Fire suppression or full containment – should you have to choose?

THE BENEFITS OF FULL AISLE CONTAINMENT for energy efficiency and cooling in data centres are well known. Ideally, it eliminates bypass air, controls inlet temperature, reduces energy costs, lowers carbon footprint and allows setpoints to be raised. It also ensures compliance with the EU Best Practice Code of Conduct and ASHRAE Class A2.

However, as the energy requirements of data centres steadily increase so they become more difficult to cool, and the benefits become the ideal rather than the reality. The prospect of unreachable energy consumption and heat generating servers inside an impenetrable room has sent waves of panic throughout fire departments and insurance companies in turn. Fire suppression systems rely on access to the fire source; therefore, full aisle containment can be a high-risk strategy, both from a fire suppression and insurance perspective.
An acceptable solution is badly needed as the industry is in danger of reaching a standstill. Dataracks – the first company in the UK to provide containment solutions – may have found an answer. From its base in Cambridgeshire, it has designed a system that protects data centre equipment and satisfies all concerns about fire detection and extinguishing: Dataracks’ active roof system, which can be fitted to any data centre specification, is already in situ at several clients’ premises. “Our active roof works within the aisle containment and is compatible with building management systems (BMS),” explains Dataracks managing director, Jeremy Hartley. “There is no need to move discharge nozzles. It is a failsafe device, and any disruption to power, cable signal or other disruption will cause the roof panel to open automatically. We take an early warning approach, where various devices activate the panel and are triggered by the early detection of smoke or an alarm system.”
The risks to life of an uncontrolled blaze hardly need outlining, but imagining the scale of impact of a fire on business continuity is enough to turn the average data centre manager into an insomniac. When one thinks of how intrinsic IT and telecommunications now are to so many aspects of life, it isn’t surprising that intense consideration is given to the choice of fire suppression systems installed in the multitude of data centres worldwide.

Telephony, wireless communications, automatic teller machines (ATMs), teleconferencing, video conferencing, point of sale terminals, electronic funds transfer, cable TV, internet access, along with various manufacturing processes and mission-critical defence applications are all dependent upon reliable transfer of data. System failure leads to an immediate loss of data; even a one-hour outage can represent a severe business disaster. It is easy then to see how service interruption caused by fire would mean catastrophic losses for an affected organisation. ‘Losses’ extend from financial and productivity, through customer disruption, repair costs and data loss, to reputation damage and lawsuits.
Then add into the mix the fact that data centre managers have several options for fire suppression agents at their disposal. Methods fall into four main categories: water deluge, water mist, chemical clean agent and inert gas. Water, although good for protecting structures, has obvious disadvantages for use with electrical systems; the water damage too can be substantial, sometimes greater than the fire itself, and the clear up after sprinkler activation can be expensive. Water mist – which is a more recent option – performs well on a large blaze, but not on small fires and is, therefore, not recommended for protecting high-value electronic assets and services. The British Automatic Sprinkler Association, in fact, states: “sprinkler systems are best suited for protection of structures, not the protection of critical assets.”
Clean agents that combine chemicals and inert gas will extinguish fire without damaging assets located inside an enclosure and, thus, are frequently used in data centres, but vibration may have an adverse effect on hard drives and storage devices. Inert gases are a popular choice of fire protection in business-critical data centres, where interruption would cause serious losses, although a significant amount of storage space is needed for the gas canisters. It seems that all fire protection systems have pros and cons, and the best choice will depend upon an informed risk assessment prior to selection and installation. Decision factors include type of data centre application, health and safety evaluation, number of hazards and insurance requirements. In the UK and Europe, the lack of standards, definitions and best practice within the industry have meant that there is no clear guidance on fire suppression and disaster recovery. Many of the world’s data centres are owned by and insured by American companies, who are driving the industry towards uniformity. In the absence of legislation in Europe, some countries are turning to the US for a steer.
One thing is for certain: whatever fire suppression method is chosen will have an impact on the original design of the data centre. In the US, the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) has legislated that obstacles in the data room that might interfere with fire suppression, such as roof panels and PVC curtains, must be removed: “Automatic removal of obstructions interfering with the delivery of fire suppressants is required unless such systems have been duly modified and extended into the aisle.” (NFPA 75-76)
In response, various electric and mechanical solutions for obstruction removal were introduced, but this ruling has now been tightened, and these methods have been deemed unfit. Problems encountered with these solutions ranged from impeded movement of personnel and restricted delivery of suppressants, to cost and risk while the system is not in operation. “The primary objective of a sprinkle system, whether wet-pipe or pre-action, is not fire- extinguishment but fire control, which has obvious disadvantages around electronics and electronic systems.” (Source: British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association (BAFSA) Technical guidance notes.)
The impact of US insistence on a uniform approach is being felt in Europe. At one internet provider’s data centre, the insurer stopped implementation of the containment solution until its approved plastic materials were used. Nevertheless, despite the setbacks, data centres still want containment solutions and the energy savings they bring. A UK high street bank approached Dataracks when its insurance arm insisted that an active roof system be installed for use with its containment. Dataracks’ vendor neutral solution was configured as a retrofit implementation to meet with the bank’s regulations.
Undoubtedly, this is great news, but does Jeremy Hartley have an answer to the dilemma over the choice of fire suppression methods?
“I am confident that our active roof is the key to unlocking this industry conundrum. It enables the required amount of suppressants - whether water, mist or gas - to be used.”
For now, a degree of compromise remains as to whether data centre managers choose suppression or extinguishing, but one thing is for certain: their decision is based on the need to protect life, buildings and data, and, as such, their role is vital.