|
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.  A new code call resource for designers and AHJs to better coordinate local requirements is in the works. 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
14 Comments
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 | Technical Director at MeyerFire These are exciting times in ESS Safety Land! The much-anticipated 2026 edition of NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems was made available last Thursday, ahead of schedule. You can read the new edition on NFPA Link now. NFPA 855 RELEVANCE If you don’t know what NFPA 855 is, it’s the ESS standard, first published in 2020, which is now on its third edition. The codes have been changing rapidly to keep up with the fire and explosion hazards of ESS, and although not outright adopted in most jurisdictions, NFPA 855 sets the standard for protection of ESS. Because NFPA makes the drafts, proceedings of the Technical Committee, and the results of voting in the Conference Technical Session available to the public, we’ve had some previews about what the new code would include. The changes I was looking forward to learning about were those that would impact project designs and the level of involvement that fire protection engineers should have in project documentation, such as hazard mitigation analyses and emergency response plans. Having attended a lot of presentations on ESS in the past few years, the chatter was becoming quite loud that the current testing protocols were not going far enough, so it’s not surprising that new requirements were added there. I was also tuned into any changes in suppression requirements, having read through the motions that were to be voted on during this year’s Technical Session. I’m sure the full industry impact will develop as time goes on, but now that it’s in writing, let’s take a first pass at some of the new provisions that will impact the ESS landscape.  NEW BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES
First, NFPA 855 has been expanding the battery technologies that are specifically covered. This is important because there is a catchall entry for “All other battery technologies”, which can be conservative. So both the Threshold Quantities table in Chapter 1 and the Electrochemical ESS Technology-Specific Table in Chapter 9 have been updated with these new technologies. FIRE AND EXPLOSION TESTING First, the new 2026 edition of NFPA 855 has stricter fire and explosion testing protocols. Note that NFPA 855 refers to testing as “fire and explosion testing protocols” instead of just the “large-scale fire test” terminology that the IFC uses. The requirements are relocated from Section 9.1.5 to Section 9.2, and titled “Fire and Explosion Testing.” In 2023, the requirement stated: “Where required elsewhere in this standard, fire and explosion testing in accordance with 9.1.5 shall be conducted on a representative ESS in accordance with UL 9540A or equivalent test standard.” The 2026 requirement states: “Where required elsewhere in this standard, fire testing in accordance with Section 9.2 shall be conducted on a representative ESS in accordance with UL 9540A and large-scale fire testing to collect data for gas production at a cell level, thermal runaway propagation potential at a module level, and thermal runaway propagation potential between ESSs.” What has not changed is that not all ESS require fire and explosion testing, only when required elsewhere in the code, when we want to deviate from prescriptive requirements. Previously, these testing requirements really just pointed us to UL9540A, but now in 2026, the reference is to UL9540A and large-scale fire testing. What’s that about? UL9540A is the Test Method for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), which is a protocol for testing ESS, initiates thermal runaway at the cell, module, unit, and installation levels of an ESS product, and collects the resulting data to help evaluate the fire and explosion hazards. However, as currently written, if a product passes at a given level, the test concludes and does not have to proceed to the next level. The argument against stopping the test is that the data collected may not present a realistic fire scenario, and therefore cannot truly be considered “large-scale”. For example, if an external factor causes an incident, one that is not considered as part of the testing, then there is no data on how the ESS will perform in that scenario. Testing on ESS that does not proceed beyond the unit level does not provide any performance data in a larger failure scenario. The new wording in the 2026 edition requires the ESS to be tested per UL9540A and large-scale testing. Annex G has been expanded, and Section G.11 is “Guidance on Implementing a Large-Scale Fire Test (LSFT)”. No other test standard besides UL9540A is noted here, but expect that document to be revised to catch up with revisions in NFPA 855. Another addition to this section includes a requirement for ignition of vented gases in Section 9.2.1.2: Where cell thermal runaway results in the release of flammable gases during a cell- or module-level test, an additional unit-level test shall be conducted involving intentional ignition of the vent gases to assess the fire propagation hazard. Understanding what level of testing is expected by your jurisdiction will be a critical step in the ESS installation under NFPA 855-2026. HAZARD MITIGATION ANALYSIS Prior to 2026, there were several triggers requiring a Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) in NFPA 855, most notably as a mechanism to exceed the maximum stored energy limits in Chapter 9. These HMA triggers were located in Chapter 4, which are general requirements meant to apply to all situations. Now, Section 4.4.1 has been re-written more broadly to require an HMA by default, unless otherwise modified in the subsequent technology-specific chapters. What is the impact? Previously, if you had a situation where you exceeded the Threshold Quantities for a given battery technology in Chapter 1, but were below the Maximum Stored Energy Limits, no HMA was required. Now that is not true, and essentially all installations require an HMA, except as modified by the technology-specific chapters. Because there is no longer a benefit of staying below the Maximum Stored Energy limits, the table is removed in the 2026 edition. Although located in the Annex, the new edition also includes a recommendation that the HMA and fire risk assessment should be directed by a registered design professional. Put that PE license to work! FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENTS The changes made in Section 4.9 for Fire Control and Suppression are a little murkier. We are used to seeing a requirement for sprinklers as the default option, and alternate fire-extinguishing options may be permitted where they are supported by testing results. And to me, that’s how the 2023 edition read; sprinklers were the default option, and any other system type must have fire and explosion testing to support the design. There was a list of standards included for the following alternative system types: carbon dioxide (NFPA 12), water spray (NFPA 15), water mist (NFPA 750), hybrid water and inert gas (NFPA 770), clean agent (NFPA 2001), and aerosol (NFPA 2010). Now in 2026, some of the words were changed and removed. The word “alternate” is struck, and NFPA 13 is included in the list of Fire Control and Suppression Systems, essentially putting all the system types on equal footing. And the requirement to permit “other systems”, where supported by large-scale fire and explosion testing, was moved after the list of acceptable NFPA standards. To my reading, in 2023, the “other systems” were the alternative systems, but now, with the relocation of the requirement, the implication is that the use of those systems is not an alternative, and they are free to be used, without the use of large-scale fire and explosion testing to support their design. That was surprising to me, but I’d love to hear if that is consistent with the committee’s intent. I know it was the subject of a floor vote at June’s NFPA Technical Meeting, so I’d love to be enlightened if I am misinterpreting the changes. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING AND TRAINING NFPA 855 previous editions included Emergency Response Plan requirements in Section 4.3, but they’ve been revised in 2026 to require the plan to be developed with the AHJ and be submitted prior to training of required personnel. The reason I am highlighting this change is that I know a lot of times items like these can become a last-minute hot potato without a clear directive for who is responsible. But if you’re reading this far, you probably know a lot about ESS, so maybe it should be you! Sometimes it just takes a competent individual to work with stakeholders to develop a plan that satisfies local fire department requirements. As we dig further into the new NFPA 855, I’m sure we will uncover more changes that impact the ESS landscape. Annex G, for example, has been really developed to include a lot of helpful material. If you’re interested in this content, we have an upcoming course on MeyerFire University that will cover code provisions for ESS. See you there! By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director, MeyerFire Think State of the Union, but today I’m going to talk about the State of ESS in Fire Protection. So without further ado, members of the community, today I have the privilege and honor of discussing battery energy storage systems. Please clap. [Applause Please] Just kidding, but today I wanted to talk about where we are as a fire protection community with regards to the response to the widescale adoption of battery energy storage systems (BESS) practically everywhere. THERMAL RUNAWAY If you didn’t take my Introduction to ESS course (shameless plug for our recent course, Introduction to Energy Storage Systems), the primary risk that comes with BESS, particularly lithium-ion batteries, is their susceptibility to thermal runaway. Thermal runaway is a process resulting from a battery failure, where cells inside a battery undergo a rapid temperature increase and vent flammable gases, creating an explosion risk. The risk is proportional to the quantity of batteries in an installation, so you can imagine if we’re not even allowed to have lithium-ion batteries in our checked bags on airplanes, then enormous utility installations pose a substantially higher risk.  Thermal Runaway in Battery Cells The risk has been a part of our lives for years, so what are we learning about ESS? #1 THE FIRE RISK CAN BE LONG-LASTING. It can take large volumes of water to sufficiently extinguish and cool fires involving ESS, and due to the stranded energy in battery cells, re-ignition is a risk. Even battery cells that are not plugged into anything can still undergo thermal runaway, if they are abused. Emergency responders typically use thermal detectors to find any hot spots after a fire is extinguished, but it is critical to continue monitoring for longer than you’d think after a battery fire. Re-ignition can happen months after the fire! That’s long after the emergency responders have left, so there's a need to develop a protocol to monitor and prevent re-ignition. #2 REGULATION OF E-SCOOTERS, E-BIKES & OTHER MICROMOBILITY DEVICES In large cities where space is hard to come by and small lithium-ion batteries are everywhere, tighter regulation of micromobility devices is coming. In New York City, for example, the market has been flooded with low-cost and unsafe products, partially due to the rise of food delivery apps. The delivery workforce generally earns low wages, and there is no accountability from the app companies on the micromobility devices used. So the workforce is not motivated to purchase quality products, and the result is low-quality batteries being charged inside densely populated buildings. #3 SHIFTING PUBLIC PERCEPTION Public perception may start to shift. We’ve seen the videos of battery fires that include large plumes of smoke, and it’s hard not to imagine how local residents are faring. Public pushback about BESS projects has increased following recent fire incidents, and the path forward likely includes educating the public to ease their concerns. Even though the public directly benefits from lower electricity costs or stability of the utility grid, people are not willing to sacrifice safety and negatively impact their community. I’m not sure what that looks like, but it does seem like with any large project, developers have a responsibility to educate the people who are negatively impacted when there is an emergency situation. If you want to build in someone’s backyard, you’ve got to convince them that what you’re doing is safe, and is a benefit to them. Maybe that means highlighting training of your staff, the safety of the equipment you’re buying, or investing in local emergency responder equipment. CONSUMER SAFETY On the face of it, BESS safety is not just an area of concern for us as fire protection engineers, but as consumers as well. Lithium-ion batteries are in our cellphones, laptops, electric vehicles, solar panels, and e-bikes. It’s important to note that when we talk about energy storage systems, the IFC and NFPA 855 have a threshold of 20 kWh where these requirements kick in. For reference and speaking in rough orders of magnitude, a laptop battery might be 0.1 kWh, a phone might be 0.015 kWh, an electric scooter may be 1.5 kWh, EV’s may be up to 100 kWh, but a large Tesla Megapack that would be used in a utility grid installation is up to 4000 kWh, or 4 MWh.  A relative comparison of different energy storage capacities. Important to note the logarithmic scale used for storage capacity (vertical axis) The risk of thermal runaway exists in all of these products, but the impact is greater as the capacities increase. As a consumer, if it is an option you should always buy products that have a mark from a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). What does that mean? Without getting too far into the weeds, there are several organizations, the most prominent one being UL, that test consumer electronics including TV’s, computers, and even Christmas tree lights. When a product “bears the UL mark” it means it went through rigorous testing and complies with UL’s safety standards. That’s not saying there is no risk, but when we’re talking about a product which carries some inherent risk already, having a genuine product that complies with some standard of safety is even more important.  The UL mark. Look for this on your electronics! It may be tempting to buy the cheapest version of a product, but using non-certified products, or even worse, fake products, can increase the potential risk for fire. This is because those products haven’t been tested to safety standards and they do not necessarily meet those higher quality and safety thresholds. You should also follow all manufacturers’ guidance when it comes to temperature control, clearances, ventilation, and where and how to charge devices. We never want to charge these devices where they will block access to an exit. Thinking about where people who drive e-scooters might live, it’s probably in a densely occupied apartment structure, and where they may charge their scooter, it’s probably by a door. Many apartments and condos only have one common path of travel, so if there’s a problem it may block the only exit and now a bad situation is worse. TRENDS IN INDUSTRY RESPONSE Some of the trends the industry is seeing come in the form of alternate electrolyte recipes, methods of early detection, and more large-scale fire testing for extinguishing agents. First, if lithium-ion batteries are the problem, why don’t we just use different batteries? The reason this is even a challenge is that the industry quickly adopted lithium-ion batteries because they are lighter than their historical predecessor, lead-acid batteries. They also have a higher power density, so they can either take up a smaller footprint for the same capacity or get a higher capacity with the same footprint. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think this is akin to the fire protection industry’s history halon as a fire extinguishing agent. Halon is a gaseous fire suppression agent that is quite effective, but then we learned how bad it was for the environment, so the industry shifted to other solutions. These other solutions may not be as effective as halon, but they sure outweigh halon’s major disadvantage. Similarly, the strategy here is to find other battery chemistries that may not be as inexpensive or energy-dense as lithium-ion, but that outweigh lithium-ion’s major disadvantage. Another strategy for the industry is smarter products, which can detect thermal runaway earlier, leaving more time for response. I’m keeping a discerning eye out for new products that include more sensitive gas detection, thermal imaging, or other sensors that will help us design more robust systems that mitigate explosion risk. Lastly is more large-scale fire test data for extinguishing agents. The code opens the door for alternative extinguishing agents, but I have yet to see good large-scale fire test data for these non-water based agents. There may be a reason for that, if they are ineffective, but so much of our design criteria is based on testing, so I’m looking forward to more data to help us validate design criteria. CODE DEVELOPMENT As you probably are aware, the codes are doing their best to keep pace with the risks, in a reasonable timeline. The IFC has been revised extensively since 2018 to integrate ESS requirements, and the latest 2024 Edition brings it largely in agreement with the 2023 version of NFPA 855. That standard is currently undergoing its normal revision cycle, with a new edition set to be published in 2026.  NFPA 855's next revision is expected in 2026. It is expected that the 2026 Edition will include additional large-scale fire testing requirements beyond the current UL9540A testing and further development of the Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) procedures.
With each jurisdiction’s unique adoption of its building and fire codes, there is an opportunity for further amendment of these standards. It is critical to verify if a jurisdiction has any amendments to the generic code language for ESS and to verify if there are any special permitting procedures for ESS. My next course, coming this quarter, will be a review of the major code requirements for ESS. PROBLEMS THAT REMAIN It seems that the world is not going to soon give up on the use of lithium-ion batteries in BESS installations, so the toughest challenge that remains is how to deal with the explosion risk. The tools we have at our disposal, NFPA 68 & 69, were not developed with BESS in mind, but can be part of a layered approach to addressing the explosion risk. Since we are a prescriptive code-driven industry (in North America at least), we look for guidance on how to design these systems or how to perform these evaluations from the codes & standards themselves. I’m really looking forward to any new guidance in these documents to help give us consensus on how to approach the risk. BEST PRACTICES: SO WHAT DO I DO? If you are a fire protection engineer (or anyone) involved in an ESS installation, the basic process is as follows:
There’s quite a bit to keep up with. Many of us in this space are watching the development unfold. Deployments will only increase as utility grids move toward lower reliance on fossil fuels. Monitoring changes in codes, battery chemistries, and expectations of the public, owners, and AHJs will be needed to build trust and achieve reasonably safe outcomes. Staying current and educated is our challenge today. Rigorous testing and proactive stakeholder engagement will be important as we all move forward to safer energy storage systems. So in conclusion, the State of our Union is strong! Thanks for reading, until next time, stay safe, and always check your local jurisdiction’s amendments!
This week we're featuring a free preview of one of our instructor-led videos on the MeyerFire University platform. Chris Campbell, a Fire Protection Engineer & Writer at the BuildingCode.Blog joins us to discuss what is a "Mixed-Use", or more appropriately, a "Mixed-Occupancy" building under the International Building Code.
Click here, or the video above, to check out what exactly is a Mixed-Use Building. Hope you have a great week! Awhile back I researched and built a translator for various versions of NFPA 13. It's built to quickly find where a code section has migrated between different editions of the standard. There's a free version here which connects the 2016 and the 2019 Editions of NFPA 13. Based on feedback and the positive response to that tool, I've just finished a similar edition translator for all of the published versions of the International Building Code. It covers Chapters 1 through 11, 15 and 30. Here's a quick video of how it works: If you're interested in giving this a try, you can get it as part of a 30-day trial for the MeyerFire Toolkit here. https://www.meyerfire.com/toolkit-trial.html. It's been busy around here tinkering with new tools since I went on my own in October of 2019. I am not by nature a programmer, but as the son of two accountants I'm pretty sure Microsoft Excel is just in my blood. I've gotten lots of positive feedback from users on the Toolkit and I'm happy to announce this week some major improvements aside from the new IBC translator: 1. A La Carte Tools Coming Some users aren't designers or engineers and would only use one or two tools. I get it. In the next couple weeks I'll be breaking out individual tools and pricing them for less, separately. The first one offered this way is the Water Supply Analysis tool that will be up this week. 2. Instant Activation Codes One of the biggest frustrations I've had on the development side is with quirky activation code servers. They drive me nuts. Over the past month I've dramatically simplified the process, so that new purchases automatically get clear activation codes exactly 2 minutes after their purchase. Clean and simple and it's working much better than before. 3. Toolkit Going to $195 in February With over a half-dozen new tools, the price of the Toolkit is going up to $195 starting in February. If you're interested but haven't bought yet, pick up a license now and you'll lock in your $150 subscription. 4. New Licenses Are Multi-Device & Sharable with Coworkers Lastly, based on the biggest piece of feedback I've gotten, with the $195 price-bump starting in February a single license will allow multiple installs, so that you can use on multiple devices and with members of your company. If you have a design staff with multiple users, it only makes sense that you're able to use and share files with coworkers. If you have a single-user license now and want to upgrade, shoot me an email at [email protected] and we'll get the upgrade set up. Should you want to learn more about the Toolkit, you can do so here. Hope you have a great rest of your week! In my regular code calls I used to include a specific question on the use of clean agent systems in server rooms.
Building Owners & Sprinklers Many building owners provide clean agent systems to extinguish fires in high-value content areas, such as server rooms, data centers, archival storage, and many other applications. When the owners voluntarily pony-up for extra protection in these areas, they often ask whether sprinklers have to be installed in those spaces at all. My Code Call Question On my code calls, my question would go something like: “does your jurisdiction require sprinklers to be installed in rooms which are protected by a clean agent system?” I would get a mixed response. Some jurisdictions considered clean agent systems to be an equivalent for sprinkler protection, others would not. A couple years after asking this question on every applicable project I had a fire marshal shoot me straight. “If you don’t have sprinklers in the room, you don’t have a fully-sprinklered building. Check the IBC.” This was news to me. I was under the impression that use of clean agent systems could be used as a substitute for fire sprinklers and still be effectively “fully-sprinklered”. Back to the Book There is a path for this approach – the International Building Code (2018) Section 904.2 states that: “Automatic fire-extinguishing systems (ie: clean agent) installed as an alternative to the required automatic sprinkler systems of Section 903 shall be approved by the fire code official.” This was the foundation on which I had been asking the question. The big kicker was the code section just a paragraph later: “904.2.1 Restriction on using automatic sprinkler system exceptions or reductions. Automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall not be considered alternatives for the purposes of exceptions or reductions allowed for automatic sprinkler systems or by other requirements of this code.” Outside of the lawyer-phrasing, this section simply states “no sprinklers in the room – no sprinkler reductions or exceptions for your building.” The commentary by the International Code Council goes further, stating that while the authority has the ability to approve alternative systems in lieu of sprinklers, doing so invalidates the “fully-sprinklered” status of a building. Why Does this Matter? Why is this important? There is a long list of code kickbacks that sprinklers offer a building. A couple months ago I diagramed a cheatsheet for all of the major code benefits a “fully-sprinklered” NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system offers. You can download it free here. Code benefits include allowable building heights, building areas, number of stories, egress benefits, passive rating reductions, Draftstopping reductions, fire alarm reductions, and a handful of other benefits. I realized after that code call that the question affected well more than just my isolated “fire sprinkler” silo. Omitting sprinklers in just one server room would have code implications throughout the complex. Now, should building owners ask about omitting in these rooms we often look at other strategies – such as concealed sidewall sprinklers, use of dry sprinklers, drip pans, use of pre-action systems, or piping without joints and heavy-duty cages. Some of these solutions can be painless, without great cost and satisfy code as well. Want more like this? Subscribe to the blog here. Already subscribed? Send to a friend. Thanks for reading! Last week I discussed a common question in residential construction concerning whether NFPA 13R could be used, or whether NFPA 13 had to be used. If you haven't read it, you might check it out. Here's a link. The four global limitations to using NFPA 13R include:
The last qualifier is often the most difficult to assess, and is an important question that the architect or code consultant for the building will need to answer. To help determine whether a building can use NFPA 13R, here's a PDF cheatsheet that shows differences in code allowances using NFPA 13, 13R, 13D, and no protection at all.  All of the references are to the International Building Code 2018 Edition, but this should help offer some quick guidance on different code allowances to check for your project. As always, it's worth using this as a starting point and then exploring the code nuances to be sure your project is up to snuff. If you haven't already subscribed - you can do so here. This blog is all about promoting best practices in fire protection by providing tools, resources, and helpful articles. Other Notes Travis Mack at AFSA If you're going to AFSA's Conference in San Diego next week, be sure to check out Travis Mack's presentation on this topic. He's an industry leader & expert in everything suppression. Correction on the Porte-Cochere Logic A couple weeks ago I discussed the differences between different forms of heat transfer in the context of flame spread. I made a point that conductive heat transfer is the least critical of the three forms of heat transfer, but suggested that fires "jump" across roadways due only to radiation heat transfer. This is due primarily to convective heat transfer - strong winds can promote fire growth far faster than radiative heat transfer can - and it often does for large wildfires. Prep Guide I mentioned last week - but I'm down to about a dozen copies of the 2019 PE Prep Guide Edition left for the year. If you know someone who is looking for a copy you might suggest they get it sooner rather than later. Thanks & have a great week! Last week I discussed across a common misconception with porte-cochere sprinkler requirements and how code addresses sprinkler protection for these structures. This week I’m diving a little deeper with some estimates of how a porte-cochere fire would actually affect a main building, based on distance from the building. It’s important to note that this exercise is largely academic: with the calculations below I’m making some gross assumptions that overly simplify the situation. This has not been vetted with Ph.D. experts nor gone through full scale fire testing. I’m just running some basic numbers with big assumptions to illustrate a point. Heat Transfer From what science gives us - heat is transferred by three methods. Conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction is the transfer of heat by objects touching each other. The direction of transfer is dictated by hot-to-cooler materials in direct contact. Convection is the transfer of heat caused by the movement of gas (or a fluid). The direction of transfer is largely dictated by overall movement of the fluid, and for smoke tends to be vertical. Radiation is the transfer of heat from the emission of electromagnetic waves. The direction of transfer is in all directions, but can reflect and re-emit from other surfaces. Heat Transfer for a Flame For a flame, depending on the fuel, most of the heat will be transferred away from the flame source primarily by convection. The chemical reaction (oxidation) of a flame will cause gases to heat. The heated gas’ molecules will become more active and less dense. With less-dense gas than surrounding cooler air, the warm gas will rise up and away from the flame source and carry solid particles forming hot smoke. Radiation will typically comprise 20-35% of the overall heat release rate for a fire. Radiation transfers heat from the source in all available directions until it contacts another surface. Once in contact with other surfaces, radiation can be absorbed or re-emitted from the surface, depending on the surface material. Conduction is the least important mode of heat transfer in an open fire. Radiation near a flame’s origin, for example, often emits and heats up adjacent surfaces with more impact than conduction. For wall assemblies, conduction of heat through penetrations becomes important, but for flames in open environments conduction plays only a small role. Three Porte Cochere Scenarios 100-foot Separation Now imagine a porte-cochere that is 100 feet (30 m) from the face of a larger main building to the center of the porte-cochere. If the porte-cochere is completely inflamed, how would it transfer heat to the main building? It would transfer heat only by radiation; and in very small amounts. Assumptions include a 5 megawatt (MW) fire from a wood-built porte-cochere, a 100-foot (30 m) center distance from the main building, an atmospheric transmissivity of 0.95, and a 30% of the overall heat loss as radiation. Using the Lawson and Quintiere Point-Source Method, the incident radiant flux (a measure of the heat energy per area) is 0.13 kW/sqm.  This radiant flux is about 10% of the flux for a 1st degree burn on unprotected skin. 30-foot Separation Now move the porte-cochere to be 30 feet from the face of the building. Radiation will again transfer heat to the face of the building, but in a much larger amount. Because radiant flux is related to the inverse square of the distance between the targets, this 30-foot distance will actually have a radiant heat flux 10 times greater than a porte-cochere fire 100 feet away. For the same size fire as before but at 30-feet, this could be about enough heat for a 1st degree burn.  At the 30-foot distance, however, heat transfer to the main building is still primarily by radiation. The hot, buoyant smoke is still primarily driven upward from the porte-cochere and would likely not reach the main building unless strong winds directed the hot gases. 10-foot Separation Now imagine this same porte-cochere, but this time centered only 10 feet (3 m) from the main building. Radiation heat transfer is now 10 times greater than the 30-foot distance, and 100 times greater than the 100-foot distance.  At only 10 feet from a 5 MW fire, the heat flux is enough easily cause 2nd degree burns for unprotected skin. Additionally, this heat flux is now approaching the critical heat flux for ignition of some building materials. The critical heat flux is the minimum amount of heat, per area, required to cause ignition. There's several factors that contribute to ignition including exposure time, material thermal properties, surface temperatures, and the actual heat flux versus critical heat flux - but for our purposes I'm only showing this critical heat flux for a couple siding materials. Wood, for instance, has been tested to have a critical heat flux of approximately 10 kW/sqm. Vinyl siding has a critical heat flux of approximately 15 kW/sqm (both values from SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Table A.35, 5th Volume). When we look at the heat flux already produced by a fire of this size at 10 feet we can see that we're already approaching the critical heat flux for both wood and vinyl.  Actual Separation
Now let's speak in practicality. Porte-cocheres are built to allow visitors to enter and leave cars without exposure to rain or sun. Is a 30-foot or 100-foot separated porte-cochere provide any value to a building? No, of course not. This exercise just shows that with reasonable assumptions, a 10-foot physical separation assuming a 5 MW fire begins to approach the critical flux needed to ignite a nearby building. Fire Size Would the actual fire be 5 MW? It's difficult to predict and will vary widely by the materials used and the shape it conforms. A point-source approximation is a large oversimplification given that a wooden canopy would burn in a very different configuration than a condensed pile of wood pallets, for instance. Convection What about convection? Up to now we've still only discussed heat transfer by radiation. If a porte-cochere is close enough to a building, convective heat transfer from the hot smoke will begin to contact the main building and heat surfaces along the face of the main building. This could also be aided by wind conditions as well. As I explored a little last week, a porte-cochere that is only separated inches or a couple feet from a building is hardly any different than a porte-cochere that's attached to the building. That's largely because of convective and radiative heat transfer. The further away the porte-cochere is, the less convective heat transfer plays a role and the lower amount of radiative heat will be transferred. Fire-Resistive Construction What if we create a firewall or fire barrier? Both would slow the spread of fire and help prevent the main building from burning. The International Building Code relaxes the physical separation with fire-resistive construction, and for good reason. Heat flux becomes much less important when the exterior is of non-combustible construction. Summary It can be easy to get lost in code minutiae and live by the black and white lines of what code reads. I find that it's important to remind myself about context about each building and where good engineering judgement plays a role in protecting buildings from fire. This overly-simplified series of calculations just shows the tiers of radiative heat transfer and how much it is affected by the separation distance. The further away a building is from another, the less convective heat transfer plays a role (if any) and the less radiative heat transfer occurs. If you found this interesting, let me know by leaving a comment here. Always happy to hear other opinions. If you don't already follow the weekly blog, consider subscribing here. Thanks for reading! 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 for $500. 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. |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBEGet Free Articles via Email:
+ Get calculators, tools, resources and articles
+ Get our PDF Flowchart for Canopy & Overhang Requirements instantly 
+ No spam
+ Unsubscribe anytime AUTHORJoe Meyer, PE, is a Fire Protection Engineer out of St. Louis, Missouri who writes & develops resources for Fire Protection Professionals. See bio here: About FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
December 2025
|
RSS Feed
