This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Watermist fire fighting MV electrical safety

I am reviewing the fixed watermist fire fighting installations in a new fleet of hybrid ships we are building . The water mist based fixed fire fighting appliances (FFFA) we are using extends into the main propulsion areas as well as the power generating areas.

Water Mist heads are used instead of sprinklers these days as these are more effective, however I can find no definitive tests or regulations that state water mist is safe to use in Medium Voltage switchboard areas?  Appreciate that if I have a fire the main objective is to extinguish it but it is not unusual for FFFA to be set off accidentally in a technical space so I must then consider IP ratings of equipments in these spaces in order that equipment is not damaged during an accidental discharge and that engineers investigating the incident are not at risk of electrocution from the MV systems which may still be live or charged!

Does anyone have any reference information regarding any testing done on Watermist systems to validate their safety levels with LV, MV and indeed HV systems?

Parents
  • I was involved in a trial of water mist spray in computer rooms and LV switch rooms back in the mid 90s, after Halon was withdrawn. I don’t recall the manufacturer, but I do remember that a demo was arranged with IBM, which left everything working while the water was set off, and afterwards too. At the time, we were looking at an in-building system that was more survivable (for staff) than CO2 was. Later, water mist replaced CO2 in EHV substations, again, as it was survivable if it was inadvertently set off. 

    Regards,

    Alan. 

Reply
  • I was involved in a trial of water mist spray in computer rooms and LV switch rooms back in the mid 90s, after Halon was withdrawn. I don’t recall the manufacturer, but I do remember that a demo was arranged with IBM, which left everything working while the water was set off, and afterwards too. At the time, we were looking at an in-building system that was more survivable (for staff) than CO2 was. Later, water mist replaced CO2 in EHV substations, again, as it was survivable if it was inadvertently set off. 

    Regards,

    Alan. 

Children
No Data