 (12.2 mm/min) (30 gpm (114 L/min) or 28.7 psi (2.0 bar) on a
K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Not Identified

The layout and damage assessment for Test 96 are shown in Figure 1.

• 60 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 66 minutes (at the current fire test duration of 30
minutes past the first sprinkler operation, 24 sprinklers would have operated).

• The fire extended the full depth of the rack and would have presumably extended further if the array
had been deeper.

Concerns were raised with the overall performance of the selected 0.30 gpm/ft2 (16.3 mm/min) discharge
density and with the anticipated extension of the fire for deeper arrays. This gave rise to the desire to test
at a higher design density to seek improved performance sufficient to permit multiple-row racks without
depth limit.

[Link]
 9

Additionally, the tested arrangement which included both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal flue
spaces was questioned as not being representative of typical multiple-row rack storage arrangements.
Such typical arrangements include flow-through, drive-in and push-back racking arrangements wherein
individual pallet loads are placed abutted one directly to another. This arrangement of abutted loads
precludes the maintenance of 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flue spaces. As a result, additional testing was
recommended to be representative of the real world multiple-row rack arrangements in question without
longitudinal flues space and only having transverse flue spaces.

The tested arrangement included a steel column and bar joist member used to assess potential thermal
impact to the structure. No unacceptable temperatures were observed.

Figure 1: Test 96 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 10

Test 107

An additional large-scale fire test, Test 107, was conducted to address the previously cited concerns from
Test 96. The details of Test 107 are as follows:

Test Basis
48th Rack Test Conducted – March 8, 1971
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Multi-Row Rack (4 pallets deep/14 ft (4.3 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together)
Aisle – 10 ft (3.0 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 286°F (141°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min) (170 L/min) or 62.5 psi (4.3 bar) on a K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Not Identified

The layout and damage assessment for Test 107 are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Test 107 Layout and Damage Assessment

• 12 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 96 minutes (at the current fire test duration of 30
minutes past the first sprinkler operation, 10 sprinklers would have operated).

• The fire extended the full depth of the rack and would have again presumably extended further if
the array had been deeper.

The Committee Notes for Test 107 (See Figure 3) recommended a 25% increase in density from the base
design curves as well as limiting the overall depth of the multiple-row rack to 16 ft (4.9 m).

[Link]
 11

Again, concerns were raised with the overall performance of the selected increased discharge density of
0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min) with the anticipated extension of the fire for deeper arrays. This gave rise to a
desire to test an arrangement with the installation of intermediate in-rack sprinklers to seek improved
performance sufficient to permit multiple-row racks without depth limit or establish a multiple-row rack
depth of more than 16 ft (4.9 m) to accommodate the use of deeper arrays that were desired. As a result,
additional testing was recommended.

The tested arrangement included a steel column and bar joist member used to assess potential thermal
impact to the structure. No unacceptable temperatures were observed.

Figure 3: Test 107 Recommendations

[Link]
 12

Test 151

An additional large-scale fire test, Test 151, was conducted to address the previously cited concerns from
Test 107. The details of Test 151 are as follows:

Test Basis
Conducted – January 15, 1975
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Multi-Row Rack (8 pallets deep/28 ft (8.5 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together)
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.30 gpm/ft2 (12.2 mm/min) (30 gpm (114 L/min) or 31 psi (2.1 bar) on a
K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 4 at the ceiling and Between 2 face for the in-racks
In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing – Positioned in every other transverse flue space (8 ft (2.4 m) apart) at
12 ft (3.7 m) max. between sprinklers along the transverse flue with the 1st
in-rack sprinkler being positioned 2.5 ft (0.8 m) from the face of the array.
In-Rack Sprinkler Elevation – A single level at 10 ft (3.0 m) (between the 2nd and 3rd tier of storage
mid-rack height)
In-Rack Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge – 21.7 gpm (82.1 L/min) (15 psi (1.0 bar) on a K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)

The layout, damage assessment and operating pattern of sprinklers for Test 151 are shown in Figures 4 and
5.

Figure 4: Test 151 Array Layout and Ceiling Sprinkler Operation

[Link]
 13

• 3 ceiling sprinklers and 2 in-rack sprinklers operated over a test duration of 45 minutes
(interestingly these sprinklers all operated within 3:30 and the fire was reported to be almost
completely extinguished at 11 min 45 sec).

• The fire did not extend the full depth of the rack and was effectively controlled by the installation of
intermediate in-rack sprinklers and ceiling design.

• The extent of the fire spread is shown in Figure 5. As can be seen the fire damage was very limited
with severe damage only extending two loads deep at worst into the array and only 3 loads wide
across the array indicating the protection would be adequate for an even deeper array of storage.

The tested arrangement did not include a steel column and bar joist member as was previously used to
assess potential thermal impact to the structure.

[Link]
 14

Figure 5: Test 151 Damage Assessment and In-Rack Sprinkler Operation

[Link]
 15

The test report recommendations from Test 151 are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Recommendations from Test 151

Group A Plastic

Additional testing was completed to aid in the development of protection criteria for Group A Plastics as
part of the Rack Storage Protection (RSP) effort. This testing was completed between April 1975 and
February 1978. Collected data from RSP Tests 1-16 were submitted to NFPA 231C for incorporation as
protection criteria for Group A Plastics. Testing completed did not include any multiple-row rack
arrangements. All testing was completed using double-row rack configurations.

Legacy Multiple-Row Fire Testing – ESFR Sprinklers

Testing completed under the NFPA Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) for multiple-row rack
configurations using ESFR sprinklers was conducted in 1986 and is documented in the technical report
titled, Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinkler Protection for Multirow Rack Storage, FMRC J.U.
[Link] 070 September 1986. The testing only included a single multiple-row rack test configuration.
This testing was completed as a follow-up to previously conducted ESFR testing completed for double-row
rack arrangements and documented in the technical report titled, National Quick Response Sprinkler
Research Project: Large-Scale Fire Test Evaluation of Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) Automatic
Sprinklers, FMRC [Link]/[Link] May 1986. The single tested arrangement for the multiple-row rack
configuration included a four pallet by six pallet array of Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic, stored
five tiers in height (nominal 24 ft (7.3 m)). See Figure 7 and 8 for the test configuration and test parameters.

[Link]
 16

Figure 7: ESFR Multiple-Row Rack Test Arrangement

[Link]
 17

Figure 8: ESFR Multiple-Row Rack Test Parameters and Results

[Link]
 18

The positioning of pallets included the maintenance of both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal
flues spaces. The report notes that while the inclusion of longitudinal flues spaces is not normally
anticipated for multiple-row rack configurations (flow-through, drive-in and push-back racks), an
arrangement with both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal flue spaces was chosen as it was
deemed to be representative of a worst-case scenario based upon Required Delivered Density (RDD) work
completed at by James Lee at Factory Mutual. This RDD testing is documented in the test report titled, An
RDD Test of Single-Flue Rack Storage Array of Standard Plastic Commodity, FMRC J.I. [Link], July 1986.

A review of the RDD testing report reveals the assessment was completed by comparing the resultant
convective heat release rate associated with a 20 ft (6.1 m) 2 x 2 x 4 single-flue space array of Cartoned
Nonexpanded Group A Plastic with an applied water density of 0.50 gpm/ft2 (20.4 mm/min) occurring when
the measured convective heat reached 60,000 BTU/min. (1,055 kW) compared to that associated with the
same array but with double-flue space array under the same conditions. It should be noted that the tested
configurations were both conducted in a double-row rack arrangement. See Figure 9 for an illustration of
the tested configuration The results are shown in Figure 10. As indicated, the convective heat release rate
was somewhat slower to develop and was immediately checked upon the application of water for the
single-flue array as opposed to the accelerated growth and diminished decay associated with the double-
flue array. This led to the indication in the report that the single-flue array posed a lesser hazard and the
conclusion to utilize the double-flue arrangement for multiple-row rack testing as a conservative worse-
case approach.

The proposed protection criteria utilized for the fire test included the installation of prototype 165°F (74°C),
K14.0 (200) Pendent ESFR sprinklers at a spacing of 12 ft (3.7 m) x 8 ft (2.4 m) with a discharge pressure of
50 psi (3.4 bar). This criterion matched that utilized for the successful double-row rack testing completed
in prior large-scale fire testing noted above to form a comparative basis for performance.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated effective suppression of the fire with the operation of
4 sprinklers, including sprinkler operating times of 0.29, 0.30. 2:52 and 3:29 respectively. The fire damage
was limited to the center core of the array situated about the point of ignition with no spread to the edges
of the array indicating the protection would be adequate for an even deeper array of storage. See Figure 11
for an illustration of the damage.

[Link]
 19

Figure 9: Single-Flue Test Configuration. Figure 2 from “An RDD Test of Single-Flue Rack Storage Array of Standard Plastic
Commodity” dated July 1986. © 1986 FM Global. All rights reserved.

[Link]
 20

Figure 10: Convective Heat Release Rate – Single-Flue vs Double Flue Array. Figure 3 from “An RDD Test of Single-Flue Rack
Storage Array of Standard Plastic Commodity” dated July 1986. © 1986 FM Global. All rights reserved.

[Link]
 21

Figure 11: ESFR Multiple-Row Rack Test Damage Assessment

[Link]
 22

Specialty Multiple-Row Fire Testing – Plastic Automotive Parts Protection

Large-scale fire testing completed in support of a proposed modification to the 2002 Edition of NFPA 13 for
the protection of plastic automotive parts in portable racks configured in a multiple-row rack configuration
was conducted in 2000. This large-scale fire testing was documented in the test report titled, Technical
Report of Fire Testing of Automotive Parts in Portable Storage Racking prepared by Underwriters
Laboratories, Project 99NK29106, NC4004, January 5, 2001.

The large-scale fire test series included a total of four large-scale fire tests. The first fire test was a baseline
test of a double-row rack arrangement of Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic to assess a unique
proposed design parameter that involved spacing of K25.2 (360) ESFR sprinklers beyond their Listed
spacing of 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) by extending the spacing to 12 ft (3.7 m) x 12.5 ft (3.8 m) (150 ft2 (13.9 m2)). The
remaining three fire tests involved the use of a variety portable rack units storing different plastic
automotive parts all in a multiple-row rack configuration with a nominal storage height of 24 ft (7.3 m)
beneath a 35 ft (10.7 m) roof deck. The portable racking units were positioned immediately adjacent to one
another to form a closed array with no available transverse or longitudinal flue spaces. The four tested
multiple-row rack layouts are illustrated in Figures 12 through 15.

The test parameters and results of the fire testing are summarized in Figure 16. These results of the
multiple-row rack configuration testing demonstrated that the tested design criteria utilizing the K25.2
(360) ESFR sprinkler spaced a 12 ft (3.7 m) x 12.5 ft (3.8 m) with a design pressure of 36.6 psi (2.5 bar) (152.5
gpm (577.3 L/min)) held the spread of fire inside the bounds of the array with no extension to the edges.
The resultant design area is representative of a nominal 50% increase in the maximum number of operating
sprinklers found during Test 3.

The extent of damage at each level within the tested multiple-row rack arrangements is shown in Figures
17 through 20 for Test 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The spread of fire was contained to the center core of the
array indicating the protection would be adequate for an even deeper array of storage.

It should be noted that the tested portable racks loaded with plastic automotive parts might more closely
mimic palletized storage than rack storage. See the picture of an example of the loaded portable racks in
Figure 21.

[Link]
 23

Figure 12: Test 1 Rack Arrangement

[Link]
 24

Figure 13: Test 2 Rack Arrangement

[Link]
 25

Figure 14: Test 3 Rack Arrangement

[Link]
 26

Figure 15: Test 4 Rack Arrangement

[Link]
 27

Figure 16: Test Parameters and Results

[Link]
 28

Figure 17: Test 1 Damage Assessment (Elevation)

[Link]
 29

Figure 18: Test 2 Damage Assessment

[Link]
 30

Figure 19: Test 3 Damage Assessment

[Link]
 31

Figure 20: Test 4 Damage Assessment

[Link]
 32

Figure 21: Loaded Portable Racks with Plastic Automotive Parts

[Link]
 33

Alternative In-Rack Sprinkler Only – Multiple-Row Fire Testing

Large-scale fire testing completed in support of a proposed modification to the 2019 Edition of NFPA 13 for
the protection of multiple-row rack configurations with an alternative in-rack sprinkler only design was
conducted in 2014. The test was documented in the test report titled, Exposed Expanded Group A Plastic
Commodity Stored in Multi-Row Racks with Continuous Combustible Horizontal Barriers Protected by
K25.2 EC In-Rack and K=25.2 Ceiling Sprinklers prepared by Underwriters Laboratory, Project 4786427325,
Ex4427, July 25, 2014.

The large-scale fire test included protection using a single level of K25.2 (360) EC pendent sprinklers
spaced at 8 ft 3 in. (2.5 m) o/c positioned beneath a horizontal barrier that extended across the full width
of the array installed at an elevation of 20 ft (6.1 m). The tested array included an expanded exposed Group
A Plastic test commodity (meat trays) in a multiple-row rack arrangement. See Figure 22 for the tested
arrangement.

The test parameters and results of the fire testing are summarized in Figure 23. The results for the multiple-
row rack configuration testing demonstrated that the tested design criteria utilizing the K25.2 (360) EC
pendent in-rack sprinklers were capable of controlling the fire; however, the fire did spread to both faces
of the array indicating the protection may not be adequate for a deeper array of storage. See Figure 22 for
the extent of fire spread.

[Link]
 34

Figure 22: Multi-Row Rack Configuration and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 35

Figure 23: Multi-Row Rack Test Parameters and Results

[Link]
 36

Legacy Solid Shelf Rack Testing

The original large-scale fire testing of solid shelf rack configurations was conducted as part of the work
completed by the Rack Storage Fire Protection Committee (RSFP). This testing included four tests that
utilized solid shelving, two of the tests included only ceiling sprinkler protection Test 98 and Test 147 and
two of the tests, Test 108 and Test 148 included both ceiling and in-rack sprinkler protection. All of these
tests were conducted with a double-row rack configuration.

Test 98

The initial large-scale fire test conducted as being representative of a solid shelf a was Test 98. The details
of Test 98 are as follows:

Test Basis
39th Rack Test Conducted – July 28, 1970
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Solid plywood installed the full length and depth of the double-row rack
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
(blocked by solid shelving)
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.30 gpm/ft2 (12.2 mm/min) (30 gpm (114 L/min) or 28.7 psi (2.0 bar) on a
K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Not Identified

The layout and damage assessment for Test 98 are shown in Figure 24.

• 58 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 66 minutes all of which operating within 12 min.
20 sec.

• The fire extended the full depth and length of the rack and would have presumably extended further
if the array had been longer.

Concerns were raised with the overall performance of the selected 0.30 gpm/ft2 (16.3 mm/min) discharge
density in limiting fire spread beneath the solid shelving and with the anticipated extension of the fire for
longer arrays as well as the total number of operating sprinklers. This gave rise to the desire to test a higher
deign density with a more limited shelf size to seek improved performance sufficient to permit solid
shelving.

As a comparison, Test 66 of the series was utilized to assess the impact of the solid shelving of the spread
of fire with an arrangement not including solid shelving. See Figure 25 for the layout and damage
assessment of Test 66. The extent of fire spread was contained within the length of the array with 48
operating sprinklers.

[Link]
 37

Figure 24: Test 98 Layout and Damage Assessment

Figure 25: Test 66 Layout and Damage Assessment

The tested arrangement included a steel column and bar joist member used to assess potential thermal
impact to the structure. No unacceptable temperatures were observed.

[Link]
 38

Test 147
The follow-up large-scale fire test conducted as being representative of a solid shelf a was Test 147. The
details of Test 147 are as follows:

Test Basis
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Solid plywood installed the full length and depth of the individual bays of the double-row
rack
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min) (45 gpm (170.3 L/min) or 65.6 psi (4.5 bar) on a
K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Not Identified

The layout and damage assessment for Test 147 are shown in Figure 26.

• 47 ceiling sprinklers over the test duration.

• The fire extended the full depth and length of the rack and would have presumably extended further
if the array had been longer.

Concerns were again raised with the overall performance of the selected 0.45 gpm/min)/ft2 (18.3 mm/min)
discharge density in limiting fire spread beneath the solid shelving and with the anticipated extension of
the fire for longer arrays.

As a comparison, Test 89 of the series was utilized to assess the impact of the solid shelving of the spread
of fire with an arrangement not including solid shelving. See Figure 27 for the layout and damage
assessment of Test 89. The extent of fire spread was contained within the length of the array with 7
operating sprinklers. While the number of operating sprinklers was improved the spread of fire was still
deemed unacceptable.

[Link]
 39

Figure 26: Test 147 Layout and Damage Assessment

Figure 27: Test 89 Layout and Damage Assessment

The tested arrangement included a steel column and bar joist member used to assess potential thermal
impact to the structure. No unacceptable temperatures were observed.

[Link]
 40

Test 108
The initial solid shelf test including in-rack sprinkler protection was Test 108. The details of Test 108 are as
follows:

Test Basis
49th Rack Test Conducted – March 17, 1971
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Solid plywood installed the 24 ft (7.3 m) in length and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) in depth
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 280°F (138°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.375 gpm/ft2 (15.3 mm/min) (37.5 gpm (142 L/min) or 44.8 psi (3.1 bar) on a
K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Not Identified

In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing – 8 ft (2.4 m) o/c in the longitudinal flue located at the second-tier level
In-Rack Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C)
In-Rack Pressure – 30 psi (2.1 bar) (30.7 gpm (116 L/min) on a K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)

The layout and damage assessment for Test 108 are shown in Figure 28.

• 12 ceiling sprinklers and 6 in-rack sprinklers operated over the test duration of 60 minutes all of
which operating within the 12 min. 55 sec.

• The fire extended the full depth and length of the rack and would have presumably extended further
if the array had been longer.

Concerns were raised with the overall performance of the selected 0.375 gpm/ft2 (15.3 mm/min) discharge
density and a single level of in-rack sprinklers in limiting fire spread beneath the solid shelving and with the
anticipated extension of the fire for longer arrays.

[Link]
 41

Figure 28: Test 108 Layout and Damage Assessment

The tested arrangement included a steel column and bar joist member used to assess potential thermal
impact to the structure. No unacceptable temperatures were observed.
Test 148
The follow-up solid shelf large-scale fire test including in-rack sprinkler protection at each level was Test
148. The details of Test 148 are as follows:

Test Basis
Commodity – Class II
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Solid plywood installed the 24 ft (7.3 m) in length and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) in depth
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: Not Identified
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 280°F (138°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
Ceiling Density – 0.375 gpm/ft2 (15.3 mm/min) (37.5 gpm (142 L/min) or 44.8 psi (3.1 bar) on a
K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Not Identified

In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing – 24 ft (7.3 m) o/c in the longitudinal flue located at every tier level
In-Rack Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) (Orientation Not Identified)
In-Rack Pressure – 30 psi (2.1 bar) (30.7 gpm (116 L/min) on a K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)

[Link]
 42

The layout and damage assessment for Test 148 were not available.

• 46 ceiling sprinklers and 3 in-rack sprinklers operated over the test duration.

• The fire extended the full depth and length of the rack and jumped both aisles. It would have
presumably extended further if the array had been longer.

Concerns were raised with the overall performance of the selected 0.375 gpm/ft2 (15.3 mm/min) discharge
density and an extended spacing of in-rack sprinklers at every level in limiting fire spread beneath the solid
shelving and with the anticipated extension of the fire for longer arrays.

Retail Operations Solid Shelf Testing

To address merchandising needs in Big Box retail occupancies, large-scale fire testing was completed for
the storage of Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastics on slatted, display and solid shelving
arrangements. The original large-scale fire testing for these arrangements is documented in the technical
report titled, Large-Scale Fire Tests of Rack Stored Group A Plastics in Retail Operation Scenarios
Protected by Extra Large Orifice (ELO) Sprinklers, November 1994. See Figure 29 for a summary of this
large-scale fire testing. A primary objective of the test series was to arrive at a slatted shelf arrangement
that could be protected without having in install in-rack sprinklers as a solid shelf. Four tests were
completed with wood slat shelving installed to demonstrate such compliance. A single additional
comparison test was conducted with a solid shelf arrangement to evaluate if the selected ceiling only
protection could be carried further to include an actual solid shelf arrangement. This comparison was
made between Test 1 (slatted shelving) and Test 4 (solid shelving) as shown in Sections [Link] and [Link]
below. This testing was used to support the introduction of an allowance for slatted shelving arrangements
that would not be required to be considered as a solid shelf arrangement that required the installation of
in-rack sprinklers as part of the 1998 Edition of NFPA 231C. This criterion was further expanded in the 2002
Edition of NFPA 13 to include larger orifice sprinklers at the same design density.

Additional large-scale fire testing was completed utilizing ESFR sprinklers with the same slatted shelf
arrangement that resulted in an additional allowance in the 1999 Edition of NFPA 13 for protection using
K14.0 (200) ESFR sprinklers at a design pressure of 50 psi (3.4 bar). Testing completed to substantiate this
allowance included two large-scale fire tests using Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic stored to 19 ft
(5.8 m) in a double-row rack configuration, one with 7.5 in. (190 mm) transverse flue space and one with 3
in. (76 mm) transverse flue spaces. These tests are described in Sections [Link] and [Link] below. This
is documented in the test report titled, UL Report R18711 97NK 41803, May 4, 1998. See Figure 30 and for
a summary of test parameters and results. This criterion was further expanded in the 2002 Edition of NFPA
13 to include K16.8 (240) ESFR sprinklers at 32 psi (2.2 bar) and K25.2 (360) ESFR sprinklers at 15 psi (1.0
bar) based on equivalent flow and comparative testing completed without slatted shelving as a basis.

[Link]
 43

Additional large-scale fire testing was completed to further assess such arrangements utilizing an
extended coverage K25.2 (360) upright sprinkler. This testing is documented in the technical report titled,
Report of Large-Scale Fire Tests of Retail Shelf Display and Rack Storage of Cartoned Group A Plastics
Utilizing Extended Coverage Sprinklers Having a Nominal K-Factor of 25.2, UL Project 00NK22528,
NC4119, November 15, 2000. This test series included four large-scale fire tests with different
shelving/display arrangements. See Figure 31 for a summary of this testing. The first large-scale test, Test
B1, included the same slatted shelf arrangement that was utilized in the original large-scale fire test series
with the ELO sprinkler. The second large-scale test, B2, added a single solid plywood shelf atop the slatted
shelf position located at the bottom tier of the array. The third large-scale test, Test B3, added a perforated
metal panel atop the slatted shelf positions located at the bottom two tiers of the array. The fourth large-
scale test, Test B4, added a solid veneered particle board slanted display enclosure in the middle of the
array. These tests are described in Sections [Link], [Link], [Link], and [Link] below. This large-scale
fire testing was used to support the extension of the allowance for slatted shelving and other retail display
arrangements that would not be required to be considered as a solid shelf arrangement that required the
installation of in-rack sprinklers as part of the 2002 Edition of NFPA 13.

[Link]
 44

Figure 29: ELO Retail Operations Test Summary

[Link]
 45

Figure 30: ESFR Retail Operations Test Parameter Summary

[Link]
 46

Figure 31: ESFR Retail Operations Test Results Summary

[Link]
 47

Figure 32: EC25 Retail Operations Test Summary

[Link]
 48

Retail Operations Solid Shelf ELO Test 1

The first slatted shelf large-scale fire test that was conducted as being representative of a desired
merchandising arrangement was Test 1 of the series. The details of Test 1 are as follows:

Test Basis
Test Date – August 20, 1993
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 27 ft (8.2 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” (51 mm x 152 mm) slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart.
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed shelf slats and
test commodity) and 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 7.5 ft (2.3 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 8 ft (2.4 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 7 in. (178 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K11.4 (160) Upright 165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Density – 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) ((48 gpm (182 L/min) or 18.4 psi (1.3 bar) on a
K11.4 (160) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 2

The layout and damage assessment for Test 1 are shown in Figure 33.

• 4 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire spread was confined to the main test array.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 231C requiring that slatted
shelving be considered as solid shelving were not necessary for sprinkler system designs utilized the K11.4
sprinkler at a design density of 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min).

[Link]
 49

Figure 33: Test 1 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 50

Retail Operations Solid Shelf ELO Test 4

A comparison solid shelf large-scale fire test, Test 4 using the same test parameters as Test 1 was
conducted to evaluate the differences between a slatted and a true solid shelf arrangement. The details
of Test 4 are as follows:

Test Basis
Test Date – September 29, 1993
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 27 ft (8.2 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Solid shelving extending the full depth a width of a single rack bay.
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf) and
6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 7.5 ft (2.3 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 8 ft (2.4 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 7 in. (178 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K11.4 (160) Upright 165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Density – 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) (48 gpm (182 L/min) or 18.4 psi (1.3 bar) on a
K11.4 (160) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 2

The layout and damage assessment for Test 4 are shown in Figure 34.

• 15 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire extended the full depth and length of the main test array.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the tested design with K11.4 sprinklers at a design
density of 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) was not sufficient to prevent the spread of fire beneath the true solid
shelf arrangement. It further demonstrated that the propensity for fire spread beneath a smooth solid shelf
surface is different from that created by a noncontinuous slatted shelf arrangement.

[Link]
 51

Figure 34: Test 4 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 52

Retail Operations Solid Shelf ESFR Test 1

Test Basis
Test Date – January 6, 1998
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 19 ft (5.8 m) Deck Height: 25 ft (7.6 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart
Flues – 7.5 in. (190 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf)
and 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 12 in. (305 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K14.0 (200) Pendent ESFR 165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Pressure – 50 psi (3.4 bar) (99.0 gpm (375 L/min))
Ignition Location: Between 2

The layout and damage assessment for Test 1 are shown in Figure 35.

• 2 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire damage was limited to a single bay width up to a height of 7 ft (2.1 m) above the floor.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 13 requiring that slatted
shelving be considered as solid shelving were not necessary for sprinkler system designs utilizing the K14.0
(200) ESFR sprinkler at a design pressure of 50 psi (3.4 bar). This was consistent with previous testing
conducted with the K11.4 sprinkler.

[Link]
 53

Figure 35: ESFR Test 1 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 54

Retail Operations Solid Shelf ESFR Test 2

Test Basis
Test Date – March 10, 1998
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 19 ft (5.8 m) Deck Height: 25 ft (7.6 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” (51 mm x 150 mm) slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf) and
6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 12 in. (305 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K14.0 (200) Pendent ESFR 165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Pressure – 50 psi (3.4 bar) (99.0 gpm (375 L/min))
Ignition Location: Between 2

The layout and damage assessment for Test 1 are shown in Figure 36.

• 2 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire damage was primarily limited to a single rack bay width up to a height of 7 ft (2.1 m) above
the floor with minor damage above 7 ft (2.1 m) and minor damage to the first boxes in the adjacent
rack bay.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 13 requiring that slatted
shelving be considered as solid shelving were not necessary for sprinkler system designs utilizing the K14.0
(200) ESFR sprinkler at a design pressure of 50 psi (3.4 bar). This was consistent with previous testing
conducted with the K11.4 sprinkler.

[Link]
 55

Figure 36: ESFR Test 2 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 56

Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B1

Test Basis
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 22 ft (6.7 m) Deck Height 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” (51 mm x 150 mm) slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf) and
6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 14 ft (4.3 m) x 14 ft (4.3 m) Deflector to Deck: 7 in. (178 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-25.2 (360) EC Upright165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Density – 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers (137 gpm (519 L/min) or
29.6 psi (2.0 bar) on a K-25.2 (360) sprinkler)
0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) (118 gpm (447 L/Min) or 21.8 psi (1.5 bar) on a K-25.2 (360)
sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 4

The layout and damage assessment for Test B1 are shown in Figure 37.

• 4 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire was contained to the center portion of the main test array.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 13 requiring that slatted
shelving be considered as solid shelving were not necessary for sprinkler system designs utilizing the K25.2
(360) EC sprinkler at a design density of 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers and 0.60
gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) thereafter. This was consistent with previous testing conducted with the K11.4
sprinkler.

[Link]
 57

Figure 37: Test B1 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 58

Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B2

Test Basis
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 22 ft (6.7 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” (51 mm x 150 mm) slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart with
a solid shelf positioned atop the slats at the bottom tier
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf) and
6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 10 ft (3.0 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 14 ft (4.3 m) x 14 ft (4.3 m) Deflector to Deck: 7 in. (178 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-25.2 (360) EC Upright 165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Density – 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers (137 gpm (519 L/min) or 29.6 psi
(2.0 bar) on a K-25.2 (360) sprinkler)
0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) (118 gpm (447 L/Min) or 21.8 psi (1.5 bar) on a K-25.2 (360)
sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 4

The layout and damage assessment for Test B2 are shown in Figure 38.

• 4 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire was contained to the center portion of the main test array.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 13 requiring that slatted
shelving with a solid shelf at the bottom tier be considered as solid shelving were not necessary for
sprinkler system designs utilizing the K25.2 (360) EC sprinkler at a design density of 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5
mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers and 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) thereafter.

[Link]
 59

Figure 38: Test B2 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 60

Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B3

Test Basis
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 22 ft (6.7 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” (51 mm x 150 mm) slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart with
a perforated metal panel positioned atop the slats at the bottom two tiers
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf) and
6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 14 ft (4.3 m) x 14 ft (4.3 m) Deflector to Deck: 7 in. (178 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-25.2 (360) EC Upright165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Density – 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers (137 gpm (519 L/min) or 29.6 psi
(2.0 bar) on a K-25.2 (360) sprinkler)
0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) (118 gpm (447 L/Min) or 21.8 psi (1.5 bar) on a K-25.2 (360)
sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 4

The layout and damage assessment for Test B3 are shown in Figure 39.

• 4 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire was contained to the center portion of the main test array.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 13 requiring that slatted
shelving with a perforated metal panel at the bottom two tiers be considered as solid shelving were not
necessary for sprinkler system designs utilizing the K25.2 (360) EC sprinkler at a design density of 0.70
gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers and 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) thereafter.

[Link]
 61

Figure 39: Test B3 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 62

Retail Operations Solid Shelf EC25 Test B4

Test Basis
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 22 ft (6.7 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1)
Arrangement – Double-Row Rack
Shelving – Slatted shelves consisting of 2” x 6” (51 mm x 150 mm) slats spaced 2” (51 mm) apart with
a solid veneered particle board slanted display enclosure in the middle of the array
Flues – 3 in. (76 mm) transverse flues at each rack upright (as defined by the installed solid shelf) and
6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues
Aisle – 8 ft (2.4 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 12 ft (3.7 m) x 12 ft (3.7 m) Deflector to Deck: 7 in. (178 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-25.2 (360) EC Upright165°F (74°C)
Ceiling Density – 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers (101 gpm (382 L/min) or 16 psi
(1.1 bar) on a K-25.2 (360) sprinkler)
0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) (86 gpm (326 L/min) or 16 psi (0.8 bar) on a K-25.2 (360)
sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Between 4

The layout and damage assessment for Test B4 are shown in Figure 40.

• 11 ceiling sprinklers over a test duration of 30 minutes.

• The fire was contained to the center portion of the main test array.

The results of this large-scale fire test demonstrated that the provisions of NFPA 13 requiring that slatted
shelving with a solid veneered particle board slanted display enclosure in the middle of the array be
considered as solid shelving were not necessary for sprinkler system designs utilizing the K25.2 (360) EC
sprinkler at a design density of 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four sprinklers and 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5
mm/min) thereafter.

[Link]
 63

Figure 40: Test B4 Layout and Damage Assessment

[Link]
 64

NFPA 231C / NFPA 13 Multiple-Row Rack Criteria

The inaugural issuance of NFPA 231C, Rack Storage of Materials was published in 1971 as a direct result
of data compiled from the RSFP Committee large-scale fire testing for Class I-IV commodities. The results
were utilized to establish protection criteria for Class I-IV Commodity in single-, double- and multiple-row
rack configurations up to 25 ft (7.6 m) in height. Future revisions to the standard occurred as part of the
1972, 1973, 1975, 1980, 1986, 1991, 1995 and 1998 Editions of NFPA 231C. In 1999 the provisions of NFPA
231C (along with all other storage standards) were incorporated into the 1999 Edition of NFPA 13 where
revisions to future issued Editions to the standard occurred as part of the 2002, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016,
2019 and 2022 Editions of NFPA 13. The relevant criteria of interest to the subject of this research effort for
multiple-row racks includes the following:

Design Criteria
CMDA
The original area/density criteria were generated from large-scale fire test data to establish protection for
multiple-row rack storage for Class I-IV Commodity up to 25 ft (7.6 m) in height. As recommended in the
Committee Notes the protection criteria was based on a 25% increase in that established for the base
curves for protection of Class II Commodity in single- and double-row rack arrangements with 8 ft (2.4 m)
aisles with the following notable exceptions:

• Ceiling only protection for Class I, II and III Commodity using a 286°F (141°C) sprinkler only
included criteria for a single point with a design area of 2,000 ft2 (186 m2).
• Ceiling only protection for Class I, II and III Commodity using a 165°F (74°C) sprinkler only included
criteria for a truncated curve limited to a design area between 2,000 ft2 (186 m2) and 3,000 ft2 (279
m2).
• No ceiling only protection was provided for Class IV Commodity. A single level of In-rack sprinkler
protection was mandated for Class IV Commodity.

No specific indication was identified for these variations.

The area/density curves developed for multiple-row rack arrangements in the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C
are shown in Figures 41 through 45. Tests 96 (blue star), 107 (red star) and 151 (green star) are plotted on
Figure 42 along with a corresponding-colored dashed curve associated with the design criteria associated
with each. Note that Test 151 had not yet been conducted at the time of the issuance of these area/density
curves but is included here for historical prospective. Interestingly, the only test point falling on its
associated design criteria is Test 107. Test 96 was excluded based on previously cited concerns.

[Link]
 65

Figure 41: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class I Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria

[Link]
 66

Test 96

Test 107

Figure 42: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class II Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria

[Link]
 67

Figure 43: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class III Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria

[Link]
 68

Figure 44: NFPA 231C (1971) withdrawn - Class IV Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria

[Link]
 69

As a result of the recommendations from Test 151 the area density design criteria curves for multiple-row
rack installations that included in-rack sprinklers were modified in 1980 to match that required for double-
row rack storage with 4 ft (1.2 m) aisles. The developed criteria for multiple-row rack arrangements with in-
rack sprinklers is shown in Figure 45 from the 1980 Edition of NFPA 231C. Test 151 (green star) is plotted
in Figure 45 along with a corresponding-colored dashed curve associated with the design criteria. The
adjustment was made to follow the double-row rack protection lines Curve D. Corresponding changes
were also made to the area density design criteria curves for Class I, III and IV commodities.

Test 151

Figure 45: NFPA 231C (1980) withdrawn - Class II Commodity – Area/ Density Criteria

This criterion has essentially been maintained as part of the future revisions of both NFPA 231C and NFPA
13 for CMDA designs with a truncation of the criteria to a maximum 3,000 ft2 (279 m2) in the 2010 Edition of
NFPA 13 and then to single point design with a design area of 2,000 ft2 (186 m2) in the 2022 Edition of NFPA
13 as a result of presented concerns with the limited test data supporting the curves.

The introduction of protection for Group A Plastics was added in the 1986 Edition of NFPA 231C with no
allowance for protection of multiple-row racks; however, the protection of multiple-row rack arrangements
was extended in the 1991 Edition of NFPA 231C. As part of revisions to the 1995 Edition of NFPA 231C,
several protection schemes were limited to multiple-row racks based on the including the installation of
in-rack sprinklers. As part of the revisions to the 2010 Edition of NFPA 13 the protection criteria were
extended to applications that did not include the installation of in-rack sprinklers based on the assertion
that testing completed with double-row rack arrangements was sufficient to justify extension of protection
without in-rack sprinklers to multiple-row rack arrangements.

[Link]
 70

Large Drop
The introduction of protection criteria for Large Drop (CMSA) sprinklers was added in the 1986 Edition of
NFPA 231C with no allowance for protection of multiple-row racks; however, the protection was extended
to multiple-row rack arrangements in the 1998 Edition of NFPA 231C. No specific testing was identified in
support of this allowance for multiple-row racks. No depth limits were imposed on multiple-row rack
arrangements protected with Large Drop (CMSA) sprinklers until the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13. See Section
2.2.3 below.
ESFR
The introduction of Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) to the 1986 Edition of NFPA 231C was by way
of a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) 86-1 which included an allowance for protection of multiple-row
rack arrangements. Testing completed under the NFPA Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) for
multiple-row racks as contained in the technical report titled, Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinkler
Protection for Multirow Rack Storage, FMRC J.U. [Link] 070 September 1986 was used to support this
allowance. No depth limits were imposed on multiple-row rack arrangements protected with ESFR
sprinklers until the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13. See Section 2.2.3 below.

Storage Height

Storage height for multiple-row racks were initially limited to 20 ft (6.1 m) in the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C.
Increased storage heights were incorporated into the 1973 Edition of NFPA 231C extending the 20 ft (6.1
m) limit to 25 ft (7.6 m) for the base curves along with adding new criteria for storage greater than 25 ft (7.6
m) in height. Storage heights above 20 ft (6.1 m) required the installation of in-rack sprinklers for CMDA
sprinklers.

Storage heights for Large Drop (CMSA) and ESFR sprinklers were increased as large-scale test data was
made available supporting such heights. Such testing was generally based on the double-row rack
arrangements which were also accepted as being appropriate for multiple-row rack arrangements.

[Link]
 71

Multiple-Row Rack Depth

The depth of a multiple-row rack was limited to not more than 16 ft (4.9 m) in the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C
as would be provided with an anticipated number of pallets being 3 or 4 associated with such depth.
Segments of multiple row racking not exceeding 16 ft (4.9 m) in depth were required to be separated by
aisles of not less than 10 ft (3.0 m). In the 1973 Editon of NFPA 231C, the depth limit of 16 ft (4.9 m) was
eliminated, and the aisle width was reduced to 8 ft (2.4 m) with new criteria added for multiple-row racks
over 16 ft (4.9 m) in depth that included an increased use of in-rack sprinkler protection. See Figures 45
and 46 below. The green and red shaded areas represent the multiple-row rack arrangements that were
permitted with ceiling only designs for multiple-row rack depths up to 16 ft (4.9 m) that were eliminated for
multiple-row rack depths over 16 ft (4.9 m) respectively.

No multi-row rack depth limits were imposed for:

• Storage height over 25 ft (7.6 m) using CMDA sprinklers,

• Protection using Large Drop (CMSA) sprinklers, or
• Protection using ESFR sprinklers.

This was modified with the introduction of the 20 ft (6.1 m) depth limit imposed in the 2022 Edition of NFPA
13.

Figure 46: NFPA 231C (1975) withdrawn - Multiple-Row Rack ≤16 ft (4.9 m)

[Link]
 72

Figure 47: NFPA 231C (1975) withdrawn - Multiple-Row Rack >16 ft (4.9 m)

Flue Spaces Required for Multiple-Row Racks

Transverse flue spaces having a width of not less than 6 in. (150 mm) were required to be provided every 4
to 5 ft (1.2 to 1.5 m) in the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C. No longitudinal flue space was required. This
provision became absent in the 1973 Edition of NFPA 231C. It was returned as an Appendix A
recommendation in the 1991 Edition of NFPA 231C and then to the body of the Standard in the 1998 Editon
of NFPA 231C. This has since remained consistent through the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13.

[Link]
 73

Solid Shelving in Multiple-Row Racks

Intermediate level in-rack sprinklers were required in the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C to be installed at each
level in double- or multiple-row racks with solid shelves that obstruct both longitudinal and transverse flue
spaces.

Starting in the 2002 Edition of NFPA 13 revisions to the definition for solid shelving established a size limit
for the size of a blocked area within a rack that would permit the rack to be considered as an open rack at
20 ft2 (1.9 m2). This area was defined as being measured between the surrounding available flue spaces
and aisles and was meant to be representative of a stored pallet load within the rack. Where the size of this
blocked area between flue spaces and aisles exceeded 20 ft2 (1.9 m2), the rack would be considered as
solid shelf racking requiring the installation of intermediate level in-rack sprinklers. The required
installation of intermediate level in-rack sprinklers was further regulated based on the blocked area being
more than 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) but not more than 64 ft2 (5.9 m2) and being more than 64 ft2 (5.9 m2). With a blocked
area of more than 64 ft2 (5.9 m2) the installation of in-rack sprinklers is required at every level of storage.
With a blocked area of more than 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) but not more than 64 ft2 (5.9 m2) the installation of in-rack
sprinklers is not required at every level but must be installed at intermediate levels not more than 6 ft (1.8
m) apart. Revisions in later Editions of NFPA 13 clarified that the size of the blocked area was to include
not only the area of a fixed solid shelf but also the placement of loads within the rack as well. These
requirements stand consistent with that required in the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13.

The impact of this change was not fully addressed during its introduction in the 2002 Edition of NFPA 13
which conflicted with other allowances permitting larger blocked areas than 20 ft2 (1.9 m2). These included
the allowance to have back-to-back pallet loads within double-row rack storage arrangements up to 25 ft
(7.6 m) in height without a longitudinal flue space and multiple-row racks of any height without longitudinal
flue space. The abutted pallet loads within such configurations would exceed the mandated 20 ft2 (1.9 m2)
limit thus creating conflict. As part of revisions to the 2010 and 2013 Editions of NFPA 13 a provision was
added to rectify this conflict by providing an allowance to exceed 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) and consider the
arrangement as an open rack provided transverse flue spaces were provided at a maximum of every 5 ft
(1.5 m) in both configurations. This change included a Committee Statement as follows:

Committee Statement: For flow-through racks with sufficient transverse flue spaces, water from ceiling
sprinklers can penetrate down through the rack so that fire control can be achieved.

As part of the reorganization of the 2019 Edition of NFPA 13, this allowance was inadvertently limited to
only applying to CMDA sprinkler designs and not to CMSA and ESFR sprinklers.

[Link]
 74

This was further modified in the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13 based on a reconsideration of Tests 96 and 107.
The original Public Input requested the allowance for multiple-row racks to not be considered as solid
shelving be limited only to multiple-row rack deeper than 16 ft (4.9 m). This was further modified in the in
the 2nd Draft stage to limit the depth to 20 ft (6.1 m) with a required aisle width of 3.5 ft (1.1 m). Additionally,
provisions were added to extend the allowance for deeper arrangements provided 6 in. (150 mm)
transverse and longitudinal flues spaces were provided at a maximum of every 5 ft (1.5 m). The resultant
language is as follows:

[Link].3 Multiple-Row Racks

Unless the requirements of [Link].3.1 or [Link].3.2 are met, multiple-row racks without solid
shelves shall be considered racks with solid shelves.

[Link].3.1
Multiple-row racks without solid shelves shall be considered open racks where both transverse and
longitudinal flue spaces are provided at a maximum 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals.

[Link].3.2
Multiple-row racks without solid shelves shall be considered open racks where transverse flue spaces
are provided at maximum 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and the rack depth does not exceed 20 ft (6.1 m)
between aisles that are a minimum width of 3.5 ft (1.1m).

As a result of the impact that this change had on operating warehouses that utilized multiple-row rack
arrangements deeper than 20 ft (6.1 m), a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA Log No.: 1560) request was
submitted to have the language amended. See Figure 48. The request proposed to include an allowance
for the installation of a vertical barrier constructed of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) wood or 22 ga metal in lieu of a
required aisle width of 3.5 ft (1.1 m). This TIA was considered by the NFPA 13 Discharge Committee but
failed to pass ballot with the primary issue being cited as a lack of test data to support the proposal.

[Link]
 75

Figure 48: TIA Log No.: 1560

[Link]
 76

Specialty Protection Criteria

Specialty protection was added in the 2002 Edition of NPFA 13 for the protection of plastic automotive
parts in portable racks in a multiple-row rack configuration. The testing is documented in the test report
titled, Technical Report of Fire Testing of Automotive Parts in Portable Storage Racking” prepared by
Underwriters Laboratories, Project 99NK29106, NC4004, January 5, 2001.

The resultant protection using a K25.2 (360) ESFR sprinkler was added. The required protection included
two distinct sets of criteria. One requiring the calculation of 16 sprinklers at 37 psi (2.6 bar) and the other
requiring the calculation of a 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) density of 4,000 ft2 (372 m2). This is representative
of a 50% increase in the maximum number of operating sprinklers experienced in Test 3 of the series. This
criterion remains in the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13. This allowance is counter to the other requirements of
NFPA 13 regarding the need for transverse and longitudinal flue spaces within multiple-row rack
arrangements.

Alternative In-Rack Sprinkler Only Multiple-Row Criteria

Option 3 for alternative in-rack sprinkler only protection utilizing the K25.2 (360) EC sprinkler with
horizontal barriers was added in the 2019 Edition of NPFA 13 for the protection of up to expanded exposed
Group A Plastic in a multiple-row rack configuration. The testing is documented in the test report titled,
Exposed Expanded Group A Plastic Commodity Stored in Multi-Row Racks with Continuous Combustible
Horizontal Barriers Protected by K25.2 EC In-Rack and K=25.2 Ceiling Sprinklers prepared by Underwriters
Laboratory, Project 4786427325, EX4427, July 25, 2014.

The test included a single level of K25.2 (360) EC pendent sprinklers beneath a horizontal barrier that
extended across the full width of the array installed at an elevation of 20 ft (6.1 m). The tested array
included expanded exposed Group A Plastic test commodity (meat trays) in a multiple-row rack
arrangement. See Figure 22 for the tested arrangement.

The resultant protection using a K25.2 (360) EC in-rack sprinklers and horizontal barriers was incorporated
into the 2019 Edition of NFPA 13. The required protection included the calculation of 8 in-rack sprinklers
at a minimum flow of 138 gpm (522 L/min) for the multiple-row rack configuration. This is representative of
a 50% increase in the maximum number of operating sprinklers experienced. The introduction of the
criteria originally included a depth limit of 15 ft 6 in. (4.7 m). This was modified to have the general depth
restriction of 20 ft (6.1 m) apply as part of the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13 to match the guidelines for all
multiple-row rack configurations.

Two additional alternative in-rack sprinkler only options (Option 1 and Option 2) were included in NFPA 13
that include allowance for protection of multiple-row racks; however, no large-scale fire testing was every
conducted in a multiple-row rack configuration. All testing was conducted using double-row racks.

[Link]
 77

Retail Operations Solid Shelf Testing

Several specific allowances were added to permit unique solid shelf arrangements representative of
common merchandising and display practices within big box retail operations. The initial allowance was
added to the 1998 Edition of NFPA 231C with the introduction of protection criteria for slatted shelf
arrangements with a ceiling only design criteria utilizing ELO sprinklers based upon large-scale fire testing
completed using a design density of 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) using a K11.4 sprinkler. This was
extended to include K14.0 (200) ESFR sprinklers with a design pressure of 50 psi (3.4 bar) in the 1999 Edition
of NFPA 13, again based on completed large-scale fire testing which was further extended in the 2002
Edition of NFPA 13 to allow for the use of K16.8 (240) ESFR sprinklers at 32 psi (2.2 bar) and K25.2 (360)
ESFR Sprinklers at 15 psi (1.0 bar). A final addition was made in the 2002 Edition of NFPA 13 utilizing an
extended coverage K25.2 (360) upright sprinkler with a design density of 0.60 gpm/ft2 (24.5 mm/min) with
an elevated density of 0.70 gpm/ft2 (28.5 mm/min) for the 1st four operating sprinklers.

Fire Loss Data

A review of available fire loss data did not reveal any specific indication of losses attributed to multiple-
row rack arrangements protected in accordance with the legacy provisions of NFPA 13. It should also be
noted that no specific searchable indication of the existence of multiple-row rack arrangements were
noted as part of the available fire loss data. As a result, such losses cannot be definitively discounted.

A fire in a Tupperware storage facility in Hemingway, SC that included a large multiple-row rack
arrangement occurred on December 11, 2007. The fire ultimately resulted in complete loss of the facility.
The installed storage system included the use of open top containers stored in a flow through rack
arrangement. The use of open top containers placed the installation outside the scope of NFPA 13.
Additionally, the flow through rack operation was facilitated by the installation of roller tracks between
each open top container that permitted the flow of the containers from the rear to the front of the array.
The placement and shape of these roller tracks blocked the available transverse flue spaces within the
between rows of array creating a condition that was not in compliance with NFPA 13. As a result, the loss
does not provide for direct indication of performance against a compliant NFPA 13 design.

[Link]
 78

Knowledge Gap Analysis

The development of the primary protection criteria for multiple-row rack arrangements is based on a very
limited number of large-scale fire tests that took different directions at different times as indicated by the
actions of the Committee in establishing specific criteria in NFPA 231C and NFPA 13. The limited amount
of available large-scale fire test data was utilized to establish protection criteria over a broad range of
installation conditions despite there being a number of knowledge gaps.

The following is a synopsis of the work completed and associated resultant knowledge gaps.

CMDA Protection of Class I-IV Commodity

The inclusion of multiple-row rack protection criteria for CMDA designs as part of the inaugural issuance
of the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C was based on two large-scale multiple-row rack fire tests, Test 96, and
Test 107. The original multiple-row rack test, Test 96, included a four pallet deep multiple-row rack
arrangement with both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal flue spaces, however, this test was
discounted based on concerns that this arrangement with both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal
flue spaces was not representative of actual real-world applications. A second large-scale fire test, Test
107, was conducted wherein the pallets were arranged with only 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flue spaces to
address this concern. Recommendations from Test 107 resulted in multiple-row rack area/density curves
that included a 25% increase in the protection criteria previously established for single- and double-row
rack arrangements with 8 ft (2.4 m) aisles with a few noted exceptions. This original criterion was limited
to protection of Class I-IV Commodity stored to 20 ft (6.1 m) with multiple-row rack depth limit of 16 ft (4.9
m). After the completion of Test 151, which included a single level of in-rack sprinklers, criterion was
added to the 1973 Edition of NFPA 231C for storage heights over 20 ft (6.1 m) as well as multiple-row rack
depths over 16 ft (4.9 m) in depth. These increased depths tended to align with installations that required
the installation of in-rack sprinklers. Furthermore, based on the results of Test 151, the 1980 Edition of
NFPA 231C revised the previously issued curves for installations that included in-rack sprinklers to align
with those required for single- and double-row rack storage with 4 ft (1.2 m) aisles. Additionally, the ignition
location for the test was in a flue between two in-rack face sprinklers. An ignition location centered
between four in-rack sprinklers may have represented a more challenging fire condition. It is also
important to note that all three of these tests were conducted with Class II Commodity at a height of 20 ft
(6.1 m). No testing in a multiple-row rack arrangement was ever conducted with Class I, Class III, or Class
IV commodities.

The actions of the NFPA 231C, Committee in developing the specific protection criteria for protection of
Class I-IV Commodities clearly indicate that there was a recognition and concern with the depth of
multiple-row racks and the available flue space arrangement within them. The chosen direction of the
Committee included the establishment of a multiple-row rack depth limit of 16 ft (4.9 m) that was generally
relaxed for storage arrangements that included protection using in-rack sprinklers.

[Link]
 79

CMDA Protection of Group A Plastics

The introduction of protection criteria for Group A Plastics in the 1986 Edition of NFPA 231C did not include
an allowance for the protection of multiple-row racks. The protection was limited to single- and double-
row racks based on the test series completed as part of the Rack Storage Protection effort for Group A
Plastic completed between April 1975 and February 1978. No testing was conducted with CMDA sprinklers
for Group A Plastics in a multiple-row rack storage arrangement. This was modified in the 1991 and 1995
Editions of NFPA 231C with the inclusion of an allowance for multiple-row rack arrangements with an
increased use of in-rack sprinklers consistent with actions previously taken by the NFPA 231C Committee
for Class I-IV Commodities. There was no limit placed on the depth of the multiple-row rack arrays storing
Group A Plastics. The inclusion of in-rack sprinklers for multiple-row rack arrangements with CMDA
sprinklers was relaxed in the 2010 Edition of NFPA 13 to permit ceiling only protection criteria to be
extended to include multiple-row rack arrangements based on an assertion that testing completed with
double-row rack arrangements was sufficient to justify extension of protection without in-rack sprinklers
to multiple-row rack arrangements. This latter adjustment appears to be consistent with assertions made
for testing completed with ESFR sprinklers. See the discussion below regarding ESFR sprinklers.

Large Drop (CMSA) Sprinklers

The introduction of protection criteria for Large Drop (CMSA) sprinklers in the 1986 Edition of NFPA 231C
did not include an allowance for the protection of multiple-row racks. No testing was conducted with large
drop (CMSA) in a multiple-row rack storage arrangement. This was modified in the 1991 Edition of NFPA
231C to also apply to multiple-row racks matching the position taken for ESFR sprinklers. See the
discussion below regarding ESFR sprinklers.

ESFR Sprinklers

The introduction of protection criteria for ESFR sprinklers as part of a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) to
the 1986 Edition of NFPA 231C included an allowance for the protection of multiple-row racks based on a
single-large scale fire test in a multiple-row rack arrangement completed under the NFPA Fire Protection
Research Foundation (FPRF) for multiple-row rack configurations using ESFR sprinklers conducted in
1986. It should be noted that the test was conducted with a between four sprinkler ignition location.
Alternative ignition locations such as under one or offset between two may represent a more challenging
fire scenario. As the fire was contained to the center core of the array situated about the point of ignition
with no extension to the edges of the array no specific depth limits were imposed. It is also important to
note that the tested multiple-row rack arrangement included both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and
longitudinal flue spaces counter to the original concerns posed by the Committee in the development of
the 1971 Edition of NFPA 231C. The basis for the change in direction was cited as RDD testing completed
at Factory Mutual that demonstrated a more severe fire would be established where both flue spaces are
included. This testing appears to be the impetus for the assertion that testing completed with double-row
rack arrangements can be considered representative of multiple-row rack storage that was later included
in the 2013 Edition of NFPA 13 as part of the Annex for Chapter 21. This position has since been
consistently applied as new protection criteria have been added.

[Link]
 80

Multiple-Row Rack Flue Spaces

The protection provisions for multiple-row rack protection have continually included an allowance for
unlimited multiple-row rack depths provided 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flue spaces were provided between
each load without the need for a longitudinal flue space based on the information presented above. This
remained true until the development of the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13. During this revision cycle, a
reevaluation of Test 96 and Test 107 was made after which a depth limit of 20 ft (6.1 m) was imposed for all
multiple-row arrangements unless both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal flue spaces were
provided at a maximum of every 5 ft (1.5 m). Where such flue spaces were not provided and the multiple-
row rack depth exceeded 20 ft (6.1 m), the installation of in-rack sprinklers would be required at every
storage level as would be required for a solid shelf rack structure. Notably, this reevaluation did not include
a review of Test 151, nor the testing completed for ESFR sprinklers (including the associated RDD
evaluation testing) protecting a multiple-row rack arrangement conducted by the NFPA Fire Protection
Research Foundation in 1986 which both provided basis for the NFPA 231C Committee action in previously
accepting unlimited multiple-row rack depths.

Specialty Multiple-Row Rack Large-Scale Fire Testing

Large-scale fire testing completed for a multiple-row rack arrangement involving the storage of plastic
automotive parts in portable racks with no flue spaces (racks abutted tight to one another in a closed array)
with a depth of more than 20 ft (6.1 m) resulted in successful control of the fire without spread of fire to the
edges of the array. This testing demonstrated that certain specific multiple-row rack arrangements having
a depth of more than 20 ft (6.1 m) and without any flue spaces could be protected without the benefit of in-
rack sprinklers. It should be noted that the tested portable racks loaded with plastic automotive parts
might more closely mimic palletized storage than rack storage.

Solid Shelf Large-Scale Fire Testing

Testing completed with solid shelving demonstrated the increased difficulty in protecting solid shelf rack
arrangements based on a more directed spread of fire along the length of the test array resulting in
requirements for maintaining both 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal and transverse flue spaces so as to limit the
size of the horizontal obstruction created either by a shelf or supported load between such flue spaces to
not more than 20 ft2 (1.9 m2). It further resulted in a mandate to install in-rack sprinklers where such flue
spaces were not available. It should be noted that no specific testing was conducted with abutted pallet
loads to establish that solid shelf in-rack protection would also be warranted with such arrangements.
Additional testing completed with retail operation solid shelf configurations demonstrated that certain
solid shelf configurations were acceptable without abiding by the size limit of 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) and without
the installation of in-rack sprinklers.

[Link]
 81

Knowledge Gap Summary

As presented herein, the primary development of sprinkler system design criteria for the protection of
general multiple-row rack configurations was based on a very limited number of large-scale fire tests.
These tests were essentially broken up into two groups, 1) large-scale fire testing for development of CMDA
protection criteria for multiple-row rack arrangements including Class I-IV commodity, and 2) large-scale
fire testing for development of ESFR protection criteria for multiple-row rack arrangements. A total of four
large-scale fire tests were conducted within these two groups. Three of these tests were conducted in
support of the development of criteria for the protection of Class I-IV Commodity using CMDA sprinklers
and one of these tests was conducted in support of the development of protection criteria for ESFR
sprinklers. The range of multiple-row rack arrangements, sprinkler types and protected commodities that
are permitted by NFPA 13 extends well beyond those that were tested.

The limited range of available large-scale fire test data necessitated that assumptions be made to permit
the use of the test data well beyond that which were supported by testing. A review of this data along with
the development of the provisions of NFPA 231C and NFPA 13 for the protection of multiple-row rack
arrangements reveals a number of questions that represent certain knowledge gaps in the data.

Multiple-Row Rack Flue Space Arrangement

Testing conducted for CMDA and ESFR sprinklers took different positions relative to this worst-case
arrangement for the longitudinal and transverse flue spaces. For the conducted CMDA testing of a
multiple-row rack array, the position was taken to not include longitudinal flue spaces within the tested
array to mimic the actual conditions most common more closely with multiple-row rack arrangements
such as push-back and drive in racks where adjacent pallet loads were abutted one to the other into the
depth of the storage array. Conversely, when testing was completed for a multiple-row rack array for ESFR
sprinklers, the position was changed to test with both longitudinal and transverse flue spaces based on a
demonstration of increased heat release rate associated with such during RDD testing. This conflict in
positions requires additional assessment to determine the appropriate worst-case arrangement that
should be tested. The tested configurations included the placement of the loads directly on conventional
rack beam supports to simulate a multiple-row rack arrangement; however, this arrangement is not in-line
with common multiple-row practices where angle style rails at the edge of the load for support. These
angle style support rails have the potential to create a gutter effect that may divert water away from the
seat of the fire.

What flue space arrangement is representative of the worst-case use condition for a multiple-row rack
configuration? What flue configuration is best representative of actual in-use multiple-row rack
configurations? What additional testing/assessment is needed to make such a determination?

[Link]
 82

In-Rack Sprinkler Design Criteria

A single large-scale fire test, that included the installation of in-rack sprinklers and was used to form the
general basis for the elimination of the original multiple-row rack depth limit of 16 ft provided the chosen
design included the installation of in-rack sprinklers.

Is the assertion that multiple-row racks depths should not be limited in depth when the selected sprinkler
system design criteria includes the installation of in-rack sprinklers fully supported by only a single large-
scale fire test? Does the selected ignition location represent the worst-case ignition location? What
additional testing is needed to make such a determination?

Commodity Class

Large-scale fire testing used for the development of design criteria for multiple-row racks was conducted
with the use of Class II commodity for CMDA designs and Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic for ESFR
designs. No testing has been conducted with other commodities in a multiple-row rack configuration.

Is it appropriate to utilize this large-scale fire testing conducted with such limited commodities as a basis
to support the development of sprinkler system design criteria for multiple-row rack configurations for the
full range of commodity classifications? What additional testing is needed to make such a determination?

Sprinkler K-Factor / Design Criteria

Large-scale fire testing used for the development of design criteria for multiple-row racks was conducted
with the use of a K-5.6 (80) sprinkler for CMDA designs and a K14.0 (200) sprinkler for ESFR designs. No
testing has been conducted with larger K-Factor sprinklers in a multiple-row rack configuration.

Are the results of large-scale testing conducted with smaller K-Factor sprinklers representative of the
expected performance when larger K-Factor sprinklers or a greater design discharge is utilized? Will larger
K-Factor sprinklers or greater design discharge perform in a manner sufficient to allow adjustments to the
required protection? What additional testing is needed to make such a determination?

[Link]
 83

Double-Row Rack Testing

Starting with the introduction of ESFR sprinkler protection, the use of large-scale testing with double-row
rack arrangements has been utilized as the basis for the extension of specific protection criteria developed
from double-row rack testing to include of multiple-row rack arrangements. This was based on the
comparison of results of a single multiple-row rack test with open flue spaces with that associated with a
double-row rack configuration. It should be noted that the ignition was centered between four ceiling
sprinklers. A more challenging ignition location may be under one sprinkler or offset between two
sprinklers.

Is this data from this multiple-row to single double-row rack comparison with open flue spaces and ESFR
protection adequate to support the universal assertion that testing with double-row rack arrangements is
sufficient to support companion multiple-row rack arrangements? Does the selected ignition location
represent the worst-case ignition location? What additional testing is needed to make such a
determination?

Solid Shelf In-Rack Sprinkler Protection

As part of the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13, the allowance for unlimited depth multiple-row racks with abutted
loads was modified to limit such arrangements to 20 ft unless in-rack sprinkler protection designed for a
solid shelf rack arrangement was provided based on a review of a single large-scale fire test from 1971.

Is this data from this single large-scale fire test sufficient to demonstrate the need for treatment of all
abutted loads deeper than 20 ft as solid shelf rack storage regardless of the installed protection?
Conversely, is this data from this single large-scale fire test sufficient to demonstrate that a multiple-row
rack up to 20 ft deep with all abutted loads should not be treated as a solid shelf rack storage? What
additional testing is needed to make such a determination?

Aisle Separation Width

A selected aisle width of 3½ ft (1.1 m) was included in the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13 to represent the special
separation required to allow multiple-row rack segments to be considered as separate units; however, no
specific tested has been identified to support this distance.

What spatial separation would be needed to prevent aisle jump between adjacent multiple-row rack
segments?

[Link]
 84

Test Plan Development

The completion of the literature review compiling the available information sources related to the
development of multiple-row rack protection (See Section 2 above) revealed of a large number knowledge
gaps and concerns associated with how the legacy large-scale testing was conducted along with the basis
for utilization of such in the development of protection criteria for multiple-row rack arrangements
included in NFPA 231C/NFPA 13.

These areas of concern can generally be grouped into select categories related to key attributes for the
selected protection strategy employed, the configuration of the storage array, and the selected fire test
arrangement.

The attributes run the full range of sprinklers and storage conditions.

Tested Sprinkler Attributes

Sprinkler Technology: Control Mode Density Area (CMDA), Control Mode Specific Application
(CMSA), and Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR). Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack
arrangements have included three tests (only two of which were used as a basis for design criteria
development) with CMDA sprinklers, one test with ESFR sprinklers and none with CMSA sprinklers. A true
weighted representation of the most common sprinkler technology being utilized for the current system
design development should be obtained the most common designs. This can be utilized to focus the
efforts on evaluating those that are most pressing to the industry. Consideration would need to be given
to testing a range of available sprinkler technologies to sufficiently bound the confidence of available
protection criteria across this range.

Sprinkler K-Factor: K-5.6 (80), K8.0 (115), K11.2 (160), K14.0 (200), K16.8 (240), K19.6 (280), K22.4
(320), K25.2 (360), K28.0 (400), K33.6 (480). Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack
arrangements has only included testing with K-5.6 (80) CMDA sprinklers and K14.0 (200) ESFR sprinklers.
Sprinkler design K-Factor orifice range can certainly provide improved performance over the legacy large-
scale fire testing conducted with the K-5.6 (80) sprinkler. Consideration would need to be given to testing
a range of available sprinkler K-Factors to sufficiently bound the confidence of available protection criteria
across this range.

Sprinkler Orientation: Upright or Pendent. Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack
arrangements with CMDA sprinklers did not include information identifying the orientation of the sprinklers
tested with the testing conducted with ESFR sprinklers were only of the pendent orientation. Consideration
would need to be given to testing a range of available sprinkler orientations to sufficiently bound the
confidence of available protection criteria across this range.

Sprinkler Spacing: Standard Coverage – 100 ft2 max. (9.3 m2) and Extended Coverage – 196 ft2
(18.2 m2) Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements have all included the use of
standard coverage sprinklers. Consideration would need to be given to testing a range of available sprinkler
spacings to sufficiently bound the confidence of available protection criteria across this range.

[Link]
 85

Design Density / Pressure: Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements using
CMDA sprinklers included design densities of 0.30 gpm/ft2 (12.2 mm/min) and 0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min)
for ceiling only designs (of which only the 0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min) was used for development of design
criteria and 0.30 gpm/ft2 (12.2 mm/min) for ceiling + in-rack designs. None of these CMDA design criteria
match the current prescribed single point design densities under the provisions of the 2022 Edition of NFPA
13. Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements using ESFR sprinklers included a
design pressure of 50 psi (3.4 bar). Consideration would need to be given to testing a range of available
sprinkler design criteria to sufficiently bound the confidence of available protection criteria across this
range.

Ceiling Only vs Ceiling + In-Rack Sprinkler Design: Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-
row rack arrangements using CMDA sprinklers were tested with both ceiling only and ceiling + in-rack
designs with the latter being accepted as providing sufficient protection to afford and unlimited multiple-
row rack depth. Consideration would need to be given to testing a range of available sprinkler protection
criteria for both ceiling only and ceiling + in-rack designs to sufficiently bound the confidence of available
protection criteria across this range.

Tested Storage Attributes

Storage/ Ceiling Height: Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements have only
included a nominal storage height of 20 ft (6.1 m) under a nominal ceiling height of 30 ft (9.1 m) for CMDA
sprinklers and a nominal storage height of 24 ft (7.3 m) under a nominal ceiling height of 28 ft (8.5 m) for
ESFR sprinklers. Consideration would need to be given to testing a range of available storage/ceiling
heights to sufficiently bound the confidence of available protection criteria across this range.

Commodity Classification: Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV, Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A
Group Plastic, Cartoned Expanded Group A Plastic, Exposed Nonexpanded Group A Plastic, Exposed
Expanded Group A Plastic. Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements has only
included Class II Commodity for CMDA sprinklers and Cartoned Nonexpanded Plastic for ESFR sprinklers.
None of the large-scale fire testing included the use of encapsulated commodity arranges. Consideration
would need to be given to testing a range of available commodity classifications to sufficiently bound the
confidence of available protection criteria across this range.

Available Flue Spaces: Both 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal and 6 in. transverse (150 mm) vs Only 6 in.
transverse (150 mm). Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements took separate
directions for CMDA and ESFR sprinklers with CMDA sprinklers utilizing a 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flue
space as the worst-case arrangement and ESFR sprinklers utilizing both the 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal
and 6 in. transverse (150 mm) as the worst-case. No definitive testing has been completed to address what
would be representative of a worse-case scenario. Consideration would need to be given to testing a range
of available flue spaces to sufficiently bound the confidence of available protection criteria across this
range.

[Link]
 86

Storage Support Method: Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack arrangements have
included conventional rack beam supports, whereas typical multiple-row rack arrangements (push-back
rack, flow-through rack, and drive-in rack) are not in-line with common multiple-row practices where angle
style rails at the edge of the load are used for support. These angle style support rails have the potential to
create a gutter effect that may divert water away from the seat of the fire. No specific knowledge is
available for how widespread the use such arrangements might be, both individually and collectively, when
compared to traditional beam supported loads. Consideration would need to be given to testing a range
of rail support systems to sufficiently bound the confidence of available protection criteria across this
range.

Asle Width: The width of separation between multiple-row arrangement was limited in the multiple-row
rack arrangements to was originally tested a 10 ft (3.1 m) for CMDA sprinkler which was later modified to 8
ft (2.4 m) rack; while the minimum separation distance sighted for separation of adjacent multiple-row
rack arrangement as provided by the 2022 Edition of NFPA 13 have been set a 3½ ft (1.1 m). No testing
was provided to support this spatial separation. Legacy large-scale fire testing for multiple-row rack
arrangements have included a spatial separation of 10 ft (3.1 m) and 8 ft (2.4 m) respectfully for Test 96
and 107 with ceiling only protection and 8 ft (2.4 m) ceiling + in-rack protection for with Test 151. Testing
the ESFR sprinkler did not include any adjacent target arrays. Consideration would need to be given to
testing a range of aisle widths to sufficiently bound the confidence of the available protection criteria in
limiting aisle jump across this range.

Storage Depth: Legacy large-scale fire testing included multiple rack depth arrangements of 14 ft (4.3
m) and 28 ft (8.6 m) respectfully for Test 107 and Test 151 and 29.5 ft (9.0 m) for ESFR sprinklers.
Consideration would need to be given to testing a multiple-row rack arrangement depth of approximately
the same as these.

Fire Test Attributes

Ignition Location: Under One, Offset Between Two and Between Four. Legacy large-scale fire testing for
multiple-row rack arrangements have included an ignition location between four for ceiling sprinklers and
between two for in-rack sprinklers. These locations are not consistent with the current worse-case ignition
locations. Consideration would need to be given to testing conducted with a worse-case ignition location.

[Link]
 87

Basis for Protection Criteria

The legacy basis for development of multiple-row rack criteria for racks greater than16 ft (4.9 m) contained
in NFPA 231C/NFPA 13 was premised on two essential concepts.

1. Multiple-row rack designs that included the installation of in-rack sprinklers were afforded an
allowance to extend beyond a depth of 16 ft (4.9 m). This was applied for design criteria utilizing
CMDA sprinklers for the full range of commodity classifications.

2. Ceiling only sprinkler design criteria developed from large-scale fire testing conducted in a double-
row rack arrangement with 4 ft (1.2 m) aisles were permitted to be utilized for certain sprinkler types
with no limit on the multiple-row rack depth. This was applied for design criteria utilizing ESFR and
CMSA sprinklers for the full range of commodity classifications and for CMDA sprinklers protecting
Group A Plastics.

Consideration would need to be given to testing that would assess the validity of these two concepts.

Prioritized Large-Scale Fire Test Plan

With such a broad range of knowledge gaps and areas of concern, the development of a single large-scale
fire test plan effort would likely prove to be overly ambitious and impractical. It is recommended that the
effort be broken down into in phases to develop a more focused effort to address specific concerns in
more manageable increments. This can be divided into three phases:

Phase 2.1 – Evaluation of Predominate Market Need

Phase 2.2 – Evaluation of Legacy Protection Basis

Phase 2.3 - Evaluation of Potential Solutions

The completion of each phase of testing will provide insight into the development of each subsequent
phase of testing for identified areas of concern. As a result, the development of the follow-up phases
cannot be fully completed until the completion of the subsequent phase.

[Link]
 88

Phase 2.1 – Evaluation of Predominate Market Need

Prior to conducting any large-scale fire testing it is recommended that an evaluation of the predominate
market needs be conducted. Due to the expansive range of potential areas of concern, the use of a
weighted evaluation that addresses the most predominant areas of concern is needed to help prioritize
both the scope and the order in which identified issues are addressed. This evaluation should include
consideration of the following:

• Sprinkler Design Attributes

o CMDA / CMSA /ESFR
o Sprinkler K-Factor
o Sprinkler Orientation
o Sprinkler Spacing
o Sprinkler Design Density/Pressure
o Ceiling Only vs Ceiling + In-Rack Sprinkler Designs

• Storage Attributes
o Storage / Ceiling Height
o Commodity Classification
o Flue Space Arrangement
o Storage Support Method
o Aisle Width
o Storage Depth

The use of intermediate scale testing and/or modeling can be utilized to further evaluate the impact of
various parameters to establish those creating the most challenging conditions to aid in the development
of a prioritized scope of items to be addressed.

[Link]
 89

Phase 2.2 – Evaluation of Legacy Protection Basis

The impetus for this research effort was born out of the concerns associated with changes made to the
2022 Edition of NFPA 13 regarding the protection of multiple-row rack storage deeper than 20 ft (6.1 m).
These changes were made premised on a limited reevaluation of one of the large-scale fire tests (Test 107)
that formed the initial development of the legacy multiple-row rack protection for CMDA sprinklers using
ceiling only design criteria. This review did not include a review of the additional testing conducted that
included the installation of in-rack sprinklers nor those conducted with EFSR sprinklers, both of which
formed the basis for the legacy protection allowances for unlimited multiple-row rack depths. As a result,
a basic question related to the adequacy or inadequacy of the legacy protection design basis warrant
consideration as the primary issue to be initially addressed. Before trying to assess potential solutions,
an evaluation of the adequacy of the legacy protection and associated basis of such should be conducted.
Defining the problem prior developing a potential solution is essential to the process. This effort to address
this concept would form the second phase of the prioritized large-scale test plan. While the results of
Phase 1 might direct otherwise, the following potential scoping tests are generally proposed with this effort
being divided into two parts:

1- Testing of CMDA sprinkler designs that include in-rack sprinklers in a multiple-row rack
arrangement deeper than 20 ft (6.1 m) with no longitudinal flue spaces using the prescribed criteria
included in NFPA 13 for rack depths exceeding 16 ft (4.9 m).

2- Testing of ESFR/CMSA/CMDA designs in a multiple-row rack arrangement deeper than 20 ft (6.1 m)

with no longitudinal flue spaces using the prescribed criteria included in NFPA 13 for ceiling only
design that were developed from double-row rack testing.
CMDA In-Rack Sprinkler Designs

In order to assess the adequacy of the design applications that include the installation of in-rack sprinklers
for multiple-row rack arrangements greater than 16 ft (4.9 m) in depth a series of tests is recommended
that utilize such. As the original testing only included the use of a Class II Commodity in a multiple-row
rack arrangement it is also suggested that a range of tests be conducted to assess the performance of the
legacy protection criteria. For comparison purposes, it is recommended that a Nonencapsulated Class II
Commodity and Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic be used as the standard test commodities
utilized today match those used for legacy testing and will provide a reasonable representation of the range
of protected commodities. A multiple-row rack arrangement at least matching the arrangement that was
utilized during the legacy large-scale testing for CMDA sprinklers is recommended.

[Link]
 90

Test 1
Commodity – Nonencapsulated Class II
Storage Height – 25 ft (7.6 m) Deck Height: 35 ft (10.7 m)
Arrangement – Multiple-Row Rack (8 pallets deep/28 ft (8.5 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together)
Aisle – 4 ft (1.2 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 12 in. (305 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-8.0 (115) 286°F (141°C) Upright
Ceiling Density – 0.25 gpm/ft2 (10.2 mm/min) (25 gpm (94.6 L/min) or 9.8 psi (0.68 bar) on a
K-8.0 (115) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Offset between 2 at the ceiling and Between 4 for the in-racks
In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing – Positioned in every other transverse flue space (8 ft (2.4 m) apart) at
12 ft (3.7 m) max. between sprinklers along the transverse flue (to maintain
a maximum coverage area of 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) with the 1st in-rack sprinkler
being positioned 2.5 ft (0.8 m) from the face of the array.
In-Rack Sprinkler Elevation – A single level at 15 ft (4.6 m) (between the 3rd and 4th tier of storage
next tier above mid-rack height)
In-Rack Sprinkler Type – K-5.6 (80) 165°F (74°C) QR Upright
In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge – 22 gpm (83.3 L/min) (15 psi (1.0 bar) on a K-5.6 (80) sprinkler)

Evaluation of test results will be compared to the design area / # of design sprinklers 2000 ft2(186 m2) / 20
sprinklers at the ceiling and 6 sprinklers for the in-racks.

The intention of Test 1 is to expand upon the original legacy testing to confirm if designs that include the
installation of in-rack sprinklers are sufficient to permit the extension of multiple-row rack arrangements.
The proposed arrangement with the installation of one level of in-rack sprinklers at 15 ft (4.6 m) is intended
to represent the most challenging extended vertical increment between in-rack sprinklers. The proposed
design discharge matches the specific criteria that prescribed by the NFPA 13 for this arrangement. The
use of the K8.0 (115) sprinkler is proposed to represent the smallest K-factor permitted for this design. The
use of the Class II commodity allows for comparison with legacy testing.

[Link]
 91

Figure 49: Test 1 Configuration

[Link]
 92

Test 2
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 25 ft (7.6 m) Deck Height: 35 ft (10.7 m)
Arrangement – Multiple-Row Rack (8 pallets deep/28 ft (8.5 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together)
Aisle – 4 ft (1.2 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 12 in. (305 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-16.8 (240) 165°F (74°C) Pendent
Ceiling Density – 0.45 gpm/ft2 (18.3 mm/min) (45 gpm (170.3 L/min) or 7.1 psi (0.49 bar) on a
K-16.8 (240) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Offset between 2 at the ceiling and Between 4 for the in-racks
In-Rack Sprinkler Spacing – Positioned in staggered in every transverse flue space (5 ft (1.5 m) max.
apart) at 8 ft (2.4 m) max. between sprinklers along the transverse flue with
the 1st in-rack sprinkler being positioned 18 in. (457 mm) from the face of
the array.
In-Rack Sprinkler Elevation – A single level at 15 ft (4.6 m) (between the 3rd and 4th tier of storage
next above mid-rack height)
In-Rack Sprinkler Type – K-8.0 (115) 165°F (74°C) QR Upright
In-Rack Sprinkler Discharge – 30 gpm (113.6 L/min) (14 psi (0.97 bar) on a K-8.0 (115) sprinkler)

Evaluation of test results will be compared to the design area / # of design sprinklers 2000 ft2(186 m2) / 20
sprinklers at the ceiling and 8 sprinklers for the in-racks.

The intention of Test 2 is to further expand upon the original legacy testing to confirm if designs that include
the installation of in-rack sprinklers are sufficient to permit the extension of multiple-row rack
arrangements. The proposed arrangement with the installation of one level of in-rack sprinklers at 15 ft
(4.6 m) is again intended to represent the most challenging extended vertical increment between in-rack
sprinklers. The proposed design discharge matches the specific criteria that prescribed by the NFPA 13
for this arrangement. The use of the K16.8 (240) sprinkler is proposed to represent a moderate size
sprinkler appropriate for this application. The use of the Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
commodity was selected to provide an evaluation of the impact of an elevation in hazard associated with
commodity classification.

[Link]
 93

Figure 50:Test 2 Configuration

[Link]
 94

ESFR / CMSA / CMDA – Use Of Double-Row Rack Test Criteria

As the original testing only included the use of a multiple-row rack arrangement that included both
longitudinal and transverse flue spaces, it is suggested that an arrangement only including transverse flue
spaces be tested. Additionally, as no testing was ever completed for CMSA sprinkler or CMDA sprinklers
protecting Group A Plastic in a multiple-row rack configuration, it is suggested that the concept be tested
for these additional sprinkler types. For comparison purposes, it is recommended that Cartoned
Nonexpanded Group A Plastic be used as this standard test commodity utilized today match that used for
legacy testing and will provide a reasonable representation. A multiple-row rack at least matching the
arrangement that was utilized during the legacy large-scale testing for CMDA sprinklers is recommended.

Test 3 - ESFR
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 25 ft (7.6 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Multiple-Row Rack (8 pallets deep/28 ft (8.5 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together) supported on angle iron along the sides of the pallet load
Aisle – 4 ft (1.2 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 18 in. (450 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K14.0 (200) 165°F (74°C) Pendent ESFR
Ceiling Pressure – 50 psi (3.4 bar) 99.0 gpm (374.8 L/min)
Ignition Location: Offset between 2 at the ceiling

Evaluation of test results will be compared to the # of design sprinklers (12 sprinklers) at the ceiling. Where
available, a comparison to the original Listing tests for double-row rack arrangements for the specific
sprinkler tested should be made.

The intention of Test 3 is to expand upon the original legacy testing conducted for ESFR sprinklers in a
multiple-row rack arrangement with both 6 in. (150 mm) transverse and longitudinal flue spaces by
eliminating the 6 in. (150 mm) longitudinal flues. The proposed arrangement test commodity, sprinkler
type and design discharge match that used in the legacy testing for comparison purposes. A comparison
of the results with the legacy testing will permit an evaluation of the impact of the varying flue arrangement.

[Link]
 95

Test 4 - CMSA
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 25 ft (7.6 m) Deck Height: Nominal 30 ft (9.1 m) (Maintain 3 ft (0.9 m) clearance)
Arrangement – Multiple-Row Rack (8 pallets deep/28 ft (8.5 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together)
Aisle – 4 ft (1.2 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 8 in. (200 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-19.6 (280) 165°F (74°C) Pendent CMSA
Ceiling Pressure – 16 psi (1.1 bar) 78.4 gpm (296.8 L/min)
Ignition Location: Offset between 2 at the ceiling

Evaluation of test results will be compared to the # of design sprinklers (15 sprinklers) at the ceiling. Where
available, a comparison to the original Listing tests for double-row rack arrangements for the specific
sprinkler tested should be made.

The intention of Test 4 is to extend the evaluation to include CMSA sprinkler designs using a K19.6 (280)
Pendent CMSA sprinkler.

[Link]
 96

Test 5 - CMDA
Commodity – Cartoned Nonexpanded Group A Plastic
Storage Height – 20 ft (6.1 m) Deck Height: 30 ft (9.1 m)
Arrangement – Multiple-Row Rack (8 pallets deep/28 ft (8.5 m))
Flues – 6 in. (150 mm) transverse flues between each load and no longitudinal flue
(boxes butted together)
Aisle – 4 ft (1.2 m)
Ceiling Sprinkler Spacing – 10 ft (3.0 m) x 10 ft (3.0 m) Deflector to Deck: 12 in. (305 mm)
Ceiling Sprinkler Type – K-16.8 (240) 165°F (74°C) Upright CMDA
Ceiling Density – 0.80 gpm/ft2 (32.6 mm/min) (80 gpm (302.8 L/min) or 22.7 psi (1.57 bar) on a
K-16.8 (240) sprinkler)
Ignition Location: Offset between 2 at the ceiling

Evaluation of test results will be compared to the design area / # of design sprinklers 2000 ft2(186 m2) / 20
sprinklers at the ceiling. Where available, a comparison to the original Listing tests for double-row rack
arrangements for the specific sprinkler tested should be made.

The intention of Test 5 is to extend the evaluation to include CMSA sprinkler designs using a K16.8 (240)
Upright CMDA sprinkler.

Phase 2.3 – Evaluation of Potential Solutions

The results of the scoping tests conducted in Phase 2.2 can be used to establish the required direction for
additional testing. Successful results can be used to substantiate a specific basis for acceptance of
certain legacy design criteria. Unacceptable test results can lead to a need for additional exploration to
develop a potential solution where needed. The exact extent of which cannot be determined until the
results of Phase 2.2 are fully known. Once known, the selection of a potential solution under consideration
will require an evaluation of the test results to determine the best fit solution to address the concern.
Possible solutions may include:

1. Limit design application to specific sprinklers

2. Limit design applications to specific design criteria level

3. Increase in design discharge from installed sprinklers

4. Use declining real world operating pressures

5. Increased installation of in-rack sprinklers (vertically and/or horizontally)

6. Install vertical barrier(s) to limit horizontal spread of fire

[Link]
 97

References

Beitel, Jesse J. (December 1991) Sprinklered Rack Storage Fire Tests of Motor Oils, Southwest Research
Institute

Chicarello, Peter J., Joan M.A. Troup, and Ronald K. Dean. (May1986) National Quick Response Sprinkler
Research Project; Large-Scale Fire Test Evaluation of Early Suppression Fast response (ESFR)
Automatic Sprinklers, FMRC [Link]/[Link], National Fire Protection Research Foundation.
Factory Mutual Research Corporation.

Dean, Ronald K. (September 1986) Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinkler Protection for Multirow Rack
Storage, FMRC J.I. [Link], Factory Mutual Research

Factory Mutual System (1969-1973), Rack Storage Fire Protection Committee Report – Test No. 60 through
154

Factory Mutual Engineering Corp. (1975), Rack Storage Fire Protection Committee Report – Test No. RSP1
through RSP 16

Jamison, Kristin L. T., and Weston Baker, (June 2016), Large-Scale Validation of: (1) In-Rack Automatic
Sprinkler Designs for Open Frame Rack Storage Using Quick-Response, Pendent K200 lpm/bar1/2
(K14.0 (200) gpm/psi1/2) and Larger Sprinklers, and (2) Protection of Uncartoned Plastics in Open
Frame Double-Row Racks Using Two Different In-Rack Sprinkler Protection Arrangements, Factory
Mutual Global

Lee, James L., (July 1986) An RDD Test of Single-Flue Rack Storage Array of Standard Plastic Commodity,
FMRC J.I. [Link]. Factory Mutual Research Corporation.

National Fire Protection Association, (1971,1972,1973, 1975, 1980, 1986, 1991,1995, 1998) NFPA 231C,
Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, Quincy, MA, National Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (1999, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022) NFPA 13, Standard
for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, Quincy, MA, National Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (1973, 1974, 1975, 1980, 1986, 1991,1995, 1998) Report of Proposals
– NFPA 231C, Quincy, MA, National Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (1986, 1991,1995, 1998) Report of Comments – NFPA 231C, Quincy,
MA, National Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (1999, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2013) Report of Proposals – NFPA 13,
Quincy, MA, National Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (1999, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2013) Report of Comments – NFPA 13,
Quincy, MA, National Fire Protection Association.

[Link]
 98

National Fire Protection Association, (2016, 2019, 2022) First Draft Report – NFPA 13, Quincy, MA, National
Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (2016, 2019, 2022) Second Draft Report – NFPA 13, Quincy, MA,
National Fire Protection Association.

National Fire Protection Association, (2021) Proposed TIA Log No.: 1560 for NFPA 13, 2022 Edition, Quincy,
MA, National Fire Protection Association.

Troup, Joan M.A. (November 1994) Large-Scale Testing of Rack Stored Group A Plastics in Retail Operation
Scenarios Protected by Extra-Large Orifice (ELO) Sprinklers, FMRC J.I. [Link], Factory Mutual
Research Corporation.

Underwriters Laboratories. (September 15, 2000) Special Services Investigation of Display Rack Storage,
Project 00NK04945, NC4049, Underwriters Laboratories.

Underwriters Laboratories. (November 15, 2000) Report of Large-Scale Fire Tests of Retail Shelf Display
and Rack Storage of Cartoned Group A Plastics Utilizing Extended Coverage Sprinklers Having a
Nominal K-Factor of 25.2, Project 00NK22528, NC4119, Underwriters Laboratories.

Underwriters Laboratories. (January 5, 2001) Fire Testing of Automotive Parts in Portable Storage Racking,
Project 99NK29106, NC4004, Underwriters Laboratories.

Underwriters Laboratories. (July 25, 2014) Expanded Group A Plastic Commodity Stored in Multi-Row
Racks with Continuous Combustible Horizontal Barriers Protected by K25.2 EC In-Rack and K=25.2
Ceiling Sprinklers, Project 4786427325, Ex4427, Underwriters Laboratories.

Underwriters Laboratories. (May 4, 1998) [No Title - ESFR Slatted Shelf Testing] UL Report R18711 97NK
41803, Underwriters Laboratories.

[Link]