First - thank you for such a warm response to last week's article on a major and thorny topic of using sprinklers alongside glazing in rated assemblies. I genuinely appreciate and am motivated by so many thoughtful people in our industry.

As I mentioned last week, below is a link to the original article with the new PDF summary. It compares rated window assemblies, use of closely-spaced sprinklers for atrium enclosures, and the use of window sprinklers across many important categories. 

If you find this useful, please consider sharing with others who also may be interested in the content. If you're not already subscribed, you can get this and many other similar resources for fire protection design, inspection, review, & engineering by subscribing, for free, here.

​Thanks & have a great weekend!

Perhaps one of the most seemingly straightforward but actually complex topics of fire protection is the use of fire  sprinklers to achieve passive fire resistance requirements. This week I'm diving into an introduction of different methods of using sprinklers for passive fire protection and discussing some of the design abuse therein.

If you've encountered it, you're surely already familiar with how big of a topic it is.

Three Methods for Protection of Windows

Where windows are provided in fire-resistance rated components (a fire partition or barrier, as sprinklers are not permitted to be used for fire walls), the opening must be addressed in a manner that maintains the fire-resistance of the rated enclosure. The driver for these requirements is the building code.

Option 1: Rated Glazing

The first method to address openings in rated walls is provide a glazing assembly that is rated.

The International Building Code qualifies two types or ratings- fire-resistance-rated or fire protection rating. The former is tested to ASTM E119 or UL 263 and is not considered an opening. The later (fire protection rating) is tested to NFPA 257 or UL 9 and has limitations on overall size. (IBC 2018 Fire-Rated Glazing Definition)

Of the three options, this one is the most costly. Cited costs of fire rated glazing alone can be nearly $100 per square foot. For a large 10 foot x 6 foot window, for instance, that's over $6,000 for each panel.

Option 2: Closely-Spaced Sprinklers (for Atrium Enclosures)

Closely-spaced, standard sprinklers are used in glazing applications specifically for the protection of an atrium enclosure which contains glass.

The closely-spaced sprinklers, used in conjunction with specific requirements for glass and frame, are only permitted in the International Building Code as an alternative to a 1-hour enclosure for atrium spaces. (IBC 2018 404.6)

I'll discuss this in more detail, but the big takeaway here is that the building code only permits the use of closely spaced sprinklers as an alternative to a 1-hour enclosure for atrium enclosures.

Option 3: Window-Style Sprinklers

The last method for treatment of windows in fire rated assemblies is to provide Tyco Window-Style sprinklers installed in accordance with their listing.

The proper use of these sprinklers can achieve up to a 2-hour fire resistance rating with the use of glass. This method is not a prescribed code application but rather an “alternative method of construction” which requires documentation & support as an alternative, and must be approved by the AHJ. (IBC 2018 104.11)

Fair warning - these sprinklers are roughly $400 each, and have major restrictions for their use (including specific sprinkler placement dimensions and glass requirements).

Passive vs. Active Systems

Passive fire protection requirements, such as the fire-resistance ratings of fire partitions, fire barriers, and fire walls, are required by code to limit the spread of fire.

The term 'passive' is given as no intervention or dynamic activity is required in order for the system to function. Fire partitions, barriers and walls have a long history of successfully extending longevity of buildings in a fire, limiting spread, and increasing the ability of people to defend in place or escape a fire.

Active systems are identified by a dynamic "action" that is required in order to function effectively. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are one type of active fire protection system, which require open valves, clear pathways, and in some cases the electrical and mechanical operation of fire pumps.

Point-Counterpoint For & Against Fire Sprinklers for Passive Requirements

This area of application isn't without controversy. There's opposite viewpoints on whether sprinklers should even be used as an alternative to passive fire protection. Here's a summary of the pros and cons:

The Common Misapplication

I’ve often heard architects ask about using “water curtains” or “deluge sprinklers” when they have a rated fire barrier and are looking to incorporate a window.

The request is commonly for "closely spaced" standard sprinklers to comprise a 1-hour or 2-hour fire barrier.

I’m fairly confident that some part of me dies inside each time I hear either term - mostly because I know the education effort that always has to follow.

The Basis for Closely Spaced Sprinklers

The basis for standard, closely-spaced and located near glass, is provided in the International Building Code specifically for the enclosure of atria.

An atrium is specifically an opening that connects two or more stories and is one method of interconnecting multi-level spaces and acknowledging vertical openings with fire safe goals in mind.

Atrium spaces are unique in that they require fire sprinkler protection, a fire alarm system, and a smoke control system. All three of these components work in conjunction with each other to detect fire early in the process, notify occupants, and keep smoke to a manageable level while occupants escape.

The International Building Code allows “closely spaced” sprinklers to be used with glass (with limitations) in lieu of a 1-hour enclosure specifically because of the other systems already provided for life safety. (IBC 2018 404.6)

Misapplication for Non-Atrium Spaces

While this section for atrium spaces has existing for some time, what has not existed in the building code has been the provision for closely spaced sprinklers to equate to 1-hour fire resistance rating. To put it simply, a documented basis for such an arrangement doesn’t currently exist.

Could it be proposed as a code alternative to a 1-hour fire barrier? Perhaps. But even without being an AHJ, I would question what technical evidence would support the use of closely-spaced sprinklers to be used in lieu of a 1-hour fire barrier.

If I were an AHJ and closely-spaced sprinklers were proposed as a code alternative, I’d require a fire alarm system and a smoke control system for the space – just as is required for the atrium arrangement.

Casual (Sloppy) Design

Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions there’s not enough resources and/or education for code officials and plan reviewers to monitor and police applications like this.

Locally, I know of several jurisdictions who would immediately (and correctly) pounce on issues like this. I also know others where there is total reliance on the engineer for code compliance and proper design as there hardly is a plan review process.

This sloppy design causes issues for everyone, especially for me when I have to be the bad guy and educate an architect or general contractor on future jobs. It's the common excuse of "that's what we did on the last job" that of course justifies continuing down the wrong design path. This is one reason I really enjoy working with knowledgeable and thorough AHJs as opposed to more "hands-off" jurisdictions.

Free PDF Companion

Download our free PDF comparison between these three applications, with major design implications outlined.

I've heard that in order to publish on the internet all blog post titles must have a gripping click-bait title. This was my best attempt. Sorry to disappoint, but there is no love story here.

Things are back on track this week - the last got a little busy at home last week when my wife and I welcomed our third child to the family. Even with the third, it's amazing how much joy and motivation kids can bring with their arrival. 

Needless to say I didn't have a whole lot of productivity last week, but I'm very glad you've tuned in. This week we're exploring requirements and challenges of sprinkler protection near overhead doors. 

Where Required

​Sprinklers are required under "fixed obstructions over 4 ft (1.2 m) in width." (NFPA 13 - 2002-16 8.5.5.3.1, 2019 9.5.5.3.1)

One common application for this code section is overhead doors in the "open" position. Annex material even specifically references overhead doors as an applied example of this requirement.

Application of the 4-ft Obstruction Rule

If the overhead door doesn't create an obstruction over 4 feet (1.2 m) in width, then a sprinkler is not required to be provided beneath the door. This dimension is typically applied in the horizontal dimension only, and is measured as the horizontal projection of the edge of the door away from the wall.

Depending on how creative things want to be architecturally, sprinklers can be avoided beneath overhead doors when the door assembly doesn't create a 4-foot horizontal obstruction. This can be the case with small coiling doors, door tracks that only run vertically up a wall, or a combination of vertical and horizontal tracks that don't project more than 4 feet out away from the wall.

Hanger & Supporting Challenges

​NFPA 13 does not specifically address support for sidewall or upright sprinklers below an obstruction, but similar requirements can be extracted from criteria on pendent sprinklers served by branch pipe above a ceiling.

If a sprinkler's horizontal steel branch pipe feed is greater than 1'-0" for systems with 100 psi or more, or greater than 2'-0" for any steel system, then a hanger is required to support the armover (NFPA 13 2002-16 9.2.3.4, 2019 17.4.3.4).

This presents a natural challenge as the door track is typically only designed to support the forces of the door and is not considered to be building structure capable of supporting the sprinklers, pipe and fittings. While it's very common for installers to attach the hanger to the door track, many see this as a violation of the hanging rules of NFPA 13.

Drainage & Dry Systems

Protection beneath overhead doors ramps up to another level of difficulty when used in dry systems. If a sprinkler beneath an overhead door on a dry system traps water, there needs to be a means to drain the trapped water and for dry systems in an unheated area, would require an auxiliary drain and drum drip.

While this might not present a challenge with a single overhead door, multi-bay vehicle buildings could wind up having a low-point drum-drip for every or nearly every other overhead door.

Aside from the cost, these drum drips are a maintenance nuisance as failure to drain these on a regular basis could result in a freeze and rupture of the drain assembly.

New Guidance on Sprinkler Position & Types Below Obstructions

Fortunately - in an update that I find very helpful - the latest edition of NFPA 13 now addresses where sprinklers can be located beneath obstructions.

Sprinklers are required to be either located beneath the obstruction, or with their deflector no more than 3 inches off the side of the obstruction (see below). This was clarified in 2019 based on fire testing & research.

Your Challenges?

What tips & tricks have you come across when dealing with sprinkler design around overhead doors? This site is created to start the discussion. Add your questions, tips & tricks in the section for your comments here.

Subscribe

Find this article interesting? Get more of my weekly articles & resources, for free, by subscribing here.

I've been told that memorizing the ANSI and ARCH drawing sizes along with architectural scales & their scale factors is a part of the first day of any drafting program. I've also been told that anyone who drafts regularly should undoubtedly have the standard sheet sizes and scale factors for different architectural scales memorized.

Consider me the dumb exception who never learned how to draft.

Despite being told I have a large head (I think they're talking about my physically awkward-sized head and not my bloated ego), I can't seem to allocate much space in there to remember the essentials of life like knowing that ANSI D translates to a 22 x 34 sheet size.

And for that, I've created a drafting cheatsheet -
​

Now, if you're from a part of the planet that uses an intuitive, logical, consensus-driven, and straightforward method of measuring using the SI system, then you can largely ignore the above tool and write us English-traditionalists off as keeping our head buried in the sand.

​Despite even the original developers of the English system of measurement overhauling their system twice (the British adapted to the imperial system in 1824 and the metric system in the 1960s) and ditching the foot-pound world, us westerners just can't seem to let some things go.

This shouldn't be the sword I choose to fall on, so I'll leave the dead horse for someone else to beat. For those who use the "US Customary Units of Measure" and also can't seem to recall how to scale a 3/32" = 1'-0" background properly (it's a scale factor of 128), this cheatsheet is for you too.

Interested in getting more weekly tools & articles like this? Subscribe, for free, here.

This week we're covering a basic riser manifold configuration for wet-pipe fire sprinkler systems. This is not for a shotgun-style single riser, nor for a wet riser using an alarm check valve (we'll explore both of those later).

​If you haven't checked it out, there are great ongoing discussions (some of which covered these topics) on the MeyerFire Daily page here. 

Overview
Wet-pipe systems form the backbone of traditional fire sprinkler system design, comprising the most popular and most economical system type available. Here's the major components that go into a wet-pipe fire sprinkler assembly:

Check Valve

• Purpose: Allows the system to retain pressure over time, prevents and siphonage of water in a system to serve standpipes or other systems, and helps prevent nuisance waterflow alarm paddle movement by maintaining water in each system.
• Where Required: a check valve is required in any system, but may also be accomplished by a single backflow preventer in a multi-system manifold. Check valves are required on each sprinkler system where the supply serves both sprinklers and standpipes.
• Orientation: must be horizontal or vertical-up in accordance with its listing (NFPA 13 2002 8.15.1.1.3.4, 2007 -16 8.16.1.1.3.4, 2019 16.9.5.4)

FDC Connection

• Purpose: Allows the fire department to supply supplementary pressure and flow to the system during a fire event.
• Where Required: on any sprinkler system that does not meet exceptions for being inaccessible, large-capacity deluge systems, or single-story buildings not over 2,000 sqft (185 sq.m.). (NFPA 13 2002 8.16.2.2, 2007-16 8.17.2.2, 2019 16.12.2)
• Where Located: for a single system it must be on the system side of the main system control valve, check, and alarm valves, and is permitted to be connected to the main piping directly (NFPA 13 2002 8.16.2.4.2, 2007-16 8.17.2.4.2, 2019 16.12.5.2), for multiple systems the FDC connection must be between the supply control valves and system control valves (on the manifold) (NFPA 13 2002 8.16.2.4.3, 2007-16 8.17.2.4.3, 2019 16.12.5.4).

​