|
If there are sprinklers installed under the ceiling of the sloped roof, is the combustible concealed space not required to have sprinklers in accordance with 9.2.1.5 (NFPA 13 2019)? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe 
5 Comments
Questions about extended coverage sprinklers and grey areas: Say you have a mix of Reliable G4 XLO extended coverage sprinklers and Tyco ELOC's in an existing property. They are protecting a variety of 16' x 16' applications as well as 20' x 20'.
The Tyco sprinkler, per the cutsheet, becomes standard response at 20' x 20', but the G4XLO EC only becomes standard response in Ordinary Hazard at 212 degrees. The space is all either light hazard or all the heads applied are 155-165 degrees. Do you have to look for and replace every Tyco head operating at 20' x 20' because it's a contradictory response type, and can you leave the ones that are 18' x 18' or less? You have an extended-coverage sprinkler in a small room to protect the entire room. Due to the placement of the lights, you can only be 10'-0" off the wall in one direction, but are within 7'-0" of all other three walls. The room is 17 x 14 feet and light hazard. The room is 238 square feet. This is less than the 256' max of a 16' x 16' application, but since you're 10' off a wall, is this equivalent to a 20' x 20' application when you're figuring out the appropriate pressure for the head in your calculation? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Why Are We Still Separating Fire Alarm Equipment Submittals From the Shop Drawings?
I’m looking for input from the engineering community on something I continue to struggle with in the typical A/E submittal process. On many projects, the fire alarm equipment/product data is submitted early, and the actual fire alarm shop drawings, calculations, riser, sequence of operations, interfaces, circuiting, and other system-design information follow later. This appears to be a long-established A/E practice, but I increasingly question what meaningful engineering review is supposed to occur at that first equipment-only step. With product data alone, I can determine that the proposed manufacturer is acceptable, that the equipment family generally complies with the specification, and that I do not see an obvious reason the contractor should be prevented from purchasing the equipment. What I cannot legitimately determine is whether the equipment package is complete, properly sized, properly configured, or sufficient for the actual fire alarm system. Until I see the shop drawings and calculations, I do not know whether the contractor has provided the correct quantities and capacities of panels, power supplies, amplifiers, modules, network equipment, batteries, interfaces, survivability components, and everything else required to make the system work as intended. Because of this, I have actually revised my own fire alarm specifications to require the product data, shop drawings, calculations, sequence of operations, and associated system-design information to be submitted together as one coordinated system submittal. Yet I continue to see the industry separate them anyway. And that is part of what I am trying to understand. Is there a real technical or contractual reason for doing this, or are we simply continuing a process because “that’s how we’ve always done it”? I struggle with that mentality, particularly when the established administrative process does not appear to fit the way an engineered system actually needs to be reviewed. I recently had a situation that highlighted the problem. The proposed equipment itself was acceptable, but the overall submittal had to be formally rejected because the required shop drawings had not been provided. I specifically indicated that I had no objection to the proposed equipment, but because the official disposition was Rejected, the contractor would not release the equipment for purchase. That seems like a contradiction created by the process itself. I do not want to give an unconditional approval to an equipment package when I have not yet seen enough of the system design to support that approval. At the same time, I do not want the contractor prevented from purchasing equipment that I have reviewed and have no technical objection to them procuring. What I would really like to be able to communicate is something along these lines: No objection to procurement of the proposed manufacturer and equipment. This review does not constitute acceptance of equipment quantities, capacities, configuration, system architecture, interfaces, calculations, or overall system completeness. Those items remain subject to review of the complete coordinated fire alarm shop-drawing submittal. There is also a separate review-time issue that compounds the problem. On projects with a nominal two-week A/E submittal review period, the fire protection engineer may not actually receive the package until it has already passed through the subcontractor, electrical contractor, GC, and Architect. In practice, I may receive it with only two or three days remaining. For a complete fire alarm submittal containing drawings, calculations, product data, sequences, interfaces, and specification requirements, I also question how the industry expects a legitimate engineering review to occur under that compressed timeframe. So the three questions I keep coming back to are: 1. Why are we still separating fire alarm equipment from the shop drawings, calculations, sequence, interfaces, and other system information needed to actually evaluate it? 2. How do we allow the contractor to purchase technically acceptable equipment without giving an engineering approval that the information submitted does not yet support? 3. How do we change the “this is how it’s always been done” process so the complete fire alarm system submittal can be submitted together—and the engineer is actually given enough time to perform a legitimate review? I would especially like to hear from people who know why this sequencing developed in the first place, but also from those who have successfully changed their specifications, contracts, routing, or submittal schedules to make a complete coordinated review possible. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Happy Fire Prevention Week! Here's to the folks who practice it year-round. Shout-out to our Top Contributors for September 2026!
For an R-4 occupancy, Sections 420.2 and 708 require fire partitions, including the continuity requirements of Section 708.4. Section 903.2.8 requires sprinklers and permits NFPA 13D under certain R-4 conditions.
If NFPA 13D is permitted, can attic sprinkler protection be used in lieu of extending the required fire partitions to the underside of the roof, or are both requirements still applicable? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Are sidewall sprinklers allowed to be installed directly above electric fireplaces?
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Is a pull station required?
According to NFPA 72 (2019 Edition) § 23.8.5.1.2*, when connected to a supervising station, fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow detection devices shall include a manual fire alarm box to initiate a signal to the supervising station. That said, for a non-sprinklered building, does the fire alarm control panel require a pull station near it/within the same room, or do adjacent exterior exit-door pull stations suffice? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Given a concrete water tank for a high rise with relatively short 6" fill lines, 100psi of city pressure, and a nearly flat supply curve, the plumbing engineer has designed an 8" overflow.
He's showing it as an 8" horizontal pipe extending about a foot into the side of the tank with 4" below the bottom of the pipe as the high water level in the tank. I have my doubts, but assuming the 8" pipe can handle the overflow condition, is this an appropriate way to install the pipe inside the tank? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe For the Outdoor Storage case: IFC Section 3405 applies with a set of individual pile limitations (5,000 sq ft area, 50,000 cubic ft volume, and 10 ft height) that scale up to groupings of piles with bulk volume and separation rules.
However, all of these standards seem written for massive open-air recycling yards or dedicated storage facilities, which are not the reality in our district, as we primarily feature multiple small-scale retail tire stores and repair garages tucked into tight commercial lots. Consequently, the 50-foot setback requirement away from lot lines and buildings is violated at virtually every single one of these existing businesses, and frankly, none of them even have the physical real estate to ever comply. That said, we want to prevent these occupancies from stacking immense quantities of tires in piles directly against their buildings and along combustible fences around their entire perimeter. Have any of you dealt with this kind of existing non-conformance before, and how are you enforcing outdoor pile setbacks for small commercial shops? Also, if you've amended the code for this particular problem please share your approach. Thanks! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We've been having trouble interpreting tire storage requirements regarding enforcement for our inspectors for both indoor and outdoor existing buildings within our district.
The code path: The scope of Chapter 34 - Tire Rebuilding and Tire Storage of the IFC states that tire storage facilities shall comply with Chapter 34 as well as NFPA 13, and that, particularly, storage in buildings shall also comply with Chapter 32 - High-Piled Combustible Storage. For the Indoor Storage case: According to NFPA 13 Section 3.3.136, tire storage is considered miscellaneous and incidental to the occupancy if they don't exceed the thresholds denoted in that section. In this case, from an egress perspective, are we correct in assuming aisle widths would be governed by IFC § 1018.5—giving a minimum of 28 inches if nonpublicly accessed and the occupant load is less than 50? Otherwise, wouldn't the width have to be no less than that of a corridor maintained at 44 inches or greater as determined by the occupant load? Conversely, say the area of storage outlined by NFPA 13 is exceeded, then both Chapters 34 and 32 (if storage height exceeds 6 ft as it's considered a high hazard commodity) of the IFC apply. Chapter 34 gives thresholds for on-tread vs. other storage arrangements and wheel hole alignment as they pertain to storage alongside/against adjacent walls. Once the storage height exceeds 6 feet, does Chapter 32 trigger the full suite of fire protection requirements in Table 3206.2 based on public vs. non-public access and total storage area? For non-rack storage arrangements, would aisle widths and egress considerations then fall to whether the building is sprinklered or non-sprinklered per IFC §3206.10.1.1 & 3206.10.1.2? Finally, for storage that exceeds the miscellaneous tire thresholds per NFPA 13 but stays under the 6-foot height cap (meaning Chapter 32 high-piled rules don't apply), we still have to watch the total volume. Once storage volume exceeds 20,000 cubic feet, is it automatically considered "bulk storage of tires," classified as a Group S-1, and would egress then default back to Chapter 10 aisle widths in that scenario? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Has anyone here used EPANET for fire sprinkler system design?
I’ve been using it for hydraulic calculations, and I’ve already automated some parts of the workflow with a few lines of code, mainly to avoid repetitive manual work. My main question is whether this approach actually makes sense for real sprinkler projects, or if EPANET starts becoming too limited compared with dedicated fire protection software. Has anyone built a serious workflow around EPANET for sprinkler systems? Maybe using Python, Visual Studio / VS Code, or other scripts to speed things up? I’d be interested to know if anyone has experience with this and whether it was worth continuing with EPANET. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We're working on a townhouse renovation project in New York City to design sprinklers that conform to NFPA 13. The building is 4 stories (cellar, basement, 1st-3rd floor, and penthouse) tall. However, the NYC building code enforces NFPA 13 for vertical openings in this case. The building includes a rectangular light shaft going up an enclosed stairway spiraling up from the 2nd - 3rd floors and up through to the penthouse. On the first floor, the shaft starts on a flat ceiling and opens to the rest of the stair hallway and has stairs on one side but does not enclose the shaft on all sides. Does the shaft on the first-floor ceiling need to have draft curtains and close-spaced sprinklers on the 3 sides that open into the rest of the space? Please see the picture below of the first floor with the light shaft indicated. Let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  Has NFPA separated radiant cove heaters from unit heaters for sprinkler placement? It seems that residential rooms with radiant cove heaters near the ceiling have a far different heat distribution than unit heaters or gas radiant heaters in garages/shops/etc. It appears that the specific Ouellet radiant cove heater being used doesn't have any heat distribution information, but they can be placed within 5(ish) inches from celiings and walls, fabric can be 1" below. Since it would be pointed to heat the objects in the room, the 7-foot radius that is shown around the unit and radiant heaters seems excessive in this scenario. Trying to find solid documentation for the owner, since there isn't an installed and operational unit to test temperatures. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to approach protection near this type of heater? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  For either an FM or NFPA K14 ESFR system from around the mid 1990's, was there a design criterion that existed that allowed a 50psi design in a 40ft building?
I have come across an installation that has this on the block plan with no code reference, and I need to report on its original compliance. I'm assuming perhaps a 20 ft storage limit and only Commodities I to IV instead of Plastics? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Hello, I'm designing a sprinkler layout for an old ornamental commercial building undergoing major alterations. Rooms will be built 10 ft tall along the perimeter of a 60 ft x 80 ft existing open space with 18 ft ceilings. There will be open space above these rooms. Sprinklers inside the room won't be an issue; the pipes can enter from the floor below. The existing 18ft ceiling is very ornamental, and the owner wants to avoid pipes at this ceiling if possible. But I don't see any other way to provide coverage for the space above the offices. Are there sprinklers that can spray up and run along the ceiling of the offices? I made a quick model; it's not accurate to the layout, but just to give an idea of what it'll look like. How are sprinkler installations typically done for old historic buildings where preservation is important? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated, thank you. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  Is 2" pipe less likely to freeze?
To prevent freezing it was suggested to use all 2" or larger pipe fro branch lines, etc., with a wet system extended from a heated building inside. Project is near San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 https://weatherblaze.com/weather-history/us/california/san-luis-obispo/. Says the lowest ever was 24 degrees during the Great Citrus and Fire Sprinkler Freeze in Dec. 1990. What do you think? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Does the International Building Code (IBC) apply to Power Plants?
From very in-depth research, all I have found in one particular state is that buildings within utility power plants are exempt from the permit process under the International Building Code. Does anyone have specific knowledge of the application of these codes to these types of facilities? I am often told that these plants are exempt from the building codes but can never find language to back this up or responses from the local AHJ or State Fire Marshals. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Armover to Flex whip. NFPA 13, 2019 edition, 17.4.1.3.3.3 states that flex whips should be under 6 feet or need another hanger. Section 17.4.3.4.4.2 states that on longer armovers need a hanger 12 inches from the pendant if the pressure is above 100psi. Section 17.4.3.5.2.1 states that any armover longer than 12 inches that supplies a pendant below the ceiling needs a hanger.
If an 18-inch armover supplies a flex whip of 1/2/3/4/5/6 feet, do you need a hanger on the armover within 12 inches of where the armover connects to the flex whip? Section 17.4.3.5.2.1 states an unsupported armover to a sprinkler or sprinkler drop, not necessarily a flex whip. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Is an FDC required on a water storage tank meant to service a fire pump to a commercial warehouse when there is already an FDC connection on the discharge side of the pump piping?
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Is a hose valve required on a roof that is accessible by a ship's ladder from the top-floor stair landing?
Also, if there is no access to the roof, why put a hose valve up there? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe What are the rules when installing a flow meter on a diesel fire pump?
I am seeing recommendations from the manufacturer, such as 5 times the Venturi diameter on the inlet and 2 times the Venturi diameter on the outlet (minimums). What are the 'hard' rules when it comes to installing a flow meter? I do not intend to loop it back to the suction side. This is fed from a 10k water tank with a 6-inch tank discharge flange. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Section 5.4 NFPA 20 2019 says that: Fire Pump Test Arrangement. Where the water supply to a fire pump is a tank, a listed flowmeter or a test header discharging back into the tank with a calibrated nozzle(s) arranged for the attachment of a pressure gauge to determine pitot pressure shall be required.
I've never seen this type of test header arrangement before. We are installing 2 horizontal split-case pumps, each with a flow rate of 1,250 USgpm. Could you explain how this can be achieved in actuality? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Where do you input the master PRV into HydraCalc?
I have a job that requires a PRV, as the system pressure exceeds 175psi. I ran a calc for the remote area and put in the city water and fire pump information. Where do I put the PRV info? It is a fixed PRV at 165 psi, Victaulic 867-42T-20. Some people say to run 2 calcs, and others advise just to input it on the pump curve. Just hoping to have the info input correctly, and no one I know has done one yet. Thank you! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Shout-out to our top contributors for sharing their knowledge with the community this month.
Looking at storing upwards of 100 skids of isopropyl alcohol in consumer commodity bottles and in cartons. These would be in 475 mL and 950 mL bottles. The building is not a dangerous goods warehouse.
Is this permissible? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop Sept '26 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
October 2026
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
