Is there a requirement that you cannot plug an appliance (such as a refrigerator, microwave, toaster) into a power strip?

I'm specifically concerned with codes related to health care settings.

​Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I'm in Code Enforcement in New York. I've never been completely comfortable as to where strobes are required in "common use and public use" areas.

I'm not talking about the obvious locations such as open areas, corridors , restrooms, conference rooms, etc. I'm talking smaller enclosed rooms such as offices, pantries, copy rooms, file rooms etc.

The definition of "Common Use" in the New York State Building Code is "Interior or exterior circulation paths, rooms, spaces or elements that are not for public use and are made available for the shared use of two or more people".

With respect to rooms, does "shared use of two or more people" relate to stations, desks, cubicles, etc, where people normally sit and/or work?

Or does it mean any space where at least two people can be in the room at the same time for any duration?

Another example is a doctor's office that has exam rooms that is classified as a Group B occupancy. The patient and medical professional can be in the room, or the patient can be alone for a period of time.

Should we consider exam rooms as public space?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I have a new AHJ that is absolutely adamant that there can be zero contact between fire lines and electrical work - wiring, Romex, fixtures, conduit, low voltage, phone line, etc....

We all know the dangers and risks associated with CPVC systems when they come in contact with your normal residential type wiring. Everyone has gotten good at 'staying away from the orange pipe.'

But this AHJ is now requiring our above ceiling inspection on every type of job be the final inspection prior to cover up. This is to ensure that nobody has the opportunity to touch our pipe with their work (yes, this includes PVC, Pex, copper, HVAC as well) after he has signed off on our install.

The only code that I can find to support him is in NFPA 13 stating that non-system components can not be supported by sprinkler piping. I think we all know and appreciate this rule as well.

His opinion is that he can not sign off on a system knowing that there is contact with an electrical component. This component could somehow energize the steel piping network and electrocute his responding fire fighter who first touches the FDC to hook up his hoses. Having a zero tolerance policy for contact helps him sleep at night.

I personally told him that the theory is ridiculous because the steel pipe and all the electrical components are all typically supported by steel hangers, attached to the same steel building... His same theory applies to the next person who touches a ceiling grid, fixture, register, or maybe flush a toilet or touches a door knob!

But he won't take it from me. If his opinion is out of line, he needs to hear it from an electrical and fire engineer. I'd love some solid evidence that some occasional incidental contact with high or low voltage wiring poses no real threat to electrocuting a fire fighter.

The electrical system has its own integrated safeties to keep from energizing other building components, right?

A little formal advice here will save every (local to my area) contractor a whole lot of headache. We can get our AHJ back to being a fire inspector instead of a building inspector. Thanks for your considerations!

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I live in a province in Canada with its own building code version and recently had a project for a very small, single-story building - an industrial class with an incinerator.

We were originally told that the building needed to be sprinklered so we designed a system for it. Since the system will cost a lot of money, the owners have hired a code consultant that concluded that the building does not need to be sprinklered as there is no requirement to sprinkler a single-story very small industrial building by the building code.

They make the argument that standards like NFPA 82 & NFPA 20 (for fire pumps) pertain to the equipment but not the building as those aspects are covered by the building code. They also mention this usage has been called into question and accepted in other Canadian provinces with similar code structures.

Noting that this argument is not specific to the incinerator or NFPA 82 but any equipment or room covered by an NFPA standard, I'm wondering if anyone has heard a similar argument or has other experience in another jurisdiction.

Does the usage here drive a requirement for fire sprinkler protection?

Is this the correct approach here?

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Are there any good practices or other viable options allowed by NFPA 20 (other than a Pressure Limiting Driver) to limit the fire pump discharge pressure to at churn to 175psi when there is a high static pressure on the water supply?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I have 30-inch deep beams which are spaced just under 5'-0" apart running east to west.

I have 48-inch deep beams running north and south spaced 24'-0" apart.

Do I have to get a row of sprinklers in every 5-foot pocket?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Assuming that it's been approved by a structural engineer, is there any code or standard restrictions that would prevent running CPVC branch pipe through a built-up floor beam?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A question came to me about the survivability requirements for an elevator landing communication system required by 2018 IBC 1009.8/NFPA 101 7.2.12.1. 2016 is the applicable NFPA 72 edition.

The designer is arguing that since NFPA 72 Section 24.3.13 doesn't call out "elevator landing communication systems" by name that it falls under Section 24.3.13.12 and requires a risk analysis. They did note that the 2019 edition "clears up some confusion" but don't mention that the 2019 edition modifies section 24.3.7.2 to reference "elevator landing communication systems" and refer their design to the area of refuge/rescue assistance section 24.10 along with stair communication systems.

The 2016 edition of 24.3.7.2 just references "elevator emergency communication systems, section 24.11" which is pretty clearly about the in-car call systems, not the systems required at the landings by IBC/101.

Now I've done my homework, its pretty clear that from 2016-2019 NFPA wants elevator landing communication systems to meet the same requirements as an area of refuge communication system, and from 2019-2022 its explicitly clear that the elevator landing communication systems need to be robust; further more the commentary language of the IBC, NFPA 101 and NFPA 72 for the elevator landing and area of refuge communication systems all pretty much say the same thing that non-self-evacuating occupants needs a reliable means of communication for the duration they remain in the building, so the two systems would need to function the same.

My problem is that for the 2016 edition this is all implied and implicit language.

I am very confident that elevator landing systems require the same survivability as area of refuge systems but can't find an explicit code reference to support it. Is there a section/commentary section/something I'm missing?

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Is there an applicable code reference for minimum distance between a fire hydrant and a transformer?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Hoping to gain some insight from industry here:

Working on preliminary layouts for a large industrial facility that is comprised of tilt-up precast single-story building (~40' tall) and flanked on one side by an equipment yard (think generators, switchgears, mechanical equipment) configured in two levels (think mezzanine).

Question is on fire access to the main building: The mechanical yard runs the entire length of the main building and we are considering fire access as the depth of the equipment yard is ~100ft with a limited service corridor separating the two (~12ft) for maintenance and building egress. There will be periodic gaps (~6ft wide) between equipment located at grade, however the access will require passing through the yard on foot (underneath the second level of equipment on the mezzanine) to gain access to the main building.

Per IFC 503.1.1 our fire access roads must provide continuous access to the exterior within 150ft of the building.

Would passing "through" the mechanical yard at grade meet this requirement?

Would placing "driveways" through the yard to allow a truck to pull closer to the building (but being parked underneath the second level) be kosher?

A similar question exists regarding having hydrants located directly under the second level near the extents of the yard, is this OK?

Have been unsuccessful at locating any code references regarding fire access through a "tunnel" if you would. An AHJ perspective would be much appreciated, along with any other thoughts/feedback.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I cannot find a residential sprinkler that will allow for sloped ceilings greater than an 8/12 pitch.

How can we approach this and still provide proper protection in a residential property?

Most log cabins have ceilings with a pitch up to 12/12. Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

NFPA 13 required Extra Hazard Group I sprinkler protection for Aircraft Hangars.

What is the appropriate density/area be under CMDA design?

NFPA 409 has a minimum density of 0.17 gpm/sqft (6.9 Lpm) and uses k5.6 to k8.0 quick response sprinklers, however the design area is 15,000 sqft (1,394 sqm).

The hanger is only 9,680 sqft (900 sqm) and three light aircraft are to be stored in the hangar. 

Would 0.30 gpm/sqft (12.2mm) density and an area of 2,500 sqft (230 sqm) with quick response not be more affective than 0.17 gpm/sqft (6.8mm) density and a 9,690 sqft (900 sqm) area?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

If I store only steel items, in steel racks with flow through shelves (made of steel), do I need in-rack sprinklers?

It seems logical that I could use only ceiling sprinklers in this example. The logic is that the all steel construction has zero fuel for a fire and acts as a good "fire break" against the spread of fire within the building.

Let me know if you'd agree or if I'm off base here. Thanks in advance. 

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

We have a climbing gym that's in construction. See the image below.

The architect is calling this out as an assembly space, so we have light hazard upright protection up at the roof only.

The fire marshal walked the building and has concerns that the climbing walls create obstructions.

Are the climbing walls a construction concern? Any other input here?

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

We are designing a new/upgraded fire alarm system for a remodeled highrise (our local codes are 2012 IBC and 2018 NFPA 1) and there is a detached walk-in cooler for the restaurant, located relatively close to the main building (~3' away from the nearest exterior wall).

We received an RFI asking whether fire alarm devices are required in the coolers - good question(!). I'm not able to find anything specific for fire alarm devices in detached storage buildings.

Do you see fire alarm required for the detached cooler?

If anyone has any insight (or NFPA references that I've overlooked), it would be very much appreciated!

Thanks for a great community!

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I am planning a sprinkler system for a warehouse which is in a seismic area.

Because of the ceiling structure, we need to use trapeze hangers, and possibly combine it with the seismic bracing.

We are planning to use steel angles attached to concrete purlins, based on the sketch below, and put the seismic bracing to this steel angle (like we usually would do with a trapeze hanger).

Is something like this allowed?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

NFPA 13 makes provisions for the addition of a backflow preventer to a pipe schedule system (i.e., device pressure loss must be taken into account for minimum residual pressure available, per Section 19.3.2.6.2 of the 2019 Edition). 

When adding flexible sprinkler drops to a pipe schedule system (1 for 1), is a recalculation necessary, or wouldn't the basic addition of that extra pressure loss to the residual pressure for the pipe schedule system be all that's needed?

The AHJ is requiring a recalculation rather than simply adding the pressure loss to the residual pressure as we would do for adding a backflow preventer. 

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

In a strict "like-for-like" repair, are hydraulic calculations required?

Is there a code basis either way?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Working from an insurance perspective through a sprinkler design for a warehouse.

The warehouse contains "flammable solids" in carton storage. These are considered to be H228 "flammable solids", according to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).

Can these be protected as plastics?

Would we need to store these in a separate area?

Unsure how to begin to address these, thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Another month of great discussions - we appreciate you all. Here are the Top Contributors for June 2022:

​Spray Room vs Spray Booth: When to use the requirements for one or the other?

I am working on a flammable spray application and was wondering if anyone has a any good metrics for when to determine if an enclosure is a "spray room" vs a "spray booth".

I am working on a 40-ft by 10-ft enclosure which I would argue is a room, but NFPA 33 provides discernable direction even with Annex sections, especially with "this definition is not intended to limit the term spray booth to any particular design." This shows up in A.3.3.19.

From NFPA 33 2021:

Spray Booth 3.3.19
"A power-ventilated enclosure for a spray application operation or process that confines and limits the escape of the material being sprayed, including vapors, mists, dusts, and residues that are produced by the spraying operation and conducts or directs these materials to an exhaust system."

Annex A.3.3.19:
"Spray booths are manufactured in a variety of forms, including automotive refinishing, downdraft, open-face, traveling, tunnel, and updraft booths. This definition is not intended to limit the term spray booth to any particular design. The entire spray booth is part of the spray area. A spray booth is not a spray room."

Spray Room 3.3.20
"A power-ventilated enclosure for a spray application operation or process that confines and limits the escape of the material being sprayed, including vapors, mists, dusts, and residues that are produced by the spraying operation and conducts or directs these materials to an exhaust system."

Annex A.3.3.20
"The entire spray room is considered part of the spray area. A spray booth is not a spray room."

Based on definitions there are no official metrics to determine when to use either definition.

Is this perhaps a constructed room vs a manufactured structure?

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

We are bidding a job that may possibly need a 1,250 gpm rated fire pump due to not enough flow from the city. Our test was 43 psi static, 35 psi residual at 872 gpm. We will need to include a ground suction tank.

How do I correctly include or simulate a ground suction tank in my hydraulic calculations?

We use the Sigma Hydraulic Calculation program.

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe