We're excited to share updates on the second-most popular tool in the MeyerFire arsenal - the Water Supply Analysis. They've been a long time coming.

WHAT'S NEW 
CLEAN PDF REPORTING
Tired of snippets and half-hazard reports? We are, too. One-click print can export into a clean PDF report. Adjust your margins to 'minimal' if you have extra pages.

EXPORT THE GRAPH TO CAD & IMAGES
How many times has someone asked to just get a simple log chart result for a report? Now you can do so instantly. Print the entire report to PDF, or simply export just the log N^1.85 graph and use as you'd need with one click.

These tools have long been one of the ways we hope to positively contribute to the industry by providing meaningful resources that are relevant to you. I hope you find them helpful.

​- Joe

FIRE PROTECTION DEGREES
In mechanical engineering, you can show up to one of hundreds of college career fairs and (boom!) you have 100+ candidates that have a relevant, directly-applicable degree.

In fire protection, we have engineering and tech programs, but of course, many of us know that they’re not enough. Too few programs, too scattered, with too few graduates.

There are geographical issues (think "no fire protection programs within a 6-hour drive of my business"). Then there's natural constraints of competition for those students.

We know the numbers – we studied it just a few years ago - in the architectural and engineering space, 88% of people entering the fire protection industry don’t start with a fire protection degree.

There are more people like me (with an Architectural Engineering Bachelor’s degree) than there are with a Fire Protection Engineering Bachelor’s degree when entering the field in the A/E space.

One of the things I feared most when I had my first real job was that I was going to be exposed as a complete fraud.

Yes, I had a degree. That degree had a grand total of 9 credit hours specifically to fire protection, which statistically is more than roughly 90% of our industry starts out with.

But, see, the problem was… that I knew nothing.

I knew this.

But my fear was that when I made my first phone call to someone on the other line, they’d quickly know this too.

​And that all came in the form of my first ‘code call.’

THE CODE CALL
We used the term code call, I don’t know what you might call it, but it’s just a touchpoint check in with the AHJ to be sure that (1) we’re on the right track with applicable codes and standards, and (2) that we coordinate jurisdictional needs.

What good is a set of engineering bid plans, if we halfhazardly threw an FDC in the wrong spot? Or the fire alarm control panel? If we referenced the wrong codes? If we stipulated too low of a hydraulic safety factor? If we located the hose connections on the wrong landings?

The answer is no good at all. If we’re not helping clarify and coordinate the needs of the project with the jurisdiction, then we, as consultants, are simply getting in the way and making things more difficult than they need to be.

IMPOSTER SYNDROME
​Back to that phone call.

How long would it take for the person on the other line to realize that I knew very nearly absolutely nothing about fire protection?

That if they asked one clarifying question, it would call my bluff and I’d have no escape? Ten seconds? Twenty seconds? It wasn’t an irrational fear, nor was it overwhelming.

I made that call. And more after it. And I did make a fool of myself. I once asked “do you require duct detectors to be located on the supply side, return side, or per code?”

The response: “Why would it be anything other than per code?”

Ope. Game’s up. I have no idea. Time to pack the bags and find a new career.

 
All drama aside, I survived. Sometimes failed. I learned. I slowly grew to understand the purpose behind our list of questions.

Who were these people I was calling?

That’s half the game. Sometimes it’s a Fire Marshal. Sometimes it’s a plan review as part of the building department. Or fire department. Sometimes it’s the volunteer combination of Fire Chief/Marshal/Inspector/Reviewer.

Sometimes they were the nicest people I’ve ever met. Sometimes hostile. Just goes with the territory.

I’ve had jurisdictions that wouldn’t pick up the phone unless I called from a local area code. And I’ve had others apologize because they wouldn’t be able to run a flow test for me until Monday morning. (I had called on a Friday. At 4:45pm). 

Diatribe aside, I’d like to share the list of questions that I ask – (1) – so you can critique and help us all improve upon the list of questions – and (2) – so that future generations of inexperienced callers might not have to suffer the imposter syndrome that I did with those first few calls.

WHO IS THIS FOR?
Here is my developed list of questions that I would ask today for a code call. This is very specifically used for consultants to coordinate requirements with AHJs before a bid set is issued.

Why isn't this used for contractors? Would I ask this when doing shop drawings?

No; I might coordinate FDC types and locations. Coordinate standpipes. Coordinate some fire alarm or waterflow questions. However, a designer at the shop drawing stage is not the person to determine the scope. They can and should coordinate, but not determine scope.

A consultant's role is to determine the scope, so principally these questions are supposed to happen before bids ever take place. These do have cost impacts.

MY LIST OF QUESTIONS (AND NOTES)
Below it is a very short  context for why I ask the question. Code basis can wait for now. This is long enough as is.

What I ask from you is what you would tweak?

If you’re an AHJ, how can I better ask the question?

How can I better clarify the intent of the question?
 
OPEN-RESOURCE FOR CODE CALLS
We’re actively working on an open and free tool just for code calls. Some time ago we tried a spinoff code call database, but the enthusiasm for jurisdictions to volunteer information wasn’t something that we could get to scale.

So I’d like to try this from a different angle.

My hope is that, if we construct this open tool right, and educate around the process in the open, it could be a tremendous resource for both designers and AHJs to meet in the middle and have coordinated projects that meet the needs of each jurisdiction.

Easier and better results, every time.

So, here’s the list of questions that I would ask today, almost like a script.

My own personal notes are italicized below each question.
 
BRIEF INTRO
Thanks for taking my call. I’m Joe Meyer, designing the [project] at [address]. It’s going to have [fire alarm/sprinkler/standpipe system(s)], and I’d like to ask you a few questions to make sure we’re coordinated with your department. Should take about five minutes. Is that OK?
  → Note: If the time isn’t good, or they’d prefer an email, I’d go that route instead.
 
APPLICABLE CODES & STANDARDS
1. Great. Your website says you’ve adopted the [2012/2015/2018/2021/2024 IBC or NFPA 101], is that correct?
  → Note: Doing the research ahead of time is key. Without it, it makes the listener feel like they’re doing the work.
 
2. Do you adopt any specific editions of NFPA standards like NFPA 13, 14, or 72, or just whichever edition is referenced by your building code?
  → Note: Many people don’t know this, but IBC Chapter 35 and NFPA 101 Appendix D or E will actually list which editions of NFPA standards are referenced. Some jurisdictions will adopt very specific editions, which is why I like to ask the question here.

Following questions noted with an asterisk (*) are only asked if necessary.

FIRE ALARM*
3. For fire alarm, we intend to locate the main control panel in [front entry/main electrical room/a back of house area]. If we do so, do you require an annunciator panel at the building’s front entry?
  → Note: For small buildings with one main entry where the FACU is located near the entry, no annunciator is usually needed. For larger or more complex buildings, when we might not want the FACU at the front entry, having an annunciator at the front is a very reasonable need.
 
4. Does the fire alarm monitoring require a listed Central Station Service, or is standard code-required monitoring, like a supervising station, acceptable?
  → Note: Jurisdictions that require a listed Central Station service usually know what it is, and will recognize that it’s required. It’s more expensive and carries more stringent requirements than a normal supervising station, which is a code-minimum requirement.
 
DUCT DETECTION*
5. When duct detectors are needed, do you simply require locations to be per [the IMC/NFPA 90A], or do you require duct detectors to be located in specific locations, like the supply or return side of units in the ductwork?
  → Note: This is a question I could use help with. A simple ‘per code’ answer is wanted here, but some jurisdictions have insisted on locating duct detectors on the supply-side of units, or return-side, or both. If the jurisdiction has a specific requirement, I’d like to know that now rather than be surprised later, but most usually don’t, and as a result, it’s a lame question to ask in those cases.
 
6. Do you require duct detectors to initiate an alarm signal, or is it OK to have those report a supervisory signal to the fire alarm control panel?
  → Note: NFPA 72 allows duct detectors to initiate a supervisory signal, because they’re more prone to nuisance alarms than other devices. An alarm signal usually results in a truck rolling up to the building each time. Jurisdictions that are familiar with this topic are usually more than happy to have duct detectors on supervisory rather than alarm.
 
7. When a duct detector activates, can it shut down just that unit or do you require all units to be shutdown?
  → Note: To my understanding, this is just a preference. Not a huge deal either way unless we’re talking about a massive building or building complex where all units shutting down would be very uncomfortable and problematic.
 
SECURITY / KNOX BOX
8. Do you require a Knox Box?
  → Note: There’s likely a code path for this, but it’s not something I’ve hunted down to date. Most jurisdictions can readily answer this.
 
9. Is the Knox Box required to tie to the fire alarm system?
  → Note: These can be monitored by the fire alarm system. Most jurisdictions don’t require them to be monitored, but some will in areas that have higher crime rates.
 
FIRE SUPPRESSION - FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION*
10. Do you mandate a maximum distance from a fire department connection to a nearest hydrant?
  → Note: Some jurisdictions care, others less so. There’s (to my knowledge) not a mandated distance, but some jurisdictions will require as close as 50 ft and others as far away as 400 ft.
 
11. Can the FDC be mounted on the building’s street-facing exterior wall, or does it have to be located remotely from the building?
  → Note: As a designer, my strong preference is to have the FDC on the building to save cost, protect the pipe from freezing, protect the pipe from mechanical damage, keep it clear from snow, and keep it easier to inspect, maintain, or repair. Operationally, depending on the building and the site, some departments are not going to want to send firefighters to the building face and would rather have a remote connection for some applications.
 
12. What type of FDC do you use [Dual-Inlet 2-1/2” / 4” Storz / 5” Storz]?
 
13. Do you require locking caps on the FDC?
  → Note: Some jurisdictions will have locking caps to prevent people from shoving debris, trash, or other ‘items’ into FDCs, and to prevent theft of the caps. Many areas have no need for locking caps.
 
BACKFLOW*
14. What type of backflow preventer do you require [double check, double check detector, RPZ, or RPZ detector]? We [will/will not] have antifreeze or chemical additives in the system.
  → Note: Some jurisdictions, like fire departments, may not want to answer this because it’s under the building or water department. But most are familiar with the requirements anyways. Some places require RPZs for everything fire protection (like an Illinois state mandate). By code, RPZs are required if an antifreeze system is used, or if chemical additives are added to the system (such as corrosion inhibitors like Vapor Pipe Shield).
 
15. We intend to locate the backflow inside the building. Is this acceptable?
  → Note: This is a designer preference for longevity of the backflow, protection from damage and tampering, protection from freezing, service, maintenance, and cost. Some owners may want the floor space or jurisdictions might require it to be outside (though I don’t know why).
 
16. [If a double check is allowed, allowed to be inside, and there is only a single zone] We intend to use a backflow preventer that’s listed for a vertical orientation. Is it acceptable to install it vertically?
  → Note: RPZs have to be horizontal. If we have single-zone systems, designers generally prefer to use a ‘shotgun’ approach and save floor space. This is usually fine.
 
HYDRAULICS*
17. Do you mandate a safety factor for fire sprinkler systems?
  → Note: This is a topic that is book-worthy. NFPA 13 has no mandate other than to account for seasonal and daily fluctuation. It could be argued that a safety factor is implicit within NFPA 13. But to save everyone’s time and scrutiny, a simple 5 PSI or 10% safety factor tends to be common practice. Too high a safety factor isn’t necessarily a good thing because it could lead to needing a fire pump that introduces many new points of failure or could add unnecessary cost to a system.
 
18. Does your department conduct flow tests, can we conduct a flow test, or are those done by the water department?
  → Note: This is just practice-based by jurisdiction. Some don’t allow flow tests at all and use water modeling (California).
 
INSPECTOR'S TEST*
19. [If there are only wet systems] We usually locate the inspector’s test at the riser, which NFPA 13 allows for wet systems. Do you require it to be located remotely?
  → Note: If this is a dry or pre-action system, then the inspector’s test must be remote. If it’s wet, it’s allowed to be at the riser. That said, some jurisdictions have a preference which we’d want to accommodate here.
 
WATERFLOW*
20. Do you want a horn/strobe, or electric bell on the outside of the building for waterflow?
  → Note: Just a jurisdictional preference. Either of these are easier to accommodate than a water motor gong which had been the tradition for some time.
 
21. Is exterior access required for the sprinkler riser room?
  → Note: These are usually on the outside of the building since the water service entry cannot go more than 10 ft underneath the building without open trenches, per NFPA 13, but sprinkler riser rooms don’t always have an exterior door.
 
SITE
22. Just a few more questions. Do you require a post-indicating valve? There are no code mandates for one.
  → Note: Some jurisdictions want them, many don’t care. Just an opportunity to coordinate it early here.
 
23. Is Fire Flow ok to be determined using the International Fire Code Appendix B, or do you have some other method to calculate it?
  → Note: Fire Flow is wildly misunderstood and falls through the cracks of design scope. As a result, many jurisdictions don’t pay attention to it or aren’t familiar with it. If they don’t know or don’t care, Appendix B is a fine approach to use.
 
FIRE PUMP*
24. We have a fire pump on this project. Do you consider the electric power supply to be Reliable or not?
  → Note: NFPA 70 has specifics on how power is considered to be reliable or not. There are formal definitions, but it’s up to the AHJ on whether they consider the power utility at the site to be reliable or not. If it’s a point of contention or needing clarification, it’s worth spending time here because the cost to go from an electric fire pump to a diesel or add a generator can be substantial.
 
STANDPIPES*
25. We intend to have a [wet/dry manual/semi-automatic/automatic] standpipe system for this building, using [Class I 2½” / Class II / Class III] hose connections.
  → Note: In sticky projects using dry standpipes or high-rises, the type needs to be coordinated. In basic non-high-rise situations, a wet manual system is fairly straightforward, so it’s not a question as much as a coordination point.
 
26. We intend to locate hose connections on the floor level landings of stairs. Is that acceptable?
  → Note: The IBC and NFPA 14 have jogged back and forth on this, but they now correlate on the main-floor-level landings of stairways for hose connections. AHJs are permitted to require intermediate-level landings in both the IBC and NFPA 14, though, so it’s an important coordination point.
 
Thank you SO much for your time. Any questions for me, or anything else you feel I should have asked?


YOUR TURN
Alright - it's all out there - what would you tweak?

If you’re an AHJ, how can I better ask the question?

How can I better clarify the intent of the question?

What am I missing? Would absolutely love your commentary below. Your input can make this new collaborate tool much more helpful and hopefully impactful for the industry as we launch it and hopefully move things forward.

See you in the comments ↓↓

- Joe 

This week, we're featuring a segment that comes from our MeyerFire University platform. This one is just one of 900+ that make up MeyerFire University.

It answers a fundamental question that many life safety consultants and electrical and fire protection engineers encounter at some point: where do we need exit signs?

Unlike sprinkler or strobe locations, placing exit signs leans more towards the 'performance' end of the spectrum rather than purely 'prescriptive,' where there's a little more art to the process than straight numbers.

For this one, Fire Protection Engineer Steven Barrett takes the reins and explains a walkthrough example.

Want more like this?

If these types of segments would be helpful for you or your team, join us at www.meyerfireuniversity.com (it's more affordable than you think), and be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel as well.​

Thanks and have a great rest of your week!

​- Joe

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.​

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:

• Group B: Lithium-ion or lithium metal battery testing, research, and development
• Group F-1 (moderate hazard factory, industrial): ESS and equipment containing lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries, or occupancies with lithium-ion batteries or vehicles powered by lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries, are classified as F-1.
• Group S-1: Storage of lithium-ion or lithium metals, or vehicle repair garages for vehicles using lithium-ion or lithium-metal batteries, would be classified as 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. 

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:

• Group B: Throughout fire areas of laboratories involving research, development, or testing of lithium-ion of lithium metal batteries.
• Group F-1: Throughout the building for occupancies that manufacture lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries, or manufacture vehicles, and ESS containing lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries.
• Group M: In the room or space within a Group M occupancy where required for the storage of lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries, per IFC Section 320 or Chapter 32.
• Group S-1: Throughout the building where fire areas used for repair garages or the storage of lithium-ion or lithium metal powered vehicles exceeds 500 square feet.

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

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:

• Incidental Use Table 509.1: There were a few entries in Ambulatory and Group I occupancies that previously required a 1-hour separation only, and have been updated to require a 1-hour separation and an automatic sprinkler system.
• A new table is included (Table 307.1.1), which outlines specifically what sort of materials are exempt from Group H occupancy classifications, although still regulated by the Fire Code.

• Chapter 9 has a revision for the use of NFPA 13R systems. Previously, the permission to use NFPA 13R applied to all Group R occupancies. Among other restrictions, it limited the highest floor of the Group R occupancy to 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Now in 2024, for Group R-2 occupancies only, the measurement is to the roof assembly, and is limited to 45 feet.  If you don’t do a lot of residential work, Group R-2 is generally multi-family residential buildings like apartments, condos, and dorms.
• A change was made to the waterflow alarming in Section 903.4.3. Previously the waterflow device requirement was audible only, and now this alarm is required to be audible and visible.
• Section 904 for Alternative Extinguishing Systems now has a reference to NFPA 770 for hybrid fire extinguishing systems.
• Section 905.4 for Standpipe Systems has been revised to explicitly include exterior exit stairways, rather than just interior, in the hose connection location requirements.
• Changes to manual fire alarm system thresholds for Group A-5 outdoor bleacher-type seating, providing relief in certain situations where a public address system is provided, among other requirements.

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:

• Group B: Throughout fire areas of laboratories involving research, development, or testing of lithium-ion of lithium metal batteries.
• Group F-1: Throughout the fire area for occupancies that manufacture lithium-ion and lithium-metal batteries, or manufacture vehicles, and ESS containing lithium-ion and lithium metal batteries.
• Group M: In the room or space within a Group M occupancy where required for the storage of lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries, per IFC Section 320 or Chapter 32.
• Group S-1: Throughout the fire area where required for the storage of lithium-ion or lithium metal batteries per Section 320 of the IFC.

Once we get into Chapter 10 for Means of Egress, one notable change includes:

• New exception for eliminating low-level exit signs in NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R sprinklered Group R-1 occupancies. Again, for those of us who don’t do lots of Group R work, that’s transient lodging like hotels, motels, and resorts. 

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!