$2.25 per cubic foot will give you a good estimate for cost. Siemens systems are UL listed for 6.25% concentration.

Bill Shearer
Suppression Specialist
Siemens Buildings Technologies
216-332-7417

I would agree that $2.25 cu ft is good estimate for the system alone, but you need $1.5-$2.75 for the construction aspect of the room to insure that the FM-200 can effectively deployed.

Usage of FM-200 is not an environmentally friendly gas. Inergen or Argonite are much more effective and less dangerous, albiet more expensive. We need to do all we can to “Green” Data Centres.

when we talk about Innergen or Argonite,we must consider all the aspect, like the hight pressure , the hight concentration ,the number of cylinder you need,the fact that you must install a damper for the surpressurisation of the room.
You have to consider ,when the system dump, the number of cylinder to recharge and test. Where is the “green” consideration if you have to move a lot of cylinder with a big truck .
I can’t see how we can say that the FM200 are less effective when we look the concentration of 6.25 to % for the FM200 and near 40% for the innert gas (Innergen,Argonite,etc. )
You may consider the concentration of oxygen in the room when the system dump (no a real difference with the FM200 and near 14 to 15 % with the innert gas)
We have to relativize all of these information about the environmental impact of these equipments on the green house effect.
Regards,
Normand Audet
Prévention incendie Safety First international

Another option for a clean agent suppression system is Novec 1230. It extinguishes the fire like FM 200 but is a lot safer for the environment. Cost is usually 3-5% higher than FM 200, but usually less than an Inergen system It has an Ozone Depletion Potential of 0, a Global Warming Potential of 1, and stays in the atmosphere for 5 days.

Bill Shearer
Suppression Specialist
Siemens Building Technologies
216-332-7417

When implementing systems FM-200 historically has a lowest cost than Inergen due to the exhaust systems and room envelope requirements.
One thing to consider is that gas supression is really losing track due to the overall costs at , at one of the data center related conferences last year. the survey showed gas was not been considered as a room fire suppression system mainly due to cost and proven reliability for dry pre action systems ( double interlocked).
We have clients that are approaching were FM-200 is used only at point of use, for example in tape storage unit, this device is provided with a small canister of FM-200 that addresses any issue within that unit. The room has a dry pre action system.

Hi Normand,
Can you explain the LPC report – LPR6 that found FM200 produces significant amounts hazardous byproducts such as hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride & hydrogen bromide (toxic to humans & corrosive) when it comes into contact with flame? Also note this report found that at a design concentration of 7%, FM200 did not extinguish the fire. Is 6.25% is high enough? The recent EC842/2006 report states that FM200 has a global warming potential of 3500 – i.e. 1kg FM200 = 3.5tonnes of CO2. For a 100m3 room this would equate to a carbon footprint of 221tonnes of CO2 just for the FM200 alone. Is this not a concern on the green front?
Grant

Bill,
I guess the cost should be space dependant. Smaller space, the cost fer cubic foot should be higher, right?

How much will be cost for a space about 622 m^2 x 3.5 m ?

Thanks