There’s no real way around it: I love cheatsheets.

In a design course in college we received 5x7 index cards to include any handwritten notes we wanted for an upcoming final. I wrote so much on that card with handwriting that was effectively size-4 font that it could have been displayed as a work of art. 

Nearly an entire semester summarized to a 5x7 card. It was a thing of beauty. 

While I no longer have a need to write so small, I still enjoy having information organized so that it is extremely easy to access. 

If you haven’t seen these before, here are a couple cheatsheets I’ve created so far:
Summary of Differences of NFPA 13, 13R, and 13D
Sprinklers & Passive Fire Protection Options

​Last week I covered important considerations surrounding fire department connections from a design perspective, which was a joint-effort with QRFS covering the topic.

At some point I’ll compile the best blog posts and resources into a hardcover reference book. For this week, however, here’s a cheatsheet on requirements surrounding fire department connections across NFPA 13R, NFPA 13, and NFPA 14:

Find this helpful? Consider subscribing to free resources like this here.

Have a great week!

I'm very excited to announce that starting this September we will have a monthly site sponsor.

As you may know, MeyerFire.com was created to help you do great things in fire protection. This site was built to promote the practice and empower professionals in the fire protection community. How? By creating highly-visual, high-quality content and resources to support and connect the people who do fire protection the best. You.

Each month we'll showcase an exclusive sponsor that supports our efforts at MeyerFire. The only difference you might notice is a new a sidebar image to the right on the site and a horizontal banner towards the bottom of emails. 

I'm very encouraged that the sponsorships will allow me to invest more time and development in content and resources that ultimately will help you continue to do great things.

Sound like a stretch?

Don't take my word for it. I hope you'll see for yourself later this year what the support of the sponsorships will bring to the site.

In the meantime, please consider supporting our sponsors by checking out their content starting this September.

If you're interested in sponsoring the site, don't hesitate to contact me directly at jdmeyer@meyerfire.com for more information. Thanks for all of your continued interest and support!

​Why are fire department connections (FDCs) so important to a suppression system?

They are the link between initial response and supplemental help.

Despite appearances, sprinkler systems are not intended to discharge forever. Their goal is to suppress long-enough that firefighters can take over and finish the job.

Standpipe systems exist to extend the reach of the fire department in tall, wide or complex buildings. Manual standpipes depend upon pressure and flow from the fire department. What single piece of equipment is relied upon to make the transfer? The FDC.

This week's article is an overview of fire department connections from an engineer’s perspective. It is one part of a two-part series covering fire department connections. Read more from a supplier’s perspective at Quick Response Fire Supply here.

Authority Intervention Needed
Fire department connections are a unique piece of a suppression system in that they’re not just governed by the designer and code. NFPA 13 and 14 require that fire department connection type and location is coordinated with the Authority Having Jurisdiction.

Early in design, prior to bid, I’ll call the local fire marshal and coordinate each of the following big-picture elements:

Coordination Item 1: Type of Fire Department Connection
The most popular types of FDCs? Siamese (2 x 2-1/2" threaded connection) and Storz (4" or 5" with or without 30-degree elbow).

In my very unscientific study of jurisdictions I call (nearly half are local to my area), I've found the following; 73% use Siamese-type 2-1/2” fire department connections, 11% use 4” Storz connections, and the remaining 16% use 5” Storz connections.

Of these, 13% have special requirements such as Knox Locking caps, 30-degree elbows, or irregular threading.

There’s no right or wrong answer here – I just want to be sure what I’m calling for or showing on plans match what the jurisdiction uses.

 
Coordination Item 2: Location of Fire Department Connection
The most obvious coordination during design is the location of the fire department connection.
 
My design preference, driven by installation effort and cost, is typically in the following order:
 
1. Wall-mounted FDC, adjacent to the sprinkler riser
2. Wall-mounted FDC, remote from the riser (such as the front of the building)
3. Freestanding FDC, downstream of a site backflow pit or hotbox
4. Freestanding FDC, connected underground into the sprinkler riser room
 
The first couple options are not always workable and depend on the building.
 
Sometimes the water supply and riser room are in the back of a building inaccessible to the fire department. This would be a bad place for an FDC.
 
Sometimes the front face of a building is "grand view" with large glazed curtain walls and no room to mount a fire department connection. This comes up with large offices or modern schools.
 
Sometimes a building-mounted FDC doesn’t make sense with major hazards; why risk firefighter safety in these cases? High-rises, for instance, require multiple FDCs due to the potential for falling glass that could injure firefighters or sever hoses. If there's potential for wall-collapse (think high-hazard warehouse wall) then a wall-mounted FDC also may not make sense. Freestanding FDCs can make a lot of sense for projects like these.
 
Considering most of my work is two stories or less and light commercial, it may not be surprising that roughly 85% of projects include building-mounted FDCs. The remaining 15% have necessitated freestanding FDCs.
 

 
Coordination Item 3: Distance of FDC to Nearest Hydrant
As a designer it would be great if I could operate in the dark. Send me all the information I need to do a design, I do it, and everyone’s happy.
 
If it were that simple, though, we’d probably already have machines design and do it without downing two bags of Doritos and a half hour of facebook each day.
 
Back to the topic: FDC-to-hydrant distance has an impact on the tactical approach in firefighting.
 
Many designers & installers in our field are current or former firefighters. They could readily speak to this. I’m not one of them, but I can imagine that having to shut down a major roadway or cross a parking lot with hundreds of feet of hose quickly during an emergency is not exactly the easiest thing to accomplish.
 
As a result I like to ask AHJs what distance the FDC should be to the nearest hydrant.
 
Of my highly unscientific and locally-biases results, 41% of jurisdictions require a hydrant to be within 100 feet of the FDC or less, 47% require a hydrant to be within 150 feet, and only 16% of jurisdictions require a hydrant within 200 feet or more of the FDC.
 
These three elements are a part of my code calls. Next week I'll distribute my FDC Cheatsheet that outlines requirements for FDCs across NFPA 13, 13R and NFPA 14. If you haven't already subscribed, consider doing so here.
 
What do you look to coordinate with the AHJ? Discuss your experience here.

​Want more coverage on fire department connections? See the other half of our two-part series on fire department connections here: Quick Response Fire Supply.

Since the entirety of fire sprinklers systems normally depend on heat to actuate a sprinkler – it is an important topic.

Before I ever started in shop drawing design. I prepared bid packages that specified important aspects of system design. One of the luxuries of living on the front-end (some say "theoretical") side of design was delegating the sprinkler temperature selection. 

Selecting appropriate sprinkler temperatures is not difficult. That said, making an egregious error with a temperature too low could cause an inadvertent discharge. Considering how much damage this could do, there’s quite a bit of liability there.

Temperature is one of the three concepts I look to address when designing sprinkler systems in commercial kitchens.

Consideration #1: Heat 

In high school I worked a few years in a kitchen. I hated it. It was stressful, always hot, and the cook line seemed to play the same six songs on repeat. 

Even now when I hear The Hand that Feeds by Nine Inch Nails, my palms start to sweat. I get thrown back to that smoky, steamy kitchen and getting yelled at for bringing out entrees while the salad course wasn’t finished. Despite it being in a country club, it was awful.

Maybe I’m sensitive (if not dramatic), but when I design sprinkler systems for kitchens I’m acutely aware of how hot those spaces can be.

We want sprinklers to operate early enough in a fire when they can be effective. We also don’t want unintentional activation with a temperature too low.

NFPA 13 directs sprinklers to be ordinary or intermediate temperature unless specific heat-producing sources or hazards exist.

For commercial cooking equipment, if a sprinkler could experience ceiling temperatures over 100 degrees F (38 C), then they must at least be intermediate temperature (NFPA 13 2002-16 8.3.2.2, 2019 9.4.2.2). 

I’ve never measured temperatures on the cookline but I would suspect this would be easy to achieve.

NFPA 13 also directs temperature selection to be based on nearby heat sources (in 8.3.2.5 2002-16, 9.4.2.4 2019). 

NFPA 13 identifies temperature guidance for similar residential heat-producing sources. Sprinklers located 9 to 18 inches from a kitchen range, for instance, should be intermediate-temperature. Sprinklers 18 inches or more away from a kitchen range can be ordinary-temperature. Wall ovens have the same rules.

I've often located sprinklers within the center of cooklines as intermediate-temperature sprinklers. This allows a little grace from the edge of heat-producing sources. I'll then check specific appliances for anything that could cause higher temperatures and adjust accordingly.

Consideration #2: Spacing Near Hoods

Exhaust hoods are required above cooking equipment that produces grease-laden vapors. NFPA 96 goes further to require that the equipment and exhaust system must also be protected.

One way to achieve this requirement is by sprinklers, but this method is rare. Pre-engineered wet chemical systems are designed specifically for cooking hazards. They are also often supplied directly with hood equipment.

If a fire extinguishing system is a part of the hood, NFPA 13 relaxes nearby sprinkler protection:

NFPA 13 7.10.2.4 (2007-2013), 7.9.2.4 (2016), 8.9.2.3 (2019) Hoods containing automatic fire-extinguishing systems are protected areas; therefore, these hoods are not considered obstructions to overhead sprinkler systems and shall not require floor coverage underneath.

NFPA 13 7.10.2.5 (2007-2013), 7.9.2.5 (2016), 8.9.2.4 (2019)  Cooking equipment below hoods that contain automatic fire-extinguishing equipment is protected and shall not require protection from the overhead sprinkler system.

In regards to sprinkler spacing, the front-edge of a protect exhaust hood is essentially a solid wall. 

If portions of a hood are not protected, the hood would be considered an obstruction and coverage would need to be provided below the hood. 

Consideration #3: Obstructions & Conflicts

Commercial kitchens are often tightly-designed areas intended to maximize the preparer’s efficiency. End result: high-density of equipment and appliances in small areas. 

This is the case along the ceiling as well. Lights, diffusers, and sprinklers become secondary and must shift to the narrow remaining ceiling. With hoods and the need for cooling comes large ductwork. These can limit the pipe layout serving sprinklers in kitchens and requires careful coordination.

It’s not always easy to tell from plans, but floor-to-ceiling storage is common. 

Reflected ceiling plans often show a continuous ceiling between one cookline and its adjacent counter. However, there are often heat lamps, pot and pan storage, and a myriad of boxes and other food supplies stored above head height to the ceiling. 

I try to space sprinklers in these areas directly above walking spaces that can tolerate storage in-between the cooklines.

Your Take

What has been your experience with suppression systems for commercial kitchens? What challenges have you come across? Let us know here.

Find this article helpful? Subscribe to more like this here for free.

A little over 3 years ago I started my role in leading a small fire protection group. It is a subset of up to 3 people within a multi-discipline engineering consulting firm.

The first week there I asked my boss about what my title should be.

He asked what I wanted it to be, largely indifferent to the outcome.

If it mattered to me, he said, I should think about it and choose what I feel is right.

A myriad of thoughts came to mind. A buddy of mine was just promoted to “Director of Fire Protection Services,” which I liked and sounded fancy. 

“Team Leader”? Sounded too self-appointed (and too Star-Trek-ian). 

Finding a Title
I asked my wife and it spawned a healthy discussion. 

A job title should relate to the actual work accomplished so that clients can relate. Sure, that part is easy.

Maybe a fancy job title could impact future roles. Maybe a fancy one would make mom proud.

After thinking about it for some time I kept asking - does the job title really even matter?

I came to this role from a 500+ person company with an assortment of titles and even levels within each title.

At the new small company – what did the title even matter? I’d be doing design, engineering review, business development, project management, and low-level management. The work wouldn’t change whichever title I chose.

Sorry, I Still Get Carded
It was around that time, just six years into the industry, that a recruiter approached me. It was for a Senior Fire Protection Engineer position. 

The recruiter said I paired up exactly with the role. He expressed disbelief when I wasn’t interested in the role, considering I was just an Engineer at that time. [side note: I’m somewhat convinced recruiters will say anything to set up a job interview.]

Why even have the term “Senior” in a job title if it is even possible for someone 6-years into the industry to have a crack at it? 

I am not saying I would have gotten the job – I surely would not have – but to even suggest a 29-year old could be a “Senior” Engineer completely degrades the meaning of the term Senior.

Perhaps in large organizations the job title is the measure of prestige and responsibility. Perhaps it carries more weight where there is little else to distinguish thousands of employees. 

But for the rest of the world? The small consultants & contractors? I can’t see it carrying much meaning, or at least nowhere near the importance of the role itself.

Your role in fire protection is so much bigger than your job title. 

Whether you're an intern, engineer, manager, designer, or leader of the multi-hundred-person firm - you play an important role in protecting people and structures from major loss. 

Your hands create the safety we want to see in the world. 

That is far more important than your title. 

Consider your role and your contribution to the world beyond the job title and I promise your work will be more rewarding.

So where did I end up with my new job title? 

I chose “International Director of Fire Protection and Life Safety Design & Consulting Services”.

…just kidding, I stuck with “Fire Protection Engineer”.

What About You?
Where do you stand on job titles? Am I on an island, or have you had similar thoughts yourself? 

I'm interested in your take - post your thoughts here.​

p.s. This blog covers weekly takeaways in my experience as a Fire Protection Engineer. Some are thoughts on career while others are real-world technical applications. If you’ve found this interesting, consider sending to a friend.

One project question I very commonly receive from civil engineers is whether a post-indicator valve (PIV) is required.

In short, there are options. I'm exploring PIVs in more detail in this week's article. If you want to get more like this, subscribe for free here.

Purpose of Post-Indicator Valves
Post-indicator valves have long been used to stop the flow of water into a building during developed stages of a fire. Exterior wall collapse of a burning building poses a threat to break water supply mains as well as create many openings to the water supply. Without a valve to stop supply to these areas, firefighters and their efforts could be compromised by the loss of pressure and outflow of water to areas of a site that don't need water.

With the recognized effectiveness of sprinkler systems and cost pressures, the requirement for post-indicating valves have become more relaxed in the last decade. Code references to account for building collapse, for instance, now appear only indirectly in location requirements for hydrants and post-indicator valves to be sufficiently away from a building.

Components of Post-Indicator Valves
The post-indicator valve has several important features - first is the ability to quickly shut the valve with use of the post indicator valve handle. The second is to quickly see whether the system is in the 'open' or 'shut' condition in a protected enclosure. It can sometimes be difficult to see after years of dirt on the glass, but not impossible.

The valve itself is along the water main below frost depth such that only the stem is subject to freezing conditions. It's a simple concept that's carefully crafted to protect the valve and stem in a reliable fashion.

One example of a post-indicating valve - a Mueller Company Vertical Adjustable Post Indicator Valve (see https://www.muellercompany.com/fire-protection/ulfm-indicator-posts/)

History of the PIV Requirement
So is a post-indicator valve required or not? This used to be an easier question to answer.

While not a referenced standard from the International Building Code, the International Fire Code requires that all private fire service mains be installed in accordance with NFPA 24 (IFC 2000-06 Section 508.2.1, 2009-18 507.2.1). NFPA 24, the Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, governs system requirements between a water supply main and a building's service entry. 

Up until the 2010 Edition, NFPA 24 required a listed post indicator valve on every connection from a private fire service main to a building unless special criteria were met (NFPA 24 Section 6.3). The special criteria included the use of a non-indicating underground gate valve with a roadway box and T-wrench or locating an inciating valve in a pit. Either special case required approval of the AHJ.

Current Valve Options within NFPA 24
Since the 2010 Edition, NFPA 24 gives a series of options for isolating a building's system and does not mandate that a post-indicator valve be used. These options (from 2010-13 6.2.11, 2016-19 6.2.9) include:

• A post-indicator valve at least 40 feet (12 m) from the building.*
• A wall post-indicating valve
• An indicating valve in a pit
• A backflow preventer with an indicating valve at least 40 ft (12 m) from the building.*
• A non-indicating valve, such as an underground gate valve in an approved roadway box with T-wrench at least 40 ft (12 m) from the building*
• Control valve in a fire-rated room accessible from the exterior
• Control valve in a fire-rated stair enclosure accessible from the exterior as permitted by the AHJ.

*Where the building is less than 40 feet tall, the valve can be less than 40 feet from the building but not closer than the height of the wall.

​Post-Indicator Requirements of NFPA 14
NFPA 14, the Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, also weighs in on post-indicator valve requirements. 

NFPA 14 requires that each water supply (except for an FDC) shall be provided with a listed indicating valve in an approved location (NFPA 14 2000 4-2.6.1, 2003-07 6.2.6.1, 2010-19 6.3.6.1.1). 

The prescriptive way to accomplish this is through the use of a post-indicating valve. Annex material within NFPA 14 goes further, stating a list of preferences for outside control valves:

1. listed indicating valve at each connection into the building at least 40 feet (12.2 m) from the building where space permits.
2. Control valves in a cutoff stair tower or valve room accessible from the outside.
3. Valves located in risers with indicating posts arranged for outside operation.
4. Key-operated valves in each connection into the building.

NFPA 14 does give exceptions (as is almost always the case in fire protection), but they require AHJ-approval. Wall-point-indicating valves, or underground valve with roadway box and T-wrench, are alternative options that require AHJ approval (NFPA 14 2000 4-2.6, 2003-07 6.2.6, 2010-19 6.3.6).

Post-Indicator Requirements of NFPA 13
So where does NPFA 13 stand on post-indicator valves? In short, it doesn't. NFPA 13 only states that where post-indicator valves are used, they top of the post must be 32-40 inches above grade, and they must be protected against mechanical damage (NFPA 13 2002 8.15.1.3, 2007-16 8.16.1.3, 2019 16.9.9).

AHJ & Insurer Inputs
Authorities Having Jurisdiction may also want to weigh in on requirements for post-indicating valves. Some municipalities write code amendments to require PIVs, while others may request PIVs be installed for certain building types.

Insurers, such as FM Global, may also want input. FM Global for instance, recommends that each system has a control valve a minimum of 40 feet from the building (with less preferred options also recommended in Data Sheet 2-0 2.6.2).

Best Practice
What's the best course of action for your project? First, check for local or state code amendments that may affect post-indicating valves. If you have a standpipe system within the building, plan to provide a PIV. Last, check with your AHJ for any nuanced requirements you may be missing or to coordinate a location with the AHJ.

Want More?
Not already getting these free weekly articles? Subscribe here. Found this helpful? Share on LinkedIn.com or send to a friend. MeyerFire is all about helping you do great work in fire protection with tools, tips and resources.

It is a popular and well-established concept that water and electricity don’t mix. 

Water is electrically conductive which creates a major hazard of electrocution where a continuous pool of water meets a live electrical feed. 

Can We Omit Sprinklers in Electrical Rooms?
On a few occasions I have come across building authorities and building owners who assume that sprinklers will not be installed inside traditional electrical rooms.

Why? The basic tenant that water and electricity don’t mix.

While the concept is important, the intent of sprinkler protection throughout a building is not just for each item within a building, but the building itself. 

The primary intent of sprinklers is suppression – or stated differently – to prevent the growth of fire from the room of origin throughout a building. This includes all the rooms and spaces beyond just the electrical room where a fire could begin.

This week I’m digging into guidance surrounding electrical rooms.

NFPA 13 Guidance
NFPA 13 (2002 Section 8.14.10.3, 2007-10 8.15.10.3, 2013 8.15.11.3, 2016 8.15.11.2, 2019 9.2.6) allows sprinklers to be omitted in electrical rooms, but only where each of the following are met:

1. The room is dedicated to electrical equipment only.
2. Only dry-type or liquid-type with listed K-class fluid electrical equipment is used.
3. Equipment is installed in a 2-hour fire-rated enclosure including protection for penetrations.
4. Storage is not permitted in the room.

Concerns with Providing Sprinklers in Electrical Rooms
Providing sprinklers within electrical rooms could:

• Risk safety for responding firefighters in or near electrical rooms where water could discharge over live equipment
• Water could cause additional damage to electrical equipment

Historical Approach
Prior to the 1994 edition of NFPA 13, important electrical equipment were required to have hoods (or shields) comprised of non-combustible construction to prevent direct contact by sprinkler discharge. All electrical rooms were required to be sprinkler protected.

Beginning with the 1994 edition, NFPA 13 introduced language to address concerns for firefighter safety and equipment damage. Sprinklers could be omitted in electrical rooms where the room contains dry-type equipment (no oils), is dedicated to electrical equipment only, is fire-resistant to reduce fire spread, and the room has no storage hazard.

The 2016 Edition, the requirement for equipment hoods or shields was removed to direct it under the scope of NFPA 70.
Just recently for the 2019 Edition new text was introduced such that no storage is permitted (non-combustible storage had been allowed) and liquid-type K-class (less flammable, non-spreading fluids) would be allowed.

International Building Code Input
The International Building Code (IBC) does not allow the omission of sprinklers “merely because it is damp, of fire-resistance-rated construction, or contains electrical equipment” (IBC 2000-18 9.3.1.1.1).

Within the same code section, the IBC does allow sprinklers to be omitted in “generator and transformer rooms separated from the remainder of the building by walls and floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assemblies having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours.” These rooms must have an approved automatic fire detection system.

According to IBC commentary, buildings with sprinklers omitted in one of the sections allowed by the IBC would still be considered fully-sprinklered throughout and in compliance with the code and NFPA 13. This distinction is important as it carries eligibility for code alternatives, exceptions and reductions.

Today’s Consensus
Combined, both the IBC and NFPA 13 require electrical rooms to be protected unless the prescriptive alternative option is followed.

As NFPA 13 commentary outlines, sprinkler systems have been successfully installed in rooms containing electrical equipment for over 100 years with no documented instances of a problem. While still seemingly controversial, most projects designed today include sprinkler-protected electrical rooms.

Get More
If you enjoy these articles, subscribe here. If you're already a subscriber, consider forwarding to a colleague.

MeyerFire is all about dissecting real challenges that real people face in fire protection design. I'm thrilled you're a part of our journey for better fire protection worldwide.

I'll start by saying I'm not perfect. I've learned some things the hard way that I could have avoided, which in part spurned this whole blog. This week's topic covers one of those things learned by trial and error (but mostly error).

If you are responsible for fire protection bid plans and you expect a contractor to provide hydraulic calculations, then you should include flow test information on your plans.

NFPA 13 does just about everything but require a flow test to be completed on the preliminary plans.

Annex material, for instance, has long spelled out that preliminary plans should be submitted to the AHJ prior to the development of working plans by a contractor (A.14.1 in 2002 Edition, A.22.1 in 2007-10, A.23.1 in 2013-16, A.27.1 in 2019). These preliminary plans should include test information with date and time, conducting party, location of hydrants, and size of mains.

If it is not a requirement in 13 to have it included in preliminary plans, then why provide it when the contractor can?

Well, there are several reasons.

1. Determine Fire Pump & Water Storage Tank Prior to Bidding

Is a fire pump required for the project?

It’s an important question – the cost impact to an owner is often between $50,000 and $120,000 between the pump, controls, piping and equipment, and possible generator when a pump is required.

Is the available flow to the site low, needing a break-tank or a full water storage tank?

The cost impact to an owner here is even greater.

If a flow test is not included on preliminary plans, how is a contractor supposed to confirm that a pump or a tank are not necessary? Take the word of the engineer? Guess based on past-history?

For flat-terrain areas with little construction activity over time, anticipating the available supply might be possible. For hilly areas where I live with a wide variety of water main sizes, it can be next-to-impossible to guess an available water supply at any given location.

If you are a prudent contractor and you are to bid a job without clear water supply information, what would you do? Bid a price conservatively high to anticipate large pipe sizes with a poor water supply? That’s possible – but then you’re also far less likely to win the job. Bid a competitive price, but exclude larger pipe sizes or a fire pump/tank? That could work to win the job, but what happens when the actual flow test is run and you determine a fire pump is necessary?

I’ll tell you what happens – the owner gets a very large change order they weren’t anticipating and the general contractor, sprinkler contractor, and design team all look bad.

Part of my role is creating upfront preliminary plans for owners & architects that go out to bid, but I also work for sprinkler contractors to produce installation/shop drawings. I’m very fortunate in that I get to see both sides of the industry.

A Real-World Example

One current job that I’m working for a local sprinkler contractor on is a new-construction five-story medical office building. It’s a great building with tall floor-to-ceiling heights and a fifth-story ceiling that’s about 80 feet above ground level.

The preliminary plans call for an FM Global Hazard Category-2 shelled area (0.20 gpm over 2,500 sqft) on the top level. Once the flow test came in, even with good pressure, it wasn’t enough to support this hazard classification.

Could the hazard classification get bumped down to better align with the future tenant use? Possibly. Could a fire pump be added to the project at a significant cost, late in construction? Possibly.

Either case, this all could have been avoided had flow test information been provided on the original plans. Bidding contractors wouldn’t be eligible to claim large change orders based on unanticipated pressure, and they can flag issues before they even submit bids.
​
2. Reduce Potential for Major Change Orders

Too often the single cost that a building owner is concerned with is the total cost of the job at bid. They should be concerned about the total cost of the project, including change orders and including the lifecycle of the system.
What good does accepting a low bid do if it is later rife with change order cost additions? It happens all the time with poorly prepared bid plans.

Including a flow test as part of the preliminary plans removes a major potential change order opportunity as it enables the sprinkler contractor to do their own pre-bid layout and calculation should they choose to do so.

3. Removes Potential Conflict of Interest

I have encountered misreadings of pressures from a gauge in the field, test results that were incorrectly copied between documents, and flow tests that were suspicious enough to go and re-test.

I (thankfully) have never come across anyone doctoring flow test numbers.

Is it possible that a contractor could fudge flow test numbers to save on pipe sizes and improve their bottom line? It’s possible. Virtually all of the contractors I’ve come across are very proud of their installations and are in the business because they care about life safety. Have I ever seen it happen? No. Could it? Yes.

When an engineer provides the water supply information upfront, however, this potential conflict of interest evaporates.

4. It’s Not That Hard to Get

For all the information we expect contractors to produce after they win a job, could we as engineers not produce such an important (and basic) piece of information?

Some water purveyors run hydrant flow tests at no cost. Some jurisdictions will do the same.

Even when both don’t run the tests, you can do it yourself. Read and follow NFPA 291, watch some videos, pickup a flow test kit for $400-$600, and remember to open and close valves slowly. It’s not terribly hard to do.

If you aren’t interested in running the test, hire a contractor. I’ve seen tests run as cheap as $150 and as expensive as $1,200 (a 3-hour drive each way), but they are often between $350 and $550 to have completed. Local contractors are more than capable of providing this service and they can do so quickly.

One of the biggest hassles in running a test early is often the tight design schedule many projects are on, and explaining to the owner why a flow test should be done upfront when a sprinkler contractor could just to it later. This article at least helps you address the later concern.

5. It’s Fair to Bidders

Bidding contractors are often not as concerned about how much or how little you want them to do. If you want schedule 40 throughout, they’ll provide schedule 40 throughout. If you want a nitrogen system, they’re provide a nitrogen system.
What contractors are extremely concerned about is that their bid price is fairly compared to other contractors. They will not provide schedule 40 if they feel another contractor will not provide it. Same with nitrogen or any other upgrades that could otherwise greatly benefit the building owner.

Water supply information is one of those key pieces of information that allow contractors to bid on an even playing field.

6. Retain Data History

How often do you find old building design documents that don’t include shop drawings? If you’re like me, it’s all the time. An engineer’s pre-bid plans don’t often have a wealth of helpful information – but having a little water supply block is a helpful data point when comparing historical water supply points.

Since engineer’s preliminary plans often get stored and tracked with the rest of the construction documents, including the water supply information can be a helpful way to retain that information for designs and renovations in the future.

​I’ll slowly now descend from my soapbox by saying again that I’m not perfect. I’ve sent far too projects out to bid without water supply information than I would like to admit, often without any legitimate excuse.  As an in-house goal we now try to hunt down water supply information for every project that we expect to see a hydraulic calculation by the contractor. That’s every building addition, occupancy hazard change, and every new construction project. It’s just too important of a data point to leave out for bidders.
 
Enjoy articles like this? Subscribe here. 

​Already subscribed? Send to a colleague or friend.

This week I'm wrapping up some coverage of fire standpipe systems. In case you missed it, here are the recent articles on this topic thus far:

   An Introduction to Standpipes
   Addressing Egress & Clearances for Standpipe Hose Connections
   Standpipe Connection Location by Code Edition

Whether a standpipe hose connection should be located on a floor-level landing or an intermediate-level landing has been a classic tactical and design discussion in the fire protection community.

Defining Floor versus Intermediate Landings
A main floor-level landing is the horizontal portion of a stairway where the stair risers stop and occupants can enter a floor level, leave a floor level, or turn to walk on the stair itself.

Intermediate-level landings are the horizontal portion of a stairway where the stair risers top and occupants can turn to continue onto the stair.
​

Connections at intermediate level landing requires that designers and engineers account
​for the additional hose length needed just to cross the stair. ​

Benefits of Connections at Intermediate-Level Landings
With all the benefits to designers, installers, and overall simplicity, why would intermediate-level landings be considered? Mostly it’s about first responders and the tactical approach in firefighting.
​

In January, suppression expert Bob Upson presented a webinar on frequently asked questions concerning standpipe systems out of NFPA 14 with NFSA's online teaching platform. If you work with standpipe systems regularly, I'd highly recommend it. 

One of the topics he discussed was a brief history of how both the International Building Code (IBC) and NFPA 14 (Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems) have changed over time between requiring standpipe hose connections on intermediate floor-level landings to floor-level landings.

By floor-level landings, typically you would have a hose connection 3-5 feet above the floor level immediately at the landing upon entering an exit stair.

To get to a hose connection on an intermediate-level landing, you would enter the stair and walk down a single flight of stairs to get to the next landing (typically opposite of the main floor level landing).

I was interested in exploring this code history in a little more detail - so below is a compilation of the last 20 years of the IBC and NFPA 14 and where standpipe hose connections have been required by each code edition within exit stairs.