|
Update (8:47 AM CDT): MeyerFire University (site and app) are back up and running as normal. Thank you for your patience! Original Post: We sincerely apologize - MeyerFire University (the main website and app) are both currently down. The global Cloudflare data outage is affecting our MeyerFire University site. We are actively monitoring the situation and will update as soon as we have more information. MeyerFire.com does not appear to be affected currently. Cloudflare Status can be found here: www.cloudflarestatus.com/  Thank you for your patience and for being part of the community here.
0 Comments
By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Technical Director at MeyerFire Although the 2024 editions of the International Building and Fire Codes have been out for some time, new codes don’t get used until a jurisdiction adopts them. Now that I’m starting to see them referenced more often in project work, it feels like the right time to dig into what’s new. The humor is not lost on me that, as we begin to wrap up 2025, I’m finally getting deep into the changes to the 2024 codes.  No better time than now to review the changes in the 2024 IBC Before we get started, if you haven’t taken the MeyerFire University LS111 course [here], it’s a great series on Effective Use of Codes & Standards. One of the many helpful items that Fire Protection Engineer Sean Donohue reviews is how to tell code language has changed. Not to be all “back in my day”, but when we only had the print and PDF editions of codes, we were used to seeing the vertical bar near new sections of code. Now, since most of us use the online versions, we should realize that new text is indicated in blue text, deletion arrows (→) are used for deleted text, and stars (*) for relocated text. The intent here is not to cover every single change here, but to highlight some of the provisions that may impact the day-to-day workings of someone in the fire protection engineering profession. As always, and I really cannot emphasize this enough, check your local amendments. Very few jurisdictions will adopt the codes outright; they’ll often make some changes. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS (CHAPTER 3) While the official classification of occupancies is typically up to the architect, it’s important to know what to expect with these changes. It will come as no surprise that changes have been made to certain occupancy classifications due to their use of lithium-ion batteries in energy storage systems (ESS). Examples include:
 Manufacture and storage of electric vehicles now classified as Group F-1/S-1 What’s the impact here? To start, the F-1/S-1 designation is for moderate-hazard, and the F-2/S-2 classifications are for low-hazard occupancies. These classifications are helpful, as the occupancy classification of areas using ESS could fall into a bit of a no man’s land. ESS regulated by IFC Section 1207 would be exempt from regular Group H requirements, so prior to this change in IBC 2024, there wasn’t much direction on what to classify these occupancies as. Since “electrical rooms” aren’t listed in Chapter 3, generally I would see large UPS or Electrical Rooms be classified as either Group B, F-2, or S-2, maybe matching the predominant occupancy of the building. However, classifying these spaces as the more hazardous designation of Group F & S has a trickle-down effect for the rest of the fire protection features. There are differences in allowable areas, separations for mixed-use occupancies, and means of egress requirements between Group F-1/S-1 and Group F-2/S-2. For example, in a sprinklered F-1/S-1 occupancy, travel distance is limited to 250 ft, as opposed to 400 ft for F-2/S-2 occupancies. Another important implication would be for smoke and heat removal. Section 910.2.1 requires smoke and heat vents, or a mechanical smoke removal system for Group F-1/S-1 occupancies with more than 50,000 square feet of undivided area. That may seem like quite a large area, but data centers can easily exceed this limit. And I’m sure you could guess that if I have a giant room full of servers and specialized equipment, the last thing I want is multiple roof penetrations overhead.  Smoke and heat vents required for certain Group F-1/S-1 occupancies As we’ve covered in our two ESS courses, these additional safety features are well warranted due to the risks presented by lithium-ion batteries. And to be fair, the ventilation system I am probably providing for my ventilation and explosion control probably counts as a “mechanical smoke removal system”. But the point here is that it’s important to think of the ripple effects of seemingly small and straightforward changes. The change is contained in Chapter 3 for Occupancy Classifications, but it trickles down to items in Chapters 5, 6, 9, and 10. CHAPTER 9, SECTION 903 CHANGES The next place where we’ll see some big changes is in Section 903. We do have an IBC Cheatsheet that lists when sprinklers are required per Chapter 9, which you can find below.  The cheatsheet includes footnotes for new provisions in 2024, but it should come as no surprise that many of the provisions are for occupancies that use lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries. These include:
An additional change is the design parameters for the sprinkler system, when it is required, to protect these areas containing lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries: “… design of the system shall be based on a series of fire tests. Such tests shall be conducted or witnessed and reported by an approved testing laboratory involving test scenarios that address that range of variable associated with the intended arrangement of the hazards to be protected.” -IBC 903.3.1.1.3  Sprinkler System Design for lithium-ion batteries should be based on fire testing That’s pretty explicit language here, which is extracted from the fire code. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the system design should be based on fire testing. But because we’re fire protection folks we know that we probably aren’t going to have all of that information at the time we need it. It would be great if we had fire testing data for all of the items that would be stored in a given facility, but we know that’s not realistic. In this case I would defer to the Fire Code, which in Section 1207 lists a sprinkler system density consistent with Extra Hazard Group 1 for certain situations. If I don’t yet have testing information, that’s a safe density to use so I can start planning my water supply and sizing my pump. OTHER CHANGES OF NOTE Even though pixels are basically free, this post would become unreadably long if we went in depth for each change! To summarize the rest of the IBC 2024 changes of interest:
And similar to the sprinkler changes for areas with lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries, a fire alarm system required, activated by air-sampling or radiant-energy sensing detection systems, for the following areas:
Once we get into Chapter 10 for Means of Egress, one notable change includes:
 Lower exit signs are exempt from sprinklered Group R-1 occupancies Like every new iteration, this code cycle brings a mix of fine-tuning and forward-thinking. Many of the 2024 reflect something that’s not new: the emerging risks of energy storage systems using lithium-ion batteries. But there are plenty of smaller tweaks, including the visible sprinkler system alarms and standpipe hose connections in exterior stairs, which will find their way onto our next set of plans too. Even seemingly small changes, or those that we think are “out of our scope” may have big downstream effects that impact all of our design and construction partners.
What other changes to the 2024 IBC and IFC have impacted your projects? Comment to share your stories below. Thanks for reading, and remember to keep learning, because the code never stops changing! - Jocelyn By Joe Meyer, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Founder of MeyerFire I am thrilled to announce that we have added our most-requested feature to date on MeyerFire University! PATHWAYS Up until now, we've had focused, digestible courses where we've worked to save your time and give you the most meaningful, engaging online learning experience possible. We've organized information into courses, and those courses build upon each other to share what the industry wants you to know about fire protection. We've now layered on pathways that help guide new learners according to skill-based themes. Want to learn fire alarm layout? Great - our intro-level Fire Alarm Layout Pathway is a great fit. Want to learn how to read Construction Documents? Great, we have that. Fire Sprinkler Layout - starting from no experience up through the layout stage of a project? We have that. Same with core life safety and code courses, learning for the P.E. Exam, and practice for the P.E. Exam.  BUILDING WHAT YOU WANT
I want to take this a step further. We built this into a live dashboard, right at www.meyerfireuniversity.com/path; anyone can visit this (even those who aren't on MeyerFire University). But the next step is where you want to take it. If you manage a team or are responsible for training - how do you want us to construct this? Today we have the dashboard, but we're actively building assign and reporting features around it. My initial thought is to give you the ability to assign a Pathway when a user is added, and anytime thereafter. You'd be able to set a deadline date, and then also set how much you want us to follow-up (reminders) the learner along the way. You'll be able to check progress at anytime, as well as with your weekly or monthly reports. What else would you want the ability to do? How can we make this easier for your learners to start? Absolutely excited, and open to ideas here. I'd much rather construct the features that you see as helpful and impactful for your learners. We're already making a massive impact - averaging right around 500 hours of learning every two weeks right now - an all-time high. But we know we can build it to suit your team's needs - so if you have feedback or ideas, I would more than welcome them below! Thanks, and have a great rest of your week! - Joe By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire In my previous role at a design consulting firm, I managed a team of 10-15 engineers who all worked on mission-critical facilities (hi, y’all!) One day, I overheard a project manager arguing with someone on my team about the way things were “supposed to be.” I think their specific argument was about how or when drawings were getting uploaded to a folder, but it just as easily could have been about a long list of items like titleblocks, who uploaded what deliverables, sharing Revit models, specifications: you name it. If you’ve ever been a design consultant or really been a part of any deliverable, you know there’s a whole host of items that are due and set to be completed in a particular way, all at the last minute. In theory, these things should be simple, handled with checklists, calendar invites, reminders, emails, and Teams messages. But in the rush to complete a project, they always cause chaos. And really, they shouldn’t be that hard, but they always become such a time suck on deliverable day. I’m sure we’ve all been a part of, probably on both sides, of conversations like that. A perfect example of this is with titleblocks.  If you learned drafting in the AutoCAD days, title blocks were so easy: double-click, change text, and you’re done. In Revit…not so simple. The process is more complicated, because Revit is a more powerful tool. But that also means it requires communication and coordination, and it can be frustrating. Regardless of the CAD program, there always seems to be last minute decisions or miscommunications. Are we putting dots or slashes in the date? What is the submission called? Issue for Construction? No, Issued for Construction. Stamps or no stamps? What should the filename be called? What’s the correct titleblock? Oh, it should be V2_final, not V3. I started telling people, because I was of course so wise (sarcasm), that the chaos was part of the job. It did allow me to reach kind of a zen state in my own work, to not save too much actual design work for the last minute, because there are always these chaotic requests or last-minute changes, and the reason they get missed is because engineers are still designing up until the very last minute. Sorry to reveal what’s behind the curtain, but it’s true! [Editor's Note: It happens everywhere, too!] And because I’m a millennial, I even had a go-to meme that helped me not get so frustrated during the chaotic last-minute deliverable days.  For design consultants, it’s title blocks, but I’m sure for every other sector there’s a similar atrociously inefficient process that we all just kind of accept because….well either because it seems like a problem that’s too big to fix or feels like Mount Everest.
But basically, by telling people that the chaos was part of it, I was telling people to accept the crummy parts of their job, parts of the job that were really just paperwork, they weren’t even engineering. We all just accept some level of chaos or friction as a normal part of the job. And I was even counseling my team to just suck it up because we lowly fire protection engineers were not about to reinvent the wheel. That’s middle management for ya! Only now that I’ve stepped away from the day-to-day grind of drawing delivery do I realize that is so not true. It doesn’t have to be this way. Surprise! This blog post isn’t even about titleblocks. It’s about AI. PIVOT TO AI I was a slow adopter of AI, I really only started using it after starting this job. I’d been a skeptic, thinking of myself as a purist. But AI is here, and it’s another tool in our belt. Like any tool, you can learn how to use it and reap the benefits, or you can ignore it and miss out. At first I was a little insecure because I thought using AI would remove the expertise that I was supposed to be providing. But just like the example of the titleblocks, there’s a fair amount to any job that’s just drudgery and unrelated to the job at all. And AI is really good at doing the drudgery, the keeping track of things, weeding through lots of information. It’s also fast, great at proofreading, letting you know if you’ve missed something, and continuing to learn and improve. It should be obvious, though I will say it, AI is not the replacement for good and responsible engineering. Think of it like a conversation with your (smart) colleague. Even if they give you great advice, you are still responsible for your own work. But also, just like your colleague, AI might be wrong! ChatGPT has been known to hallucinate or complete change its mind when challenged. RETHINKING THE CHAOS What if we thought a little bit differently, and instead of accepting our fates of chaos on submission day, what if there was something that could be done to improve our processes? If you work with a team that’s open to new things, there might be some room for AI to take a bit of the drudgery out of our processes. Let it do some of the tedious processes, the research, transcriptions, poring through files to find answers, so that you can actually do the engineering and the creative stuff. What are the most stressful or monotonous parts of your job or processes that could use an AI assistant? Maybe it’s getting a summary of the 13 back-and-forth emails about what should be in the title block, so you don’t have to dig through each one to get your answer. Or maybe you’re designing a high-rise or a parking garage for the first time, and you use it as an assistant to help perform code research, to make sure you’ve captured all of the requirements. You could feed a meeting transcript from a page turn into AI and get your to-do list in bullet points. If you write a lot of technical documents and emails, AI is a thorough and fast proofreader, that doesn’t get put to sleep by the content. And it’ll probably give you suggestions for things you could include to better make your point. If you can do all that, the quality of your work is improved, and the outcome is better. Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sure if you thought about it with your team, your peers, and your company’s management, there’s room for process improvements all over. You just have to start looking and find some folks willing to challenge the chaos. And right now, I would advise the people on my team that instead of accepting that the chaos is part of the job, to see if they can find some opportunity for change. We may not be able to change processes for people at other companies or things that are outside of our control, but maybe we can improve our parts of them. BOTTOM LINE AI is already being used by your peers, competitors, and likely your new hires. The more you understand about how the tool can be used, the better it will be for you. As engineers we are ultimately responsible for our work output, so that both imparts some responsibility on us to be the decision makers, but also should provide some level of comfort that at the end of the day, that we are still responsible for public safety in the built environment. With the introduction of any new tool, the industry has to shape-shift to accommodate it. We don’t really do hand drafting or calculations on paper forms anymore, so we value skills in CAD and the ability to use hydraulic calculation programs. In a similar way, the introduction of AI is pushing the need for different skills. In the coming weeks Joe will share some trends we're seeing with AI pushing the need for different skillsets - that while our professional obligation and responsibility is still the same - we're already seeing a need for different skills than we had before. Thanks for reading and always remember to keep learning, keep improving, and you don't always have to accept the chaos. And if you like Patrick memes, come follow us on Instagram! By Joe Meyer, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Founder of MeyerFire One of the traditionally-tricky nuances of standpipe design was when we had standpipes within exit stairs - does the standpipe hose connection go on the floor-level stair landing, or the intermediate-level stair landing? Since the IBC was first developed, there have been mixed results, depending on the year, as to whether the IBC and NFPA 14 suggested the same location. Today I'm updating a previous dive on the topic with the latest NFPA 14 and IBC alignment taken into account. STANDPIPE READS If you haven't read already, here are a few good reads on standpipes we have: An Introduction to Standpipes Addressing Egress & Clearances for Standpipe Hose Connections Standpipes: Floor vs. Intermediate-Level Landings (← The key read for this topic) CHEATSHEET Here is a printable cheatsheet for standpipe hose connections and stairway landing locations - correlating the different editions of the IBC (2000-2024) and NFPA 14 (1996-2024). If you find these helpful, you have to join MeyerFire University. This is just one of over a hundred printable PDF resources we have on the site alongside our online courses and virtual simulations. You get access to all of them within 2 minutes of signing up:  What's notable for the 2024 IBC and 2024 NFPA 14, is that they now correlate well.
LATEST CHANGES For a period of time, the default location for standpipe hose connections different between the two (Intermediate-Floor Level for IBC 2012 and 2015, and Main Floor Landing for NFPA 14 2010 and 2013). That's no longer the case in both the IBC and NFPA 14 now defaulting to the Main Floor Landing unless approved otherwise by the AHJ. That part hasn't changed. What has been clarified is that standpipe hose connections are required for all required interior and exterior exit stairs. The IBC and NFPA 14 didn't explicitly include exterior exit stairways, though it would have been reasonable to include standpipe hose connections for required exterior exit stairs because of the verbiage in NFPA 14 of "Exit Stairways" in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.2.1 of the 2010-2019 editions. Today, in the latest available editions at the time of this writing, IBC 905.4 and NFPA 14-2024 Section 9.5.2.1 directs us to standpipe hose connections in "required interior and exterior exit stairs," which clarifies and puts the matter to rest. WANT MORE? If you enjoyed this topic, don't forget to check out the greater breakout article in Standpipes: Floor vs. Intermediate-Level Landings. And if you enjoy the resources, consider joining MeyerFire University. It's exploding in learner growth (amount of NICET and ICC continuing education credit hours), in the amount of organizations (now over 550 companies and organizations), and in new content (42 new courses added since 2023). Great time to join. Thanks for reading and being part of our community! Have a great rest of your week. - Joe By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire These are exciting times in ESS Safety Land! The much-anticipated 2026 edition of NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems was made available last Thursday, ahead of schedule. You can read the new edition on NFPA Link now. NFPA 855 RELEVANCE If you don’t know what NFPA 855 is, it’s the ESS standard, first published in 2020, which is now on its third edition. The codes have been changing rapidly to keep up with the fire and explosion hazards of ESS, and although not outright adopted in most jurisdictions, NFPA 855 sets the standard for protection of ESS. Because NFPA makes the drafts, proceedings of the Technical Committee, and the results of voting in the Conference Technical Session available to the public, we’ve had some previews about what the new code would include. The changes I was looking forward to learning about were those that would impact project designs and the level of involvement that fire protection engineers should have in project documentation, such as hazard mitigation analyses and emergency response plans. Having attended a lot of presentations on ESS in the past few years, the chatter was becoming quite loud that the current testing protocols were not going far enough, so it’s not surprising that new requirements were added there. I was also tuned into any changes in suppression requirements, having read through the motions that were to be voted on during this year’s Technical Session. I’m sure the full industry impact will develop as time goes on, but now that it’s in writing, let’s take a first pass at some of the new provisions that will impact the ESS landscape.  NEW BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES
First, NFPA 855 has been expanding the battery technologies that are specifically covered. This is important because there is a catchall entry for “All other battery technologies”, which can be conservative. So both the Threshold Quantities table in Chapter 1 and the Electrochemical ESS Technology-Specific Table in Chapter 9 have been updated with these new technologies. FIRE AND EXPLOSION TESTING First, the new 2026 edition of NFPA 855 has stricter fire and explosion testing protocols. Note that NFPA 855 refers to testing as “fire and explosion testing protocols” instead of just the “large-scale fire test” terminology that the IFC uses. The requirements are relocated from Section 9.1.5 to Section 9.2, and titled “Fire and Explosion Testing.” In 2023, the requirement stated: “Where required elsewhere in this standard, fire and explosion testing in accordance with 9.1.5 shall be conducted on a representative ESS in accordance with UL 9540A or equivalent test standard.” The 2026 requirement states: “Where required elsewhere in this standard, fire testing in accordance with Section 9.2 shall be conducted on a representative ESS in accordance with UL 9540A and large-scale fire testing to collect data for gas production at a cell level, thermal runaway propagation potential at a module level, and thermal runaway propagation potential between ESSs.” What has not changed is that not all ESS require fire and explosion testing, only when required elsewhere in the code, when we want to deviate from prescriptive requirements. Previously, these testing requirements really just pointed us to UL9540A, but now in 2026, the reference is to UL9540A and large-scale fire testing. What’s that about? UL9540A is the Test Method for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), which is a protocol for testing ESS, initiates thermal runaway at the cell, module, unit, and installation levels of an ESS product, and collects the resulting data to help evaluate the fire and explosion hazards. However, as currently written, if a product passes at a given level, the test concludes and does not have to proceed to the next level. The argument against stopping the test is that the data collected may not present a realistic fire scenario, and therefore cannot truly be considered “large-scale”. For example, if an external factor causes an incident, one that is not considered as part of the testing, then there is no data on how the ESS will perform in that scenario. Testing on ESS that does not proceed beyond the unit level does not provide any performance data in a larger failure scenario. The new wording in the 2026 edition requires the ESS to be tested per UL9540A and large-scale testing. Annex G has been expanded, and Section G.11 is “Guidance on Implementing a Large-Scale Fire Test (LSFT)”. No other test standard besides UL9540A is noted here, but expect that document to be revised to catch up with revisions in NFPA 855. Another addition to this section includes a requirement for ignition of vented gases in Section 9.2.1.2: Where cell thermal runaway results in the release of flammable gases during a cell- or module-level test, an additional unit-level test shall be conducted involving intentional ignition of the vent gases to assess the fire propagation hazard. Understanding what level of testing is expected by your jurisdiction will be a critical step in the ESS installation under NFPA 855-2026. HAZARD MITIGATION ANALYSIS Prior to 2026, there were several triggers requiring a Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) in NFPA 855, most notably as a mechanism to exceed the maximum stored energy limits in Chapter 9. These HMA triggers were located in Chapter 4, which are general requirements meant to apply to all situations. Now, Section 4.4.1 has been re-written more broadly to require an HMA by default, unless otherwise modified in the subsequent technology-specific chapters. What is the impact? Previously, if you had a situation where you exceeded the Threshold Quantities for a given battery technology in Chapter 1, but were below the Maximum Stored Energy Limits, no HMA was required. Now that is not true, and essentially all installations require an HMA, except as modified by the technology-specific chapters. Because there is no longer a benefit of staying below the Maximum Stored Energy limits, the table is removed in the 2026 edition. Although located in the Annex, the new edition also includes a recommendation that the HMA and fire risk assessment should be directed by a registered design professional. Put that PE license to work! FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENTS The changes made in Section 4.9 for Fire Control and Suppression are a little murkier. We are used to seeing a requirement for sprinklers as the default option, and alternate fire-extinguishing options may be permitted where they are supported by testing results. And to me, that’s how the 2023 edition read; sprinklers were the default option, and any other system type must have fire and explosion testing to support the design. There was a list of standards included for the following alternative system types: carbon dioxide (NFPA 12), water spray (NFPA 15), water mist (NFPA 750), hybrid water and inert gas (NFPA 770), clean agent (NFPA 2001), and aerosol (NFPA 2010). Now in 2026, some of the words were changed and removed. The word “alternate” is struck, and NFPA 13 is included in the list of Fire Control and Suppression Systems, essentially putting all the system types on equal footing. And the requirement to permit “other systems”, where supported by large-scale fire and explosion testing, was moved after the list of acceptable NFPA standards. To my reading, in 2023, the “other systems” were the alternative systems, but now, with the relocation of the requirement, the implication is that the use of those systems is not an alternative, and they are free to be used, without the use of large-scale fire and explosion testing to support their design. That was surprising to me, but I’d love to hear if that is consistent with the committee’s intent. I know it was the subject of a floor vote at June’s NFPA Technical Meeting, so I’d love to be enlightened if I am misinterpreting the changes. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING AND TRAINING NFPA 855 previous editions included Emergency Response Plan requirements in Section 4.3, but they’ve been revised in 2026 to require the plan to be developed with the AHJ and be submitted prior to training of required personnel. The reason I am highlighting this change is that I know a lot of times items like these can become a last-minute hot potato without a clear directive for who is responsible. But if you’re reading this far, you probably know a lot about ESS, so maybe it should be you! Sometimes it just takes a competent individual to work with stakeholders to develop a plan that satisfies local fire department requirements. As we dig further into the new NFPA 855, I’m sure we will uncover more changes that impact the ESS landscape. Annex G, for example, has been really developed to include a lot of helpful material. If you’re interested in this content, we have an upcoming course on MeyerFire University that will cover code provisions for ESS. See you there! By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire NEW N^1.85 GRAPH PAPER This time of year in many parts of the US, the kids are heading back to school and parents are gleefully filling their bags with all of their required school supplies. It seems to be an appropriate time to also publish our own “school supply” for fire protection engineers: a new clean version of the N^1.85 graph paper. You can download it here: If you took the new course released this week, FX131: Water Supply Evaluation, you may have already seen the new tool and understand why it is valuable. For everyone else, N^1.85 graph paper is a very specific tool that helps us evaluate water supplies for fire protection. USE OF THE GRAPH There is a Water Supply Analysis tool in the MeyerFire toolkit that will also display water supply data nicely, but this is a blank graph that you can use for your analysis. The graph paper is a visual and analytical tool that helps evaluate the characteristics of your water supply, extrapolate to evaluate the fire flow available, visually see if the water supply can accommodate a particular demand, and estimate safety factors. The graph is useful if you’re in the beginning stages of a project and answering a lot of “what-if” type questions, without having to calculate exponents over and over again, and it’s also helpful in the later stages of a project, when performing and evaluating sprinkler system hydraulic calculations. The graph is special because it’s based on the flow value in the Hazen-Williams formula, which is raised to the 1.85 exponent. I’ve never tried to do this in Excel but there are lots of forums which make it seem awkward or impossible to work with uncommon exponents. So that’s why most of us rely on a few of the online tools out there, the Toolkit, or our hard copy graph paper we have tucked away. If you’ve been in the fire protection industry a while, or even if you just started, someone may have handed you a heavily photocopied blank N^1.85 graph that you may have stuck in a binder or folder somewhere. I still have mine from when I first started! Back then I would literally plot my water supply with a pencil and mark off the sprinkler system demand to evaluate water supplies during a project.  Graphing a Water Supply Later, I upgraded to a cleaner PDF on my Google Drive, and I would draw nice colored lines on the graph in Bluebeam to illustrate something about a water supply for a project I was working on. The trouble is, I was trying to have a technical conversation about the water supply for a site with a client who was about to spend millions of dollars, and my visual aid was lines on graph paper that looked like it was photocopied forty-seven times. It didn’t present my analysis in the best way. It's not just graph paper, I’m sure you’ve come across other engineering tools like this. The engineering hasn’t changed, so there’s really been no need to update them, and I’m sure people take pride in using the same tools they have for their whole career. I’ve seen some Mechanical Engineers proudly pull out their ductulator that they’ve probably had for 15 years. One of my coworkers also had a little metal chain nicknamed a “hosary” that was the perfect length to measure out the 200 foot standpipe hose travel distances if you had plotted your 1/8” scale floor plans. So instead of drawing a 200 ft radius, you could use the chain to jog around furniture and go in hallways when you were layout out fire hose valves.  Using a hosary on floor plans I’m sure I’m also not the only one who has my old graphing calculator from high school or collects cool rulers. These kinds of tools are simple, tactile, and connect us to the craft of engineering.
That’s why I was excited to develop and share the new version of the N^1.85 graph paper. It’s still the same tool at its core, just cleaner, sharper, and designed for engineers who want professional visuals alongside reliable analysis. Yes, I know at the end of the day it’s still just graph paper, but it’s a small way of bridging the old school engineering and the modern world. The concepts are the same, but it’s how we share, present, and teach them to the new folks entering the field that feels new. That’s what MeyerFire is all about, and I love being part of a movement that is teaching and providing useful tools to help engineers do their jobs. What other tools would be useful for you to do your job? Thanks for reading, and always remember to draw the curve before you draw conclusions. - Jocelyn LIMITED-EDITION POSTERS Last month, we ran a first-time promotion for a free limited edition poster set when you joined or added users to MeyerFire University. We’re happy to say that they’ve been shipped, are large (24x36), look great, and many of you (thank you!) reached out about procuring a set. We ordered extras and are doing what the kids call a limited “drop” from now until they run out! If you were interested before but missed the deal, now’s your chance. Conversely, we’ll also honor the same deal we had before, where you can get the set for free if you join MeyerFire University or add two or more seats to your existing account. Again – this deal is good only until we run out of prints. You can get the set here!  GET STARTED ON PE EXAM PREP NOW On a related note, if you know someone who’s looking to take the Fire Protection P.E. Exam next April, let them know that now’s a great time to book their coursework (and get posters too!). For nearly a decade now, we’ve heard from licensed FPEs that the earlier you get started, the easier studying becomes and the amount of practice you can get in helps you pass without it all becoming overwhelming. We now have eleven PE-specific courses alongside 400+ PE practice questions, and a live analytics dashboard that gives real-time feedback on how you’re improving. We spent nearly 4,000 hours just this past year building entirely new courses, questions, and new content to help you pass!  All of our PE courses, questions, and dashboard are ready right now at MeyerFire University at no extra cost. If you’re a solo user, that’s roughly a 1/3rd of the price of other PE Prep live taught courses.
If you bundle with a friend or two, your per-seat cost can be less than 1/4th the price of other Fire Protection PE Prep Courses! We get it, because we’ve been there and we’re fire protection people too. Sign up today, get access for a year, start coursework at your pace, and have what you need to learn and pass right through next April’s exam day. Learn about our PE Prep content here. By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director, MeyerFire Think State of the Union, but today I’m going to talk about the State of ESS in Fire Protection. So without further ado, members of the community, today I have the privilege and honor of discussing battery energy storage systems. Please clap. [Applause Please] Just kidding, but today I wanted to talk about where we are as a fire protection community with regards to the response to the widescale adoption of battery energy storage systems (BESS) practically everywhere. THERMAL RUNAWAY If you didn’t take my Introduction to ESS course (shameless plug for our recent course, Introduction to Energy Storage Systems), the primary risk that comes with BESS, particularly lithium-ion batteries, is their susceptibility to thermal runaway. Thermal runaway is a process resulting from a battery failure, where cells inside a battery undergo a rapid temperature increase and vent flammable gases, creating an explosion risk. The risk is proportional to the quantity of batteries in an installation, so you can imagine if we’re not even allowed to have lithium-ion batteries in our checked bags on airplanes, then enormous utility installations pose a substantially higher risk.  Thermal Runaway in Battery Cells The risk has been a part of our lives for years, so what are we learning about ESS? #1 THE FIRE RISK CAN BE LONG-LASTING. It can take large volumes of water to sufficiently extinguish and cool fires involving ESS, and due to the stranded energy in battery cells, re-ignition is a risk. Even battery cells that are not plugged into anything can still undergo thermal runaway, if they are abused. Emergency responders typically use thermal detectors to find any hot spots after a fire is extinguished, but it is critical to continue monitoring for longer than you’d think after a battery fire. Re-ignition can happen months after the fire! That’s long after the emergency responders have left, so there's a need to develop a protocol to monitor and prevent re-ignition. #2 REGULATION OF E-SCOOTERS, E-BIKES & OTHER MICROMOBILITY DEVICES In large cities where space is hard to come by and small lithium-ion batteries are everywhere, tighter regulation of micromobility devices is coming. In New York City, for example, the market has been flooded with low-cost and unsafe products, partially due to the rise of food delivery apps. The delivery workforce generally earns low wages, and there is no accountability from the app companies on the micromobility devices used. So the workforce is not motivated to purchase quality products, and the result is low-quality batteries being charged inside densely populated buildings. #3 SHIFTING PUBLIC PERCEPTION Public perception may start to shift. We’ve seen the videos of battery fires that include large plumes of smoke, and it’s hard not to imagine how local residents are faring. Public pushback about BESS projects has increased following recent fire incidents, and the path forward likely includes educating the public to ease their concerns. Even though the public directly benefits from lower electricity costs or stability of the utility grid, people are not willing to sacrifice safety and negatively impact their community. I’m not sure what that looks like, but it does seem like with any large project, developers have a responsibility to educate the people who are negatively impacted when there is an emergency situation. If you want to build in someone’s backyard, you’ve got to convince them that what you’re doing is safe, and is a benefit to them. Maybe that means highlighting training of your staff, the safety of the equipment you’re buying, or investing in local emergency responder equipment. CONSUMER SAFETY On the face of it, BESS safety is not just an area of concern for us as fire protection engineers, but as consumers as well. Lithium-ion batteries are in our cellphones, laptops, electric vehicles, solar panels, and e-bikes. It’s important to note that when we talk about energy storage systems, the IFC and NFPA 855 have a threshold of 20 kWh where these requirements kick in. For reference and speaking in rough orders of magnitude, a laptop battery might be 0.1 kWh, a phone might be 0.015 kWh, an electric scooter may be 1.5 kWh, EV’s may be up to 100 kWh, but a large Tesla Megapack that would be used in a utility grid installation is up to 4000 kWh, or 4 MWh.  A relative comparison of different energy storage capacities. Important to note the logarithmic scale used for storage capacity (vertical axis) The risk of thermal runaway exists in all of these products, but the impact is greater as the capacities increase. As a consumer, if it is an option you should always buy products that have a mark from a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). What does that mean? Without getting too far into the weeds, there are several organizations, the most prominent one being UL, that test consumer electronics including TV’s, computers, and even Christmas tree lights. When a product “bears the UL mark” it means it went through rigorous testing and complies with UL’s safety standards. That’s not saying there is no risk, but when we’re talking about a product which carries some inherent risk already, having a genuine product that complies with some standard of safety is even more important.  The UL mark. Look for this on your electronics! It may be tempting to buy the cheapest version of a product, but using non-certified products, or even worse, fake products, can increase the potential risk for fire. This is because those products haven’t been tested to safety standards and they do not necessarily meet those higher quality and safety thresholds. You should also follow all manufacturers’ guidance when it comes to temperature control, clearances, ventilation, and where and how to charge devices. We never want to charge these devices where they will block access to an exit. Thinking about where people who drive e-scooters might live, it’s probably in a densely occupied apartment structure, and where they may charge their scooter, it’s probably by a door. Many apartments and condos only have one common path of travel, so if there’s a problem it may block the only exit and now a bad situation is worse. TRENDS IN INDUSTRY RESPONSE Some of the trends the industry is seeing come in the form of alternate electrolyte recipes, methods of early detection, and more large-scale fire testing for extinguishing agents. First, if lithium-ion batteries are the problem, why don’t we just use different batteries? The reason this is even a challenge is that the industry quickly adopted lithium-ion batteries because they are lighter than their historical predecessor, lead-acid batteries. They also have a higher power density, so they can either take up a smaller footprint for the same capacity or get a higher capacity with the same footprint. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think this is akin to the fire protection industry’s history halon as a fire extinguishing agent. Halon is a gaseous fire suppression agent that is quite effective, but then we learned how bad it was for the environment, so the industry shifted to other solutions. These other solutions may not be as effective as halon, but they sure outweigh halon’s major disadvantage. Similarly, the strategy here is to find other battery chemistries that may not be as inexpensive or energy-dense as lithium-ion, but that outweigh lithium-ion’s major disadvantage. Another strategy for the industry is smarter products, which can detect thermal runaway earlier, leaving more time for response. I’m keeping a discerning eye out for new products that include more sensitive gas detection, thermal imaging, or other sensors that will help us design more robust systems that mitigate explosion risk. Lastly is more large-scale fire test data for extinguishing agents. The code opens the door for alternative extinguishing agents, but I have yet to see good large-scale fire test data for these non-water based agents. There may be a reason for that, if they are ineffective, but so much of our design criteria is based on testing, so I’m looking forward to more data to help us validate design criteria. CODE DEVELOPMENT As you probably are aware, the codes are doing their best to keep pace with the risks, in a reasonable timeline. The IFC has been revised extensively since 2018 to integrate ESS requirements, and the latest 2024 Edition brings it largely in agreement with the 2023 version of NFPA 855. That standard is currently undergoing its normal revision cycle, with a new edition set to be published in 2026.  NFPA 855's next revision is expected in 2026. It is expected that the 2026 Edition will include additional large-scale fire testing requirements beyond the current UL9540A testing and further development of the Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) procedures.
With each jurisdiction’s unique adoption of its building and fire codes, there is an opportunity for further amendment of these standards. It is critical to verify if a jurisdiction has any amendments to the generic code language for ESS and to verify if there are any special permitting procedures for ESS. My next course, coming this quarter, will be a review of the major code requirements for ESS. PROBLEMS THAT REMAIN It seems that the world is not going to soon give up on the use of lithium-ion batteries in BESS installations, so the toughest challenge that remains is how to deal with the explosion risk. The tools we have at our disposal, NFPA 68 & 69, were not developed with BESS in mind, but can be part of a layered approach to addressing the explosion risk. Since we are a prescriptive code-driven industry (in North America at least), we look for guidance on how to design these systems or how to perform these evaluations from the codes & standards themselves. I’m really looking forward to any new guidance in these documents to help give us consensus on how to approach the risk. BEST PRACTICES: SO WHAT DO I DO? If you are a fire protection engineer (or anyone) involved in an ESS installation, the basic process is as follows:
There’s quite a bit to keep up with. Many of us in this space are watching the development unfold. Deployments will only increase as utility grids move toward lower reliance on fossil fuels. Monitoring changes in codes, battery chemistries, and expectations of the public, owners, and AHJs will be needed to build trust and achieve reasonably safe outcomes. Staying current and educated is our challenge today. Rigorous testing and proactive stakeholder engagement will be important as we all move forward to safer energy storage systems. So in conclusion, the State of our Union is strong! Thanks for reading, until next time, stay safe, and always check your local jurisdiction’s amendments! by Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE Technical Director, MeyerFire Last week, I had the annual pleasure of attending the NFPA Conference & Expo, this year held in Las Vegas, Nevada. Throughout my career and various workplaces, I’ve attended my fair share of conferences, because education and learning about new things is important—especially in fire protection, where it’s easy to get complacent in your tiny sliver of the world and forget the rest of the varied organizations and parts of the industry care about. FAMILIAR EVENT, NEW ROLE At the NFPA C&E, I learn so many things and have great conversations, simply by wandering the Expo. Even for a semi-introvert like me, I find it invigorating. This year was different, though. It was my first year on the exhibitor’s side. I joined MeyerFire in May, and one of my first questions for Joe was, “Do you want me at the NFPA Conference?” The answer, of course, was yes! As an exhibitor, this is the marquee event to meet and talk to people in person, whether they’re old colleagues or new friends.  My new hat from a new friend, Chris Logan, Host of the Fire Sprinkler Podcast IN-PERSON VALUE Attending this year as an exhibitor, and my first as MeyerFire’s Technical Director, was quite a different experience. First and foremost, you don’t have to be up at 8 a.m. for Technical Sessions! But most importantly, this was my first time meeting my new coworkers in person. The three of us at MeyerFire work remotely, and remotely from each other. Erik is in Kansas, Joe is in Missouri, and I’m in New York. This is my first experience working a fully remote job, and I know there’s no replacement for meeting people face-to-face. Even at former employers, I encouraged staff to attend conferences not just for training, but to connect with each other. In today’s remote environment, many teams work “together” day after day via Teams, but have never met in person. It’s invaluable to create those real-world connections that help people see how they fit into the industry as a whole.  Erik, Joe, and myself (Jocelyn) at the MeyerFire Booth - NFPA C&E 2025 BRINGING MEYERFIRE TO LIFE This year’s Expo experience gave me the chance to see the people behind the usernames—those who post on the forums, enroll in the courses, and engage with the MeyerFire platform. It brought all those things to life. Like many of you, I’ve interacted with MeyerFire content for a while—who hasn’t? Experiencing that relief when you Google an obscure fire protection question and see a MeyerFire forum post as the first hit, you know you’re going to get your answer, or at least a good discussion! It was exciting to talk about fire protection education with existing superfans, people new to the industry grabbing nuggets of information for their supervisors, or those eager to sign up their interns for our training. And while I enjoy a good, long conversation about training, I equally appreciated when people stopped by just to say they were fans of MeyerFire before heading on their way. I loved meeting from the Forum, people who took the classes to study for (and pass!) the PE, or who just came by to say “Hey, you put out some really good stuff.” I got to see the cross-section of the community that MeyerFire has built, everyone in their own ways working toward a common goal of improving the industry. I took lots of notes—and I can’t wait to incorporate these new ideas into courses and content in the coming year. I heard you: more fire alarm, special hazards, site fire protection, and inspection checklists! Coming from the consulting engineering side, it was also enlightening to talk to folks in the insurance industry and AHJ’s, to hear how they interact with the tools and what sort of learning they are thirsty for. That’s a perspective I haven’t been exposed to very much, so I’m looking forward to continuing those conversations and incorporating those perspectives into courses. Specifically, we want training on being able to identify equipment in the field. Most of us can probably remember our first job site visit, and being completely overwhelmed by everything in front of us. I’m looking forward to developing some content that can break down systems, so learners can identify the fundamentals, and those first site visits aren’t so intimidating. THE BOOTH! Pulling back the curtain and seeing the Expo from the vendor side, it was kind of like watching your parents cook dinner or fold laundry. As a kid you may have taken it for granted that food just appears on the table or the clean clothes magically end up in your drawer, but watching how the sausage is made was pretty amusing. Even though I was a self-proclaimed booth princess and Erik and Joe did most of the work, I have a lot more appreciation for how these things get put together! Nothing just appears; everything has to be planned well in advance, down to knowing how much power you need for everything in your booth (want to upgrade to 10 amps? Two outlets?). And you either fly with everything you’ll need, carefully packed with your homemade packing guide so as not to exceed airline weight limits, you buy it there on site, or it’s hauled in from the loading dock (also not free). Either way it’s all set up and ready to go just in time. Hosting a conference in Las Vegas is a whole industry unto itself. If you ever want a deal on TVs, chairs, or carpet squares, just show up on conference breakdown day! I can also see why they’re so strict with not letting folks into the hall beforehand, there’s such a flurry of activity before and after, you might get run over by a forklift if you’re not careful.
THE CHATS Other than learning what a rockstar Joe Meyer is (seriously, at some points there would be a line of people waiting to talk), I just really enjoyed talking to people about learning, teaching, and training new staff. In my experience as a manager, it was something I felt acutely, the challenge of how to train new staff and bring them up to speed quickly. You start teaching new employees how to space VESDA sampling ports in data centers, but you have to keep backing up and teaching fundamentals of air-aspirating detection, fire alarm systems, and code pathways in order to get there. That’s the great part about what MeyerFire University offers. The focus is teaching those fundamentals, so that the training conversations with your new employees go so much further because you can focus on the things that are specific to what you do. I’m grateful to have a job where I can contribute to creating industry-wide impact. In the short time since I’ve been here, I’ve been simultaneously impressed with how much work goes into the content, and also how quickly good ideas create a spark and can come together really quickly. MeyerFire is a pretty lean operation, but when you focus on using your resources, efficiency and skills, it’s amazing what you can accomplish! I’m happy to be along for the ride, and I look forward to sharing my perspective and helping to bring to life the course roadmap we’ve put together.  Some of our Instructors and friends from MeyerFire University after hours at NFPA C&E TECHNICAL SESSIONS & FUTURE TOPICS
In addition to representing MeyerFire at the Expo, I was able to attend a few Technical Sessions. I’m always impressed by the industry’s willingness to share new developments for the good of us all. As a manager, I used to encourage my team to not only attend sessions relevant to our work, but also one “out there” session on something completely new or interesting. Some of my most memorable sessions have come from these choices, because often, no matter how different the topic, the fundamental challenges are the same. One of my favorite sessions ever was in San Antonio in 2018, where the fire marshals from Coachella and Burning Man led a panel discussion about fire safety issues at large festivals. No kidding! And you know what it all boiled down to? Open and honest communication between AHJs and the public to come together and meet the goals of the attendees and manage risk. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Outcomes are much more positive when the stakeholders communicate honestly with each other about what they’re trying to achieve. And as a recovering design consultant for mission-critical facilities, I always attend every session I can on data centers and energy storage systems, and there was no lack of those this year. There are new challenges in mission-critical facilities as the world adopts AI. Data centers with AI computing have increased power density and are adopting liquid cooling strategies, so I am interested in how this impacts fire protection system design strategies. I’m also eager to see where we go as an industry to protect against the explosion hazards presented by lithium-ion batteries. More on that in the future, I’m currently working on my next course, which will get deeper into energy storage system requirements. LET'S CONNECT If we didn’t get the chance to connect at the NFPA C&E, I’d love to hear from you! Connect with me on LinkedIn or shoot us a note here in the comments below. Thanks for reading. Until next time, stay safe, and always check your worksets! - Jocelyn |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBEGet Free Articles via Email:
+ Get calculators, tools, resources and articles
+ Get our PDF Flowchart for Canopy & Overhang Requirements instantly 
+ No spam
+ Unsubscribe anytime AUTHORJoe Meyer, PE, is a Fire Protection Engineer out of St. Louis, Missouri who writes & develops resources for Fire Protection Professionals. See bio here: About FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
November 2025
|
RSS Feed
