Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Katrina_bee  
#1 Posted : 20 March 2013 16:03:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Katrina_bee

Hi all,

I wonder if anyone can give me some advice on RM200 or any other fire suppression systems to be installed in IT Server rooms? We are looking at different options at the moment but i thought some one might have something like it already installed and could provide an insight into the pros and cons etc.

Thanks in advance!

KB

messyshaw  
#2 Posted : 20 March 2013 16:50:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
messyshaw

Do you mean FM200? as there are numerous gases used in suppression and this is just one of them.

We have a range of inert and synthetic gas systems across our estate which are 'safe' gases to use if the space is occupied, as opposed to the cheaper carbon dioxide where the space needs to be occupied prior to discharge (we have decommissioned all of our CO2 systems). Some gases leave a residue, other operate in a cleaner manner

If a gas system is to be installed, there will be a need to be able to vent the air from the space as the suppression gas enters. This can create design difficulties. Then there's the physical shock of discharging gas under pressure into a space within seconds. Getting the vent sizes right is key, but you may need to assess the physical structure of the room/space. We had to strengthen an unsupported block wall (to a mechanical riser) to prevent it being damaged by shock during a discharge.

If you really want to try something different, we've just started using hypoxic air systems which limit the oxygen in the room to below that which a fire needs to develop, but allows people to breath and work normally. They don't suppress a fire, they stop it happening. There are no cylinders and small clean plant. It's easily retrofitted

Have look here at various systems http://www.lpgfire.co.uk...ts/tabid/55/Default.aspx

I have no connections with this company other than being a past customer

http://www.lpgfire.co.uk...ts/tabid/55/Default.aspx
Katrina_bee  
#3 Posted : 20 March 2013 17:01:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Katrina_bee

Thank you for the info,
Yes i do mean FM200 - one of those days where i'm looking at 50 different things at once and they merge into eachother by this time.
I'll take a look at the links that you've kindly provided...tomorrow, maybe then my head will be clear again.

Many thanks

KB

NickH  
#4 Posted : 20 March 2013 17:30:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

We use an inert gas drenching system in our data centre. The inert gas mixture is IG-541 (INERGEN), comprising 52% Nitrogen; 40% Argon and 8% Carbon Dioxide. Horses for courses though - as messy states, there are a few different types on the market.

Ours has a separate control panel from our main alarm (although both are interlinked). This enables a lock-out system to be implemented when staff are working in the datacentre (control panel for this is immediately outside the door). Strict control measures are in place, and there is restricted entry via programmed entry fobs. Lone working is not permitted under any circumstances. If the lock-out system is not used for any reason, there is something like a 20 second delay (from memory) between the alarm sounding and the gas being deployed. This gives our guys plenty of time to exit the datacentre (it's not that big...)

Personally, I wanted a hypoxic air system, but got over-ruled by my IT director...
messyshaw  
#5 Posted : 20 March 2013 20:07:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
messyshaw

nickh wrote:

Personally, I wanted a hypoxic air system, but got over-ruled by my IT director...


We have a hypoxic air system and it was a nightmare: 1) to get this relatively new technology approved by senior management, and 2) to get staff to accept it was safe to work within the environment.

But it's in, working well and now slowly being accepted by all - OK, most!

Can I ask what your IT director's objections were
NickH  
#6 Posted : 21 March 2013 08:52:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

Essentially, he didn't like it because he felt there would be potential/ pervceived issues as to whether it was 'safe' to work in the datacentre for extended periods of time. That and the fact he was really sold by the INERGEN system. And cost........

Also, as it was the first datacentre he'd really been involved in building from scratch, he was very much 'my way or the highway'.
imwaldra  
#7 Posted : 21 March 2013 09:00:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
imwaldra

Is there any recent evidence that fire risks in a data centre are such as to require a fixed supression system? When I looked at this some time ago, all the evidence was that they became 'custom & practice' in the halon era, but were actually not justified by the fire risks present when these were competently assessed. Maybe something has changed?
NickH  
#8 Posted : 21 March 2013 09:41:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

imwaldra wrote:
Is there any recent evidence that fire risks in a data centre are such as to require a fixed supression system? When I looked at this some time ago, all the evidence was that they became 'custom & practice' in the halon era, but were actually not justified by the fire risks present when these were competently assessed. Maybe something has changed?


In our case it was either we installed a fire suppression system or we didn't get insurance.
Katrina_bee  
#9 Posted : 21 March 2013 16:53:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Katrina_bee

Thanks for the feedback guys, very much appriciated. Our I.T director approached me about installing FM200 or something like it, so i started to look and found Inergen / Novec 1230. I wanted to see what your opinions were on them and what systems you might recommend.

KB
messyshaw  
#10 Posted : 21 March 2013 17:22:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
messyshaw

imwaldra wrote:
Is there any recent evidence that fire risks in a data centre are such as to require a fixed supression system? When I looked at this some time ago, all the evidence was that they became 'custom & practice' in the halon era, but were actually not justified by the fire risks present when these were competently assessed. Maybe something has changed?


I would be very interested obtain a copy of any such evidence or guidance as we spend a lot of money on protecting our centres. Can you please identify where I may access this information?

It's a difficult assessment to make as it centres on how vulnerable the data is which is being stored and how business sensitive it is. We have a small data centre area which stores just data/programmes which are also stored in 3 other sites. It's in a city centre location with plenty full time fire cover locally, 24/7 security on site and has aspirating detection throughout. So we have decided not to install any suppression whatsoever, safe in the knowledge if we lost it, we have sufficient IT capability elsewhere.
NickH  
#11 Posted : 21 March 2013 17:23:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

To a large degree, it comes down to personal preference. Most of the gas systems on the market now are very similar.

Although we have never (thankfully) had to use our system, the installation is very tidy, and apart from the huge bottle in the corner of the datacentre, unobtrusive.

Ongoing costs will need to be factored in (maintenance and testing, etc.) but this will vary between suppliers. Also check accreditation for installation/ maintenance as well.

hserc  
#12 Posted : 22 March 2013 14:57:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
hserc

We only install water-mist systems and only then, where the location is already fire sprinkler protected. Otherwise, we don't fit fixed systems at all. After the Halon era, we decided to go inert (as in no health or environmental issues) or avoid the need for it at all. It's our Group Policy world-wide and we have our Insurers agreement on this, so everyone is happy.
imwaldra  
#13 Posted : 23 March 2013 16:38:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
imwaldra

Messyshaw, I'm afraid I don't have a technical reference, but I see that nickh seems to have a similar approach to what I suggested. The evidence that I looked at some time ago included:
- any examples of recent large computer system losses due to fire? Found none, which was why I asked for any recent evidence.
- knowledge that a modern system in a no smoking office location is likely to have RCDs or the equivalent, which will make high fault currents extremely unlikely, so hard to see an ignition source.
- reasonable fire resistance of modern ITC equipment, e.g. no yards of flammable tape! So even if there is ignition, fire spread rate is low.
- ability to install sensitive smoke detection in system ventilation ducts, thereby aiding very early detection, if that's a concern.
- extensive back-up arrangements at another location, for general business continuity reasons, not just fire. So, if there was a fire loss, these arrangements will ensure the immediate impact is minimised.
Conclusion: very low fire risk and consequences are not disastrous, so what value does a flooding system add over and above good detection?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.