![]() |
|
![]()
|
Life Safety - White Papers Home | White Papers | Compare Products | Tech Reports | Links | FAQs
Avoiding a Dangerous Journey In the past few years, much has been written about the potential dangers of exposed cabling in environmental air plenums. The risks associated with the burning of combustible plastic coated cabling in ceiling or access floor plenums have been exposed in cabling and building construction magazines by a variety of industry experts. Although the evidence of a problem appears to be quite clear, the conclusions drawn by these industry reporters generally stop short of a condemnation of exposed cabling in these "concealed spaces". This article will attempt to summarize the evidence of a problem and "connect the dots" for those who have not read the evidence. First, lets examine how combustible plastic coated cabling became Code acceptable. The standard that governs the types of acceptable materials in ceiling or access floor plenums is NFPA 90A -- Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems. Since 1937, HVAC designers have used this for environmental air design issues. Prior to 1975 it required that all materials used in plenums be "non-combustible" or "limited combustible" with a maximum smoke developed rating of 50. Telecom cables meeting this requirement would be classified as "limited combustible". Since environmental air (supply or return air) could eventually be breathed by the building's occupants, safe materials were required in the air stream so that in the event of a fire, dependence upon smoke dampers or smoke alarms to assure safety would not be paramount. In 1975, the industry petitioned NFPA for relief from the stringent requirements of Standard 90A. Meetings were held to discuss the pros and cons of allowing cables of lesser fire and smoke performance to be exposed in plenums. Ultimately, NFPA agreed to allow combustible cables to be used -- intending the approval for limited use only (just a few cables). However, the limited use restriction was never written into the standard. CMP cables (Communications Multipurpose Plenum) meeting a new less stringent criteria became the standard of the cabling industry from that time and designers, building owners and telecom specialists have used this fire retardant cable in unlimited amounts to solve their ever growing cabling demands. Major issues regarding cable fire safety have been documented in research conducted in the USA and in Europe. Chemists and safety experts read the evidence with alarm, but designers and users are unaware of the dangers because the current cable constructions are "Code Approved". POTENTIAL DANGERS OF PLENUM CABLINGWhat are the dangers of exposed combustible cables in plenums? Here's the downside if a fire occurs involving cables in a plenum:
THE CODE WRITERS REACT The preponderance of evidence mounting over the years demonstrated an increasing life safety threat in environmental air plenums. The common practice of abandoning lesser performing cables in place and adding the next generation on top of the old was viewed as alarming by safety experts and code writers. Something had to be done to reduce the threat of burning plastics in plenums. The action taken by NFPA in their 2002 edition of the National Electrical Code was a bold stroke for life safety. Abandoned Communications cables are no longer allowed to remain in plenums. This action by NFPA and the NEC would not have occurred except for the dangers outlined previously in this article. All involved parties should seriously pursue reduced fire loads in plenums through the removal of abandoned cable. Although the fire safety record in office structures has improved over the years, there are still 16 office fires in the USA on an average day per the latest NFPA data available. But, who will enforce such an expensive code requirement? Will cables be removed if covered by newer, higher performance cabling? Will cabling manufactures recommend a useful safe life for their products? If there is no limit on quantities of new plenum cabling, does the removal of abandoned cable have the intended positive impact? ASHRAE CONCERNS The American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has for years been concerned about the use of combustible plastics in environmental air plenums. HVAC Designers were loath to accept unlimited plastic cabling in plenums. Smoke from burning cables creates a real problem in their designs. In 1999, ASHRAE embarked upon a research project to study the problem and make recommendations to the industry. The study is entitled "Cable Fire in Plenums" and is underway at the National Research Council Canada by Dr. G.D. Lougheed. The stated objective of the study is "to evaluate the hazard to human life of computer and communication cable fires in air plenums above ceilings and develop information that can be input to performance test standards and codes" also to determine the maximum quantities of exposed cable that can be safely allowed in plenums. The study is expected to be completed in late 2002. Exposed cabling within plenums will remain a viable wire distribution method for the foreseeable future. For existing applications, a safer cable should be used to replace old CMP Cables . . . namely, "limited combustible" cable. This is the only cable of which I am aware that retains its fire retardancy indefinitely. For new construction, designers should carefully consider the use of in-floor systems such as underfloor duct for on-grade use or a cellular floor system for elevated building levels. These systems provide the ultimate safety against cable fire and smoke problems by encapsulating cables in steel cells below a concrete fill. Underside fireproofing assures against cable outgassing for two to three hours. For new construction projects that must incorporate plenum cabling, "limited combustible" cable is the safer alternative. CMP cable suppliers should be asked to supply "aged" cable fire tests to simulate the effects of heat aging, abrasion, and the degradation effects of plasticizer migration which can lead to cable jacket slitting. Consider the placement of smoke detection and sprinkler systems above the cable trays rather than just at ceiling level. Smoke detectors should be mandatory below all access floors whether used for air delivery or not. This is the absolutely worst place for a smoky fire. Also, don't allow cable tray to be mounted below or supported by un-fireproofed steel members especially not bar-joists; and don't allow fireproofing to be removed from beams or joists during the cable tray hanging process. Above all, remove all abandoned cable from your plenum systems. It's simply fuel waiting for the next fire. Tagging it for future use will not make it safe; not even if you double tag it. John Michlovic has worked in the wire distribution field since 1969 with H.H. Robertson Floor Systems of Ambridge, PA, a supplier of cellular floor raceway systems. He is a registered professional engineer and a member of NFPA and BICSI. Common Sense Cabling Recommendations (and items you won't find in a building code)
(Source: John Lebduska - Architect & Safety) |