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 

One of the things that frustrates me to no end about our industry are bad specifications.

If you want to skip the story and dive right to the end – my ask today is that you comment below on what you would want an automated tool to check for when it reviews a set of specifications?

In other words, what issues have you found in specifications in the past that you would want an ideal tool to check for?

I’M GUILTY, TOO
Before I dive deeper and sound preachy, I have two disclaimers:

1. I am not above making poor specifications and I’m confident that I’ve issued bad specifications as a consultant – so I’m absolutely not above the violators I harp on here - and
2. If you are a consultant and care about the quality of your work output (true quality – as in doing quality work that helps foster a smooth project) – let me be clear that this is not directed at you. If you care to improve your work quality over time, you’re clearly not in the camp that I’m talking about today. The bad offenders, honestly, don't care - and it shows in their work.

WHAT MAKES A BAD SPECIFICATION?
What makes a bad fire protection specification?

The most dangerous is probably direction which would not meet code minimum. Ambiguity or conflicting information makes bidding difficult. Mandating things which don’t exist for the rest of the industry (such as velocity limitations in hydraulic calculations) can be unnerving and increase cost unnecessarily. Some of the most obvious parts of a bad specification are mandates for products or manufacturers that no longer exist.

The goal of a good specification is the same as the plans – clear, unambiguous communication of what is included and not included in a scope of work.

LITTLE RECOURSE
After a project is awarded, a contractor naturally has very little leverage to change the scope of work.
Perhaps there are cost-savings options that may be asked of a contractor.

Perhaps there’s a change in the project that opens up opportunities to revisit early design decisions.

But essentially, after contract award, there’s not a whole lot of leverage against complying with a bad set of specifications.

How do we address bad sets of bid documents in our industry?

If it’s life threatening and/or egregious, perhaps we could turn people into the governing boards. But how often is that done? How useful is it to permanently burn a bridge for reporting someone that may not even have any consequence?

The answer from those I speak with is almost never.

Consultants who don’t care about fire protection continue to issue plans and specifications, mostly the same as they always have, with little concern or incentive to change.

OUR INITIATIVE
Part of creating the community here is recognizing that uplifting everyone makes our industry better.

More knowledgeable contractors mean better detailed design and installations.

More knowledgeable plan review and inspectors means better policing and better final results across the board.

More knowledgeable consultants means that projects flow smoother, owners get what they need, and projects are more timely and on-budget.

Part of our responsibility here is to uplift the industry by sharing best practices and making helpful information & tools available that help us all do work better.

We have the educational piece (MeyerFire University), we have shorthand tools and cheatsheets. I write posts here. I have ideas in the works on helping improve access to basic, quality sets of specifications.

But what about now - as in today?

What is the best possible way to actually address a bad set of specifications that will get in the way of a smooth project?
 
PRE-BID RFIs
In my opinion, the most underutilized and best way to help foster a smooth project is challenging the scope before bid with a pre-bid RFI.

Pre-Bid RFIs (Request for Information) is a documented way to ask questions about the scope of a project before it is bid.
These can give an opportunity for a consultant to check their work, check their assumptions, give an opportunity to make a change if necessary, or give a chance to clarify an aspect of the scope.

Consultants can choose to play ball – help clarify the job on what should and shouldn’t be included. They can make changes if necessary, and allow bidders to bid apples-to-apples.

Contractors can also choose not to play – perhaps double down on the (incorrect) mantra of “this is the contractor’s responsibility to determine”, or something similar.

In either case, whether answered or not, Pre-Bid RFIs give the bidders either the information they seek or have greater permission (leverage?) to do as they see fit regarding the scope of the project.
 
SO MORE WORK FOR ME, JOE?
Crafting a good pre-bid RFI historically isn’t the easiest thing, though.

First – the writer has to digest enough of the project to write something coherent and competent – meaning they need to spend time looking through everything.

Second – pre-bid RFIs can sometimes have the presumption that a contractor is causing issues before they’re even on the job. This all comes down to the tone, silly as it might sound. If the pre-bid RFI is accusatory, that’s one thing. But if it’s written to help streamline a smooth project for everyone – then that’s a win for everyone.

Third – and perhaps the reason that pre-bid RFIs don’t happen as often as they should, is simply time. Bid days are time crunches. There’s a lot on the line. Going out of your way to clarify a project when you’re already on a time crunch can be tough.

This is the piece I’d like to help solve, and I think we can with some of your input.
 
THE CONCEPT
What if we had an automated tool that read a set of specifications and generated a helpful, appropriate, Pre-Bid RFI for your project?

While you’re reviewing the specifications and putting together your estimate, you do a 3-step copy and paste into ChatGPT (or something similar) that checks a whole host of specification issues and writes a Pre-Bid RFI for you?

You could have the time savings (huge), but also have AI do the work for checking for the 30 or 50 or 80 things that have been issues in the past – all stemming from specifications.

How convenient would that be?
 
If we could take the onus off of reporting bad players to state boards and instead focused on finding clean, appropriate, and easy ways to help make a project smoother for everyone – without adding any time burden – well that would be nothing short of awesome.
 
What I want to do from here is write a prompt and a step-by-step that I can share back with you all, that incorporates your list of grievances.

Essentially – everyone then has access to an easy way to gut-check specifications and get a custom-written Pre-Bid RFI out of it.

I need your input though to make it as useful for you as possible:
 
WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM ME JOE?
What I would love your input on is your answer to the following:

What have you seen in a specification that was clearly wrong which negatively impacted your project?

What have you found in a specification that makes bidding difficult, isn’t code compliant, or hurts the project?

I’m looking to create a list of checks that AI can do, for you, when it only has access to a project’s specification.

Comment below and let me know your thoughts – and in the next few weeks I’ll test and share a prompt and provide instructions back with you on how to use it. ​

Until I did some research recently, I hadn’t realized that NFPA 72 breaks out different definitions for Unwanted Alarms by fire alarm systems.

In a way, as an FPE I always kind of shuttered and turned a blind eye to the reality of how much of the rest of the world views fire alarm systems – as a nuisance.

Imagine yourself flipping through a book that you’ve pulled off the shelf at the library. It’s quiet; the librarian shushers are about and keeping the noise down. Then suddenly the fire alarm system activates – it’s loud, startling, What is the first thing that comes to mind when this happens?

As a fire person, I jump into detective investigator mode. I understand what kind of inputs would trigger an alarm, so I’m naturally very curious on what might have happened.

But what about the ‘Average Joe?’

If it’s a calm library on a quiet afternoon, are they in a rush to leave? Or is their first thought “it’s probably a false alarm?”

I can tell you by experience that unless there is another signal, like the smell of smoke, sight of smoke, or others moving quickly – most will pay attention and mostly ignore the alarm. They assume it’s a false alarm until they have evidence that suggests otherwise.

FALSE ALARMS DON'T REFLECT WELL 
This is really bad for our industry. The prevalence of false (unwanted) alarms makes people apathetic to the alarm in the first place, and it reflects poorly on us.

Is the reduction of false alarms more important than detecting an actual fire event? Of course not. We need these systems to detect and alert us that something is up.

But as a downstream effect or a lesser-priority, we also should pay attention to finding ways to reduce unwanted alarms. We want our systems to be trusted and we want people to react when they someday do activate.

WE JUST TALKING IT&M? 
Much can be said about regular inspection, testing, and maintenance of the system. Old and dirty smoke detectors can certainly cause alarm when there isn’t a hazardous condition.

But from the very beginning, we can help prevent unwanted alarms by design. That’s something that designers, engineers, plan reviewers and inspectors can help prevent from the very beginning.
 
BRAINSTORMING IDEAS
I don’t have all the answers here, but I would like to start the dialogue and open discussion on clever ideas that help reduce unwanted alarm.

NFPA 72 has a list of terms that fall under Unwanted Alarm, which is any alarm that is not the result of a potentially hazardous condition.

It lists Malicious Alarm (person acting will ill-intent), Nuisance Alarm (alarm by a non-hazardous condition), Unintentional Alarm (person triggers but by accident), and Unknown (no known cause).
 
My gut says that Malicious and Nuisance are the most preventable. How can we discourage someone from activating an alarm as a prank (Malicious), and how can we reduce Nuisance Alarms where there is no actual threat?
 
Here is my shortlist – I am very interested in your tips and takes on additional ideas to avoid Unwanted Alarms by design.
 
#1 REMOVE MANUAL PULL STATIONS (WHERE ALLOWED)
The most-accessible method for an occupant to activate a fire alarm system is with a manual pull station. The IBC (most commonly-adopted model code in the US) has exceptions to remove manual pull stations for fully-sprinklered buildings.

When this exception is offered, it’s worth considering.

Many new construction projects require fully-sprinklered buildings anyways, so eliminating the exposure for a pull station in a highly populated area would reduce the potential for pranks.
 
That being said, always consider the alternative. Are we talking about a middle or high school situation, or a hospital? Is it a dormitory, which is all-but-guaranteed to have a 2am alarm activation during Finals week? Or is it a critical care facility where there are multiple patients who cannot self evacuate?

Manual Pull Stations do have their purpose and place in the industry; so we still want to consider the context and purpose for them.

One important note that’s often missed – using the exception to remove manual pull stations doesn’t remove all of them in a building. One pull station must still be installed “at an approved location,” just not at all exits.
 
#2 USE DUAL-ACTION PULL STATIONS
If we can’t, or don’t want, to eliminate manual pull stations at all exits – then let’s think about securing them.

Can we make the pull stations a little more involved to activate?

Would going from a single-action (just pull down) to dual-action (push in and pull down) help prevent accidental activations?

It’s possible, though I personally haven’t seen data to suggest it. I can’t imagine a teenager being discouraged by a minor additional action if they already plan to activate a system.

But could it prevent a tall and curious five year old from activating the system? Possibly.

Going from single-action to dual-action isn’t a notable cost difference, so this would be fairly easy to execute.

If you have data on this – be sure to chime in in the comments.
 
#3 PIEZO COVER FOR MANUAL PULL STATIONS
Now “Prank” isn’t a formal term here, or at least not yet.

But many of my personal experiences with false alarms was during college in the dormitories.

How can we make activating a pull station troublesome for someone who is actively looking to empty a 1,000-person dormitory as a “prank”?

One way is to put covers with a piezo alarm on the pull station itself. The piezo buzzes as soon as the cover is lifted, which draws attention to the location.

If someone is activating the system during an actual fire, the logic is that they shouldn’t be deterred by a buzzer.

​But someone who’s trying to “get away” with something? Maybe the attention is a deterrent.

#4 VIDEO MONITOR PULL STATIONS AT EXITS
Perhaps a better long-term solution isn’t a buzzer but a security camera at the location. If exits are already being monitored for security in that area, why not get a camera placed to include the pull station?

If it’s much harder to avoid discipline, perhaps the security camera acts as a deterrent.

While this might sound expensive – just imagine how many malicious alarms happen in some occupancies?

The cost, time and effort of fire departments responding to calls that should have never been placed in the first place?

It’s extremely disruptive and very well could lead to fines too. Addressing some of this upfront, when the building is being designed or renovated, could have lasting financial benefit to the owner.
 
#5 SIGNAGE AT MANUAL PULL STATIONS
Along the line of logic for security cameras – what about the threat of security cameras?

Even just basic and clear signage right above the pull station of “SMILE, YOU’RE ON CAMERA” would be an inexpensive but potentially effective way of deterring bad players.

Having a reminder for consequences may just be as effective even if a camera is not actively recording.

If you’re a graduate student and looking for a research paper – maybe test this out and let us know.
 
#6 SMOKE DETECTOR LOCATION
Thus far we’ve focused on manual pull stations, and that’s because they’re the most easily-recognized way for anyone to activate the system.

But what about the nuisance alarm?

Perhaps the most front-of-mind false alarm is burned popcorn activating a nearby smoke alarm.

Why is that smoke alarm there in the first place?

Well, typically in homes, smoke alarms are required within sleeping areas, just outside of sleeping areas, and on each floor level. Similar requirements are found for residential occupancies. The IBC is explicit in the areas that need smoke detectors or smoke alarms in Section 907.2.

If a smoke detector is required in the area, how can we improve the situation?

Can we shift the location to be as far-away from cooking sources as possible, but still be along the path of egress that we’re seeking to satisfy the IBC and NFPA 72?

Many times it seems that during design, the smoke detector is just a hex with an “S” on it. It’s just a symbol that gets popped wherever there’s blank space on the CAD plan (I’m guilty of this).

We need to be better than that.

If a smoke alarm or smoke detector is anywhere near cooking appliances (stoves, microwaves, ovens) – then let’s get those detectors further away but still meet code.

That extra distance means that normal cooking exhaust is going to diffuse and be less likely to trigger the smoke alarm.

Here again – think about context, what we’re monitoring, and what we’re trying to achieve with the detection in the area.
 
#7 USE THE UL 268 7TH EDITION
One of my favorite improvements concerning smoke detection is that the UL 268 Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, recently added a specific test, informally called the “Hamburger Test,” that requires a smoke detector or smoke alarm to not activate under specific cooking conditions.

On a side note, the 7th Edition also includes a test for correctly responding to burning foam, which better matches modern furniture padding material. 

These additional requirements have come into play with the 7th Edition, which is now mandated for newly manufactured smoke alarm and smoke detectors.

This is a huge step in the right direction to trigger less nuisance alarms.

If we have the opportunity to install or specify UL 268 7th Edition detectors, that might be a major value-add for the owner. I don’t know the current status of availability or whether the manufacturers have caught up to the requirement yet, but the 7th Edition of the standard is currently mandated for new devices.
 
YOUR EXPERIENCE
​What tips do you have?

What are some practical considerations you make when designing or reviewing fire alarm systems?

If you’re an AHJ, consider kindly advising owners or designers to consider these things by passing along the “lessons learned” can have a tremendous value to the owner. They can say no where it’s not code-required, but having been in the consulting space I’m incredibly appreciative of tips to consider that is in the interest of the owner.

Comment below with your tips or ideas that you like.
 
As always, thanks for being part of the community here!

Awhile back I wrote a piece on sprinklers in electrical rooms. At the time I was asked relatively frequently about when sprinklers are required or allowed to be omitted in electrical rooms.
 
I guess intuitively, we recognize that electricity and water don’t mix well. We don’t want to address one problem (fire) by creating a new hazard (electrocution) with water in areas that it doesn’t have to be.
 
In principle, I personally have just about always provided sprinklers in electrical rooms unless they were specifically requested not to be provided by the owner or AHJ; and in those cases, I followed the code path in the IBC or NFPA 13 accordingly.
 
It seems as though the premise behind not including sprinklers is when the type of electrical equipment present a relatively low hazard or fuel source, and there is no storage. In that situation, a combination of 2-hour fire-resistance-rated enclosure with approved fire detection (assuming a smoke and/or heat detector here) will mean that a fire within the room will be recognized, and the rest of the building will not be compromised as a result.
 
Providing pipe within an electrical room isn’t always an easy feat. NFPA 70 tells us that electrical equipment requires dedicated zones, and pipe shouldn’t be run above panels without drip pans or other methods of avoiding drip hazards above electrical equipment.

Now are sprinklers in electrical rooms problematic? Generally not (in my experience).
 
Can pipe routing be made to avoid electrical equipment? Usually yes. I try to only run one branch line into the room, most often above the door (since no electrical equipment is on the door), and stick pipe only above walking pathways within the room.

Does the code or standards express any concern or guidance on this? Yes, both the IBC and NFPA 13 address the situation.
​
One line that is included in the IBC specifically says that sprinklers “shall not be omitted from any room merely because it...contains electrical equipment”. To me, that’s a fairly explicit way of suggesting that the presence of electrical equipment alone isn’t a justification for omitting sprinklers. Now there are code allowances and necessary provisions to do so, but the suggestion is not to simply avoid sprinklers just because there is electrical gear.
 
Despite it being awhile since that article, I have had a few requests to make this one into a flowchart, which I’m happy to present today. A special thank you to Alex Riley, PE, who contributed to the code research for this flowchart.

Wow a lot has changed in a week. We're holding on fine here, but I hope you and your family are safe and healthy wherever you are.

Now back to more fun things like fire protection - 

After last week's debut of fire sprinkler requirements for elevators, I had a couple emailed requests for a fire alarm version. I love the idea and put some time into reviewing and organizing the requirements on the fire alarm side.

This first iteration is a draft, and if you're well versed in this arena I'd love for you to take a look and let me know what you think. Feel free to email me directly at [email protected], or comment on it here.

In the upcoming week I plan to incorporate ASME A17.1 and it's impact on the fire alarm side of accounting for elevators, hence the big [DRAFT] watermark on this PDF. 

Click on the image below to get a PDF copy of the Fire Alarm Elevator Cheatsheet:

If you know anyone that could benefit from this content, please consider forwarding them a link.

Hope you have a safe and healthy rest of your week! Thanks for reading.

On every project containing fire alarm design I come across the same question repeatedly - does this unit require a duct detector?

In short, there's two prevailing standards that determine whether duct detection is required. The first (and most common in the United States), is the International Mechanical Code (IMC). Section 606.2 identifies areas where smoke detection is required for the purpose of mechanical unit shutdown.

The other prevailing standard is NFPA 90A, the Standard for Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems. I'll address those requirements in a later post.

Back to the question at hand - there's essentially six different scenarios a mechanical unit can fall into under the International Mechanical Code. These do not include the requirement for multi-level duct risers over 15,000 CFM, but rather whether an individual unit requires detection at the unit.

​Here is a quick cheatsheet summary concerning those scenarios:
​

If you review or design fire alarm systems regularly, take a look and let me know what you think. 

If you know someone who might also benefit from cheatsheets like this, send them a link or tell them to subscribe here.

Hope you find this helpful and have a great rest of your week!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I was six years old, I came home from school unexpectedly excited one day.

I ran up our driveway, pushed wide the door and yelled to my mom.

“You won’t believe it! There’s this place at school where you can go through shelves and shelves of books and pick out anyone you want – 
and it’s free! They call it a library.”

It wasn’t one of my mom’s proudest parenting moments, but in our house, we never pretended to be great readers… or apparently even pretended to introduce kids to a library.

I guess I’ll just come out and say it… Both of my parents are accountants.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, and yes, the accountants are where my well-rounded sense of humor comes from.

But there’s another big benefit to having parents as accountants – 
and it’s having a love for spreadsheets.

I’m not sure if little excel formulas naturally run through my veins or whether it was every family calendar my parents ever created, but one way or another I thoroughly appreciate the power a spreadsheet has.

Even if your parents are not both CPAs, there’s a place for Microsoft Excel in your engineering life.

For one, Microsoft Excel is not called
the “Swiss Army Knife of Software” for naught. Excel is a blank canvas for any calculation you need to make. You can quickly create and repeat repetitive calculations to speed up and organize your workflow. You can complete reports, forms, create charts, tables, organize content, or use any of a myriad of highly powerful tools.

Here are a few of my most often used formulas:
​

• =concatenate(cell,”psi")      Will combine strings from any combination of cells or text, in this case cell A1 and psi
• =lookup(cell,range)             Will lookup a value in a cell against a table. Great for quick reference calculators.
• =vlookup(cell,range,column number,match)    Will lookup a value in a table and return adjacent results
• =if(test,value if true,value if false)     Determines a logical test and returns different values on the outcome.
• =countif(range,value)          Will count specific items in a list if they match criteria.

That’s pretty much all of my secret sauce. About 95% of the tools created combine those formulas alongside mathematical operators (like max(), min(), sin(), sqrt(), etc.).
​
One of the best parts about using Excel is that you may already have access to it. If your company has a Microsoft Office suite (or what’s now their subscription model with Office 365), you already have access to these tools.

Creating helpful resources is what we’re all about, and Excel is the epitome of giving you, the rockstar designer or engineer, the ability to create and flourish with the tools you need. 

You didn’t get into the industry to do poor, sloppy work. You came here to help save lives. We shouldn’t have to wait for programmers to create the daily tools we need to do great work. Excel is one way you can organize and validate the great work you do.

There came a point near the end of my undergraduate work and at the beginning of graduate school where I realized I needed to create a clean, organized method to show details within calculations. The method I slowly developed needed a single logic path, had to be easy to follow, would thoroughly explain the process, and had to allow the easy repetition of the work.

What’s resulted is the standard format that’s used in the PE Prep Guide and on many of the tools you’ll see around this site. Concepts are researched, painstakingly created, tested, refined, tested, refined, beta tested, and refined more.
​

If you’ve followed the blog for a while, you already know the blog, daily forum, and even the PE prep materials are all created to help foster discussion that leads to shared expertise and knowledge.

Outside of a few major players and organizations, the fire protection industry is comprised of thousands of thousands of small outfits that welcome this shared expertise. Our industry thrives on the contributions from a wide spread of individual parties.

​Don’t let me or anyone else douse your enthusiasm to create resources that improve your ability to impact the industry. 

Keep on keepin’ on. 

​Oh and remember to take your kids to the library. 

I've heard from a handful of people to be sure to explore topics other than just fire suppression. I agree! There will be plenty more to come.

It only seems appropriate after discussing the fire suppression cheatsheet and the code call cheatsheet in the last few weeks to also compile the latest cheatsheet I have for fire alarm design.

Here's a blank cheatsheet and an example:

If you're already using the Toolkit this is now available for download with today's update. Just log in here to get it.

Along with having all of your design decisions documented for a project (or flagging the open items still left to figure out), perhaps the most important piece is how quickly you're now able to record your notes.

​If you don't see the video recording below, click here for a YouTube video of how quick notes can be recorded.

Share

MeyerFire was created to help you shine in fire protection. Know someone who might be interested in these tools or articles? Email a friend with a link today. Thanks for being a part of the effort towards better fire protection!

Unless you're tuned in as an AHJ yourself, you've likely made a few "code calls" to a code authority and asked a litany of questions to make sure your project's design meets the local requirements.

I'm not even sure if the term "code call" is a common term, but I've heard it enough that I suspect you already know what I'm talking about regardless of where you call home.

I enjoy this process now, but I didn't always. Fresh out of school I'm pretty sure I was visibly shaking the time I first made a code call. I was sure that within seconds my cover would be blown and it would be all too obvious that I had no idea what I was talking about. Despite my awkwardness (I make a good engineer, right??) nothing went sour and since then I've slowly learned and repeated many many times.

There was even one of my favorite code calls that I made about an elementary school to coordinate local fire alarm requirements. It was only right after the call late on a Friday afternoon that I found out that the fire marshal I just spoke with was hired onto our team and was starting the following Monday. They say fire protection is a small world, right? He turned out to be one of the most knowledgeable people I know and one of my favorite people to work alongside. 

The Joys & Pains of Code Calls

Code calls also come in many different flavors.

Sometimes I'm just shocked by how friendly and helpful code authorities are. I once made a call at 15 minutes till 5pm on a Friday to a small town in Arkansas, thinking I would just leave a voicemail. After my questions, I asked if the department conducted flow tests, and while he said they did, he apologized that because of a prior commitment he couldn't do it then but would be happy to do it first thing Monday morning. I almost fell out of my chair. Very helpful and caring people in this field.

On the contrary, sometimes the hardest part about a code call is just finding the right person to speak with who is actually responsible for plan review of fire protection systems and getting a few minutes of their time. Not to pick on New York City because I love the people there and speak with a handful of you regularly, but if you're trying to get a hold of someone to verify or coordinate a few particulars of your system... well... good luck! Maybe it's because they knew I can't stand the Yankees.

I also sometimes get AHJs who simply say all they do is 'per code' and they aren't interested in talking specifics. The whole point of the call is filling in the gaps where a code or standard does not direct but rather defers decisions to the AHJ.

Want a siamese fire department connection with national thread, or a Storz-type? Either way is code compliant. As an engineer I can make either way work.

Is a wall-mounted FDC permissible, or does it need to be freestanding? Either location is compliant, but NFPA 13 says the location needs to be coordinated with the AHJ. 

The Cheatsheet

What I've gathered and refined over hundreds of code calls is my cheatsheet I currently use today. Just like the design cheatsheet, if you're using the Toolkit you can quickly highlight categories for your record keeping.

What's even better about this tool, though, is that you can quickly fill in the content (while on the call) and then right after save as a PDF and email to the AHJ themselves. Want them to have a record of the call and a quick way to verify your notes? Great! You now have a logged code call and the AHJ has an opportunity to review your notes.

The process of calling, taking notes, and composing the email used to take close to an hour total. This tool alone brings that total time to about 15-20 minutes. That's three-quarters of an hour you could save on every job you make the call! 

A Radical Big-Picture Concept

One of my longer big-picture ideas to help the industry is to beta test and, if successful, open up a larger code-call database. I envision this as a database that brings designers and code authorities together to make local requirements clear and help jurisdictions get installations that reflect their preferences and mandates.

Want to know what hydraulic safety factor is required for sprinkler systems in Springfield, Illinois? Great - a quick query in the database reveals that and a clean list of other local requirements. 

Want to know what type and location for FDC's that Tucson, Arizona requires? Great, we'd have that too.

This would clearly have a huge value for designers and engineers - but what I'm really curious about is how to incentivize code authorities to take the survey or help us populate the database. If you're an AHJ, email me ([email protected]) or comment below about whether you'd be open to the idea of making your local requirements public in a database. 

I would have to think that AHJ input would only help local authorities get installations that match their needs - but I also know that getting action out of anyone is only possible with mutual benefit and sometimes incentives.

Just like the Design Cheatsheet posted a couple weeks ago, this form is integrated into the updated version of the MeyerFire Toolkit ready for download today. Below is a blank and filled-in template.

​If you're already a Toolkit user, you can download the code call cheatsheet today by logging in here. If you're not using the Toolkit, you might consider joining in on what's quickly becoming what some consider the best tool for fire sprinkler design under $200. See more about it here.

The Questions on My List

The current code call checklist I use today has had items added and scratched over years of finding out what's important and what questions always get the same answers. 

​That being said, there's no real one defined list that matches everyone's preferences. What questions do you ask that you feel are important to the design that's not explicit in code? Comment below.

Join the Cause

​Our line of work in helping save lives and property is extremely important, but you already know that. This site is built to help you excel in fire protection. If you're not already subscribed to these free weekly resources & articles, you can do so here for free.