|
By Joe Meyer, PE | Fire Protection Engineer / Founder of MeyerFire One of the traditionally-tricky nuances of standpipe design was when we had standpipes within exit stairs - does the standpipe hose connection go on the floor-level stair landing, or the intermediate-level stair landing? Since the IBC was first developed, there have been mixed results, depending on the year, as to whether the IBC and NFPA 14 suggested the same location. Today I'm updating a previous dive on the topic with the latest NFPA 14 and IBC alignment taken into account. STANDPIPE READS If you haven't read already, here are a few good reads on standpipes we have: An Introduction to Standpipes Addressing Egress & Clearances for Standpipe Hose Connections Standpipes: Floor vs. Intermediate-Level Landings (← The key read for this topic) CHEATSHEET Here is a printable cheatsheet for standpipe hose connections and stairway landing locations - correlating the different editions of the IBC (2000-2024) and NFPA 14 (1996-2024). If you find these helpful, you have to join MeyerFire University. This is just one of over a hundred printable PDF resources we have on the site alongside our online courses and virtual simulations. You get access to all of them within 2 minutes of signing up: What's notable for the 2024 IBC and 2024 NFPA 14, is that they now correlate well.
LATEST CHANGES For a period of time, the default location for standpipe hose connections different between the two (Intermediate-Floor Level for IBC 2012 and 2015, and Main Floor Landing for NFPA 14 2010 and 2013). That's no longer the case in both the IBC and NFPA 14 now defaulting to the Main Floor Landing unless approved otherwise by the AHJ. That part hasn't changed. What has been clarified is that standpipe hose connections are required for all required interior and exterior exit stairs. The IBC and NFPA 14 didn't explicitly include exterior exit stairways, though it would have been reasonable to include standpipe hose connections for required exterior exit stairs because of the verbiage in NFPA 14 of "Exit Stairways" in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.2.1 of the 2010-2019 editions. Today, in the latest available editions at the time of this writing, IBC 905.4 and NFPA 14-2024 Section 9.5.2.1 directs us to standpipe hose connections in "required interior and exterior exit stairs," which clarifies and puts the matter to rest. WANT MORE? If you enjoyed this topic, don't forget to check out the greater breakout article in Standpipes: Floor vs. Intermediate-Level Landings. And if you enjoy the resources, consider joining MeyerFire University. It's exploding in learner growth (amount of NICET and ICC continuing education credit hours), in the amount of organizations (now over 550 companies and organizations), and in new content (42 new courses added since 2023). Great time to join. Thanks for reading and being part of our community! Have a great rest of your week. - Joe
0 Comments
We previously have introduced different types and combinations of threaded fittings - which have been around for more than a century. Here we're introducing another common way to join pipe; using grooved fittings. An attic sprinkler system using a grooved elbow with couplings. Use of "mechanical" couplings that could allow faster joining of pipe came to life in 1919 by Lieutenant Ernest Tribe. Just a few years later the Victory Pipe Joint Company renamed itself to Victaulic (a combination of "victory" and "hydraulic"), and grew to expand the technology worldwide. Today, Victaulic and other manufacturing leaders provide grooved fittings that are often used for pipes in fire sprinkler systems. It is not uncommon for both mains and branch lines to be grooved today. What are common grooved fittings, and how do they work? Let's introduce them. An in-rack sprinkler with a branch line using (starting with the sprinkler) a groove x thread reducing elbow with a grooved coupling, a grooved piece of pipe, and a grooved tee (connection not shown). PIPE Let's start with the pipe. In order to give grooved fittings an opportunity to "grip" the pipe and remain in place, they need an opportunity to resist the pressure of the water that is trying to "pull away" the pipe from the fittings which join them together. A grooved coupling about to connect two grooved-end pipes. Note the loose nut and bolt on the right-hand side, allowing the coupling to be expanded and "slip" over the pipe on the left. In order to create a groove in the pipe, steel can either be "roll groove" or "cut groove". Roll groove pipe involves pressing an indentation into the pipe near the end of the pipe. This allows a grooved fitting to slip over the end of the pipe and fit into the groove. Roll groove pipe has the advantage of not reducing the pipe thickness, so it can have more tolerance for corrosion than thinner pipe, similar pipe with threads, or pipe with cut grooves. Pipe which is cut groove involves cutting into the pipe rather than pressing it. This cutting removes a portion of the pipe wall, making a thinner but smooth interior pipe wall. This thinner wall makes it more susceptible to corrosion, however, for pipe systems with a minor slope, the smooth inside of the pipe does not create a ridge where water can sit and corrode the pipe. Roll Grooved Pipe (top) and Cut Grooved Pipe (bottom). Note the ridge on the inside of the pipe wall for roll groove pipe, and the thinner pipe wall along the cut groove pipe. A tape measure with a "go" or "no-go" measurement to determine if the groove is within manufacturer tolerances. ELBOWS & TEES Let's start with the basics. Elbows allow bends of 90-degrees (most common), 45-degrees, 22-1/2 degrees, and 11-1/4 degrees. Why not every possible angle? What if I need to have a 60-degree bend because of my building? First, it wouldn't be economical to make a fitting of every bend. Second, is that using just two 90-degree elbows back-to-back we're able to create a "swing joint" and make any angle we could want, just by changing the elevation of the pipe that's being joined. Victaulic "FireLock" Grooved Fittings; 90-Degree Elbow #001 (left), 45-Degree Elbow #003 (center), and Standard Tee #002 (right) One notable specialty with the grooved elbow is a "Drain Elbow", which has the elbow except it includes a drain outlet at the bend of the elbow. This is used all the time with fire department connections which come down a wall and need to be capable of being drained (to avoid having water-charged pipe freeze and burst). This is also called a "Drain-El" or is a Victaulic #10-DR. A wall-mounted fire department connection that is away from the riser, here showing the "Drain Elbow" with a ball drip below. The portion upstream of the check valve is intended to be dry unless the FDC is actively being used in order to avoid freezing water inside. COUPLINGS Nice sketches, Joe, but that's not how things look in the field! That's because unlike threaded fittings, the actual pipe joining is by a grooved coupling. The coupling has malleable iron bumps that grip the indent of one groove (pipe/fitting) and connect it to the second groove (the other pipe/fitting). A grooved coupling (here a Victaulic #009N shown). OTHER FITTINGS There are a host of other fitting types. Grooved Reducing Tees? Yep. Less common. Less common can equate to more expensive, or at least that's what I hear from contractors familiar with all the pricing nuances. What other grooved fittings do I often see? Reducing fittings, which is a concentric, single-cast piece of metal that has a large groove on one end and tapers down to a smaller groove on another end. One note of caution is using these in the vertical orientation; I've heard it is much better, more stable, and stronger to use a reducing-fitting as opposed to a reducing-coupling when in a vertical orientation. One of my clients goes so far to say to not use reducing couplings at all (where the coupling itself has two different groove sizes). I wouldn't have the expertise to gauge that myself. A flange x groove reducer (left) and a grooved cap (right). There are also reducing adapters, than can accept a flange connection and convert it to a reduced groove connection. Crosses are also available, as are caps (like the Victaulic #006 shown above on the right) which can terminate the end of a branch line. These caps even have 1-inch threaded opening options for easy auxiliary drains. Many manufacturers have equipment and components with grooved ends that can readily attach to pipe and fittings. If you're looking to explore the extend of all available grooved fittings, I'd invite you to check out manufacturer's catalogs or do a simple google search for grooved sprinkler pipe fittings. The manufacturer's product data can do a whole lot of good in clarifying what's been created and listed for use in sprinkler systems. Have tips, tricks, or things to consider about grooved fittings? Comment below. That's all for this week - hope you have a great rest of yours. Drainage from a fire sprinkler system can often be overlooked as it does not directly fight the fire. However, those involved in inspections & testing of sprinkler systems know all too much about how poor drain design for a sprinkler system can negatively impact how tests are conducted, how long it takes a system to drain, and what messes building owners have to deal with. Here are various components for drains on a sprinkler system, and some of the common requirements that pair with them. For best viewing of the table below, click here: requirements-for-drains-in-fire-sprinkler-systems.html
Design-specifications have had a tradition and sometimes contemptuous past in the world of fire protection design. Sometimes called “design-build spec”, “performance-specification”, “delegated design”, “deferred submittal documents”, “scope drawings”, or “design-spec”, these all mean relatively the same thing; the engineer is not providing a working submittal of how a fire suppression system should end up in the field. Back in 2008 advocacy groups from the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and National Institute for Certification of Engineering Technologies (NICET) adopted a joint position on the role of the Engineer and the Engineering Technician as they relate to fire protection systems. A summary and full-length document are here. The position statement does a good job of identifying the relationship between engineering documents and a working shop drawing submittal. It maintains that the role of the Engineer is to support the proper protection of the public’s health and safety. A licensed Engineer is required to understand a broad sense of fire protection beyond just suppression, and also has specific state requirements for licensing and authorization. While the position statement does a good job of identifying roles and defining the relationship between an engineer and a technician, real-world experience says that many “design-build specifications” fall short on good practice. I’ll save my frustrations on the lack of quality engineering documents for another day (it is not a regional issue). There is a ton to explore on that topic. I will however offer up what I like to use as a practical checklist for design-build specifications. Not all owners want to pay consultants to flush out all the details of a system. I get it. But if an owner is paying for anything at all, then the documents should address basic requirements and cost-impacting elements of design. If a set of plans just outlines an area and says “per NFPA 13”, then someone isn’t doing it right.
This cheatsheet is a collection of the items I’m looking for when I help contractors bid jobs. It’s a shortcut to all of the items that have a design and cost-impact to a job. If you, as a consulting engineer, address every single one of these items clearly and within code, then pat yourself on the back my friend, you are a gift. If your documents don’t address each of these items (yes, including flow test information), consider making it a part of your regular practice. None of the items on this list are major time consumers, but by accounting for them you’ll allow better bidding from contractors and much less contention after bids are due. Please, please: don’t loft up vague project requirements to contractors and hope for the best. Invest in being a knowledgeable and quality practitioner of this great industry. It'll more than pay itself back to you. What are your thoughts? What type of bid documents are you used to seeing? Join the conversation and comment here. This time of year is just the best. I feel extremely fortunate to have three young kiddos at home, a supportive and all-around great family, and an extremely rewarding career in fire protection and doing what I do here at MeyerFire.com. Whether you subscribe, dabble occasionally on the forum, or just stop in to use tools here and there, THANK YOU for a really wonderful 2019. One of the tasks of wrapping up a year is revisiting what resonated the most in 2019 of all the content here. If you just joined in this year or know someone who would benefit from this content, please consider sending a link.
While we're at it, here are the Top Ten Tools & Articles of 2018 and the Top Ten Tools & Articles of 2017. Hope you have a relaxing and rewarding holiday week wherever you call home! This week I'm pulling back the curtain a little bit and showing a tool that is very much still under development. It's a water-storage tank sizer that incorporates a handful of decisions that go into water storage tank sizing. I'd like to get it in front of you this week as I'm looking for feedback on how to improve this tool. There's not a lot of great documentation on how to size water storage tanks, but there are plenty of variables that impact proper water storage tank sizing. With that said, check out the tool as part of our Toolkit package here: If you're in the water storage tank space and have tips or feedback, please email me at [email protected] or comment here. I'd be very much interested in ways to improve this one (or any tool for that matter). On a side note, this and many other recent tools are going to be included with a major MeyerFire Toolkit update here in the next few weeks. We've been working quite a bit on improving the activation/subscription process which has been no small task. When that gets cleaned up I'll be happy to send out the major update for the Toolkit. Hope you have a great rest of your week!
I was asked recently for a specific project how much flow the owner should anticipate coming from a building's main drain.
There are just a few factors that play into exactly how much water to expect. Is the drain serving as the main drain for a system? Is it only serving an inspector's test? Is the drain off a 1-inch pipe or 2-inch pipe? How much pressure is on the system? These are relatively easy to answer if you're familiar with the job, but each answer plays a role in determining how much water will come out of an open orifice. This week, I simplified a few of these parameters to create a quick inspector's test and drain calculator for fire sprinkler systems. This tool estimates the maximum amount of flow that could come from an inspector's test or main drain. It does not represent the actual amount of flow from a main drain or inspector's test. Read more about this challenge here. With it, you can estimate the amount of flow that will come from an inspector's test (use the k-factor option) or from a drain (diameter option), for the purposes of figuring out drain solutions from these outlets. For our international audience I have incorporated real units from the get-go this time. It's a free tool that's now live on the site, here. Give it a spin and let me know what you think in the comments here. Know others that might find this helpful? Send them a link or tell them to subscribe here. Thanks & have a great week! There’s no real way around it: I love cheatsheets. In a design course in college we received 5x7 index cards to include any handwritten notes we wanted for an upcoming final. I wrote so much on that card with handwriting that was effectively size-4 font that it could have been displayed as a work of art. Nearly an entire semester summarized to a 5x7 card. It was a thing of beauty. While I no longer have a need to write so small, I still enjoy having information organized so that it is extremely easy to access. If you haven’t seen these before, here are a couple cheatsheets I’ve created so far: Summary of Differences of NFPA 13, 13R, and 13D Sprinklers & Passive Fire Protection Options
Last week I covered important considerations surrounding fire department connections from a design perspective, which was a joint-effort with QRFS covering the topic. At some point I’ll compile the best blog posts and resources into a hardcover reference book. For this week, however, here’s a cheatsheet on requirements surrounding fire department connections across NFPA 13R, NFPA 13, and NFPA 14:
Why are fire department connections (FDCs) so important to a suppression system? They are the link between initial response and supplemental help. Despite appearances, sprinkler systems are not intended to discharge forever. Their goal is to suppress long-enough that firefighters can take over and finish the job. Standpipe systems exist to extend the reach of the fire department in tall, wide or complex buildings. Manual standpipes depend upon pressure and flow from the fire department. What single piece of equipment is relied upon to make the transfer? The FDC. This week's article is an overview of fire department connections from an engineer’s perspective. It is one part of a two-part series covering fire department connections. Read more from a supplier’s perspective at Quick Response Fire Supply here. Authority Intervention Needed Fire department connections are a unique piece of a suppression system in that they’re not just governed by the designer and code. NFPA 13 and 14 require that fire department connection type and location is coordinated with the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Early in design, prior to bid, I’ll call the local fire marshal and coordinate each of the following big-picture elements: Coordination Item 1: Type of Fire Department Connection The most popular types of FDCs? Siamese (2 x 2-1/2" threaded connection) and Storz (4" or 5" with or without 30-degree elbow). In my very unscientific study of jurisdictions I call (nearly half are local to my area), I've found the following; 73% use Siamese-type 2-1/2” fire department connections, 11% use 4” Storz connections, and the remaining 16% use 5” Storz connections. Of these, 13% have special requirements such as Knox Locking caps, 30-degree elbows, or irregular threading. There’s no right or wrong answer here – I just want to be sure what I’m calling for or showing on plans match what the jurisdiction uses. Large diameter Storz-type fire department connections have become more common for their ability to quick-connect a single hose and flow large amounts of water. Coordination Item 2: Location of Fire Department Connection The most obvious coordination during design is the location of the fire department connection. My design preference, driven by installation effort and cost, is typically in the following order: 1. Wall-mounted FDC, adjacent to the sprinkler riser 2. Wall-mounted FDC, remote from the riser (such as the front of the building) 3. Freestanding FDC, downstream of a site backflow pit or hotbox 4. Freestanding FDC, connected underground into the sprinkler riser room The first couple options are not always workable and depend on the building. Sometimes the water supply and riser room are in the back of a building inaccessible to the fire department. This would be a bad place for an FDC. Sometimes the front face of a building is "grand view" with large glazed curtain walls and no room to mount a fire department connection. This comes up with large offices or modern schools. Sometimes a building-mounted FDC doesn’t make sense with major hazards; why risk firefighter safety in these cases? High-rises, for instance, require multiple FDCs due to the potential for falling glass that could injure firefighters or sever hoses. If there's potential for wall-collapse (think high-hazard warehouse wall) then a wall-mounted FDC also may not make sense. Freestanding FDCs can make a lot of sense for projects like these. Considering most of my work is two stories or less and light commercial, it may not be surprising that roughly 85% of projects include building-mounted FDCs. The remaining 15% have necessitated freestanding FDCs. Some jurisdictions require freestanding fire department connections, but it typically depends on the type of building and hazard presented. Coordination Item 3: Distance of FDC to Nearest Hydrant As a designer it would be great if I could operate in the dark. Send me all the information I need to do a design, I do it, and everyone’s happy. If it were that simple, though, we’d probably already have machines design and do it without downing two bags of Doritos and a half hour of facebook each day. Back to the topic: FDC-to-hydrant distance has an impact on the tactical approach in firefighting. Many designers & installers in our field are current or former firefighters. They could readily speak to this. I’m not one of them, but I can imagine that having to shut down a major roadway or cross a parking lot with hundreds of feet of hose quickly during an emergency is not exactly the easiest thing to accomplish. As a result I like to ask AHJs what distance the FDC should be to the nearest hydrant. Of my highly unscientific and locally-biases results, 41% of jurisdictions require a hydrant to be within 100 feet of the FDC or less, 47% require a hydrant to be within 150 feet, and only 16% of jurisdictions require a hydrant within 200 feet or more of the FDC. These three elements are a part of my code calls. Next week I'll distribute my FDC Cheatsheet that outlines requirements for FDCs across NFPA 13, 13R and NFPA 14. If you haven't already subscribed, consider doing so here. What do you look to coordinate with the AHJ? Discuss your experience here. Want more coverage on fire department connections? See the other half of our two-part series on fire department connections here: Quick Response Fire Supply. One project question I very commonly receive from civil engineers is whether a post-indicator valve (PIV) is required. In short, there are options. I'm exploring PIVs in more detail in this week's article. If you want to get more like this, subscribe for free here. Purpose of Post-Indicator Valves Post-indicator valves have long been used to stop the flow of water into a building during developed stages of a fire. Exterior wall collapse of a burning building poses a threat to break water supply mains as well as create many openings to the water supply. Without a valve to stop supply to these areas, firefighters and their efforts could be compromised by the loss of pressure and outflow of water to areas of a site that don't need water. With the recognized effectiveness of sprinkler systems and cost pressures, the requirement for post-indicating valves have become more relaxed in the last decade. Code references to account for building collapse, for instance, now appear only indirectly in location requirements for hydrants and post-indicator valves to be sufficiently away from a building. Components of Post-Indicator Valves The post-indicator valve has several important features - first is the ability to quickly shut the valve with use of the post indicator valve handle. The second is to quickly see whether the system is in the 'open' or 'shut' condition in a protected enclosure. It can sometimes be difficult to see after years of dirt on the glass, but not impossible. The valve itself is along the water main below frost depth such that only the stem is subject to freezing conditions. It's a simple concept that's carefully crafted to protect the valve and stem in a reliable fashion. One example of a post-indicating valve - a Mueller Company Vertical Adjustable Post Indicator Valve (see https://www.muellercompany.com/fire-protection/ulfm-indicator-posts/) History of the PIV Requirement So is a post-indicator valve required or not? This used to be an easier question to answer. While not a referenced standard from the International Building Code, the International Fire Code requires that all private fire service mains be installed in accordance with NFPA 24 (IFC 2000-06 Section 508.2.1, 2009-18 507.2.1). NFPA 24, the Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, governs system requirements between a water supply main and a building's service entry. Up until the 2010 Edition, NFPA 24 required a listed post indicator valve on every connection from a private fire service main to a building unless special criteria were met (NFPA 24 Section 6.3). The special criteria included the use of a non-indicating underground gate valve with a roadway box and T-wrench or locating an inciating valve in a pit. Either special case required approval of the AHJ. Current Valve Options within NFPA 24 Since the 2010 Edition, NFPA 24 gives a series of options for isolating a building's system and does not mandate that a post-indicator valve be used. These options (from 2010-13 6.2.11, 2016-19 6.2.9) include:
While still considered an "indicating" type valve, wall indicating valves are generally less preferred than post-indicating valves as they are more susceptible to a building collapse than post-indicating valves. Post-Indicator Requirements of NFPA 14 NFPA 14, the Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, also weighs in on post-indicator valve requirements. NFPA 14 requires that each water supply (except for an FDC) shall be provided with a listed indicating valve in an approved location (NFPA 14 2000 4-2.6.1, 2003-07 6.2.6.1, 2010-19 6.3.6.1.1). The prescriptive way to accomplish this is through the use of a post-indicating valve. Annex material within NFPA 14 goes further, stating a list of preferences for outside control valves:
NFPA 14 does give exceptions (as is almost always the case in fire protection), but they require AHJ-approval. Wall-point-indicating valves, or underground valve with roadway box and T-wrench, are alternative options that require AHJ approval (NFPA 14 2000 4-2.6, 2003-07 6.2.6, 2010-19 6.3.6). Post-Indicator Requirements of NFPA 13 So where does NPFA 13 stand on post-indicator valves? In short, it doesn't. NFPA 13 only states that where post-indicator valves are used, the top of the post must be 32-40 inches above grade, and they must be protected against mechanical damage (NFPA 13 2002 8.15.1.3, 2007-16 8.16.1.3, 2019 16.9.9). AHJ & Insurer Inputs Authorities Having Jurisdiction may also want to weigh in on requirements for post-indicating valves. Some municipalities write code amendments to require PIVs, while others may request PIVs be installed for certain building types. Insurers, such as FM Global, may also want input. FM Global for instance, recommends that each system has a control valve a minimum of 40 feet from the building (with less preferred options also recommended in Data Sheet 2-0 2.6.2). Best Practice What's the best course of action for your project? First, check for local or state code amendments that may affect post-indicating valves. If you have a standpipe system within the building, plan to provide a PIV. Last, check with your AHJ for any nuanced requirements you may be missing or to coordinate a location with the AHJ. Want More? Not already getting these free weekly articles? Subscribe here. Found this helpful? Share on LinkedIn.com or send to a friend. MeyerFire is all about helping you do great work in fire protection with tools, tips and resources. |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBEGet Free Articles via Email:
+ Get calculators, tools, resources and articles
+ Get our PDF Flowchart for Canopy & Overhang Requirements instantly + No spam
+ Unsubscribe anytime AUTHORJoe Meyer, PE, is a Fire Protection Engineer out of St. Louis, Missouri who writes & develops resources for Fire Protection Professionals. See bio here: About FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
November 2025
|
RSS Feed
