I am currently in the beginning stages of design for a 200,000 sqft warehouse which will be used for production and assembly of electric generators (picture the gas/diesel trailer-mounted generator you would see on a construction site but battery powered). There will be three separate areas where the batteries will be stored.

The overhead system will be an ESFR k-25.2 system.

The specs for the job are calling out a rated, freestanding, sprinklered canopy structure above the battery storage areas as an additional requirement to the overhead system which does make sense to me.

Is there anyone who has advice or experience with this type of commodity and coverage of it?

What code references should we be looking at, if any exist?

FM Global released a study on lithium ion batteries but from reading over it they were testing smaller power-tool-sized batteries and not large battery banks.

To my knowledge this is a relatively new hazard for the industry and the code requirements are having to play catch up. Again, any guidance would be appreciated.

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

Can sidewall heads be used for water curtain application?

While typically pendent are used to provide a water curtain around a vertical opening, I am working on a project where the arrangement led to sidewall heads being preferred by the architect.

NFPA 13 is not explicit about water curtain needing to be a specific type of sprinkler, it just says it should be a standard spray with 3gpm /lineal ft applied.

Thanks in advance.

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

In the 2015 International Building Code, Section 101.2:

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration... of every building or structure in any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall comply with the International Residential Code.

The debate: Why in the world are we going to allow them to label this design as residential?

The townhouse exception is seemingly being used pretty loosely around the building department.

In our college community, these structures meet the requirements of a townhouse, but with obvious intent to be student housing.

After looking at code....I cant say I blame these designers. I see no way to combat their argument. They meet all the code requirements to avoid the extra costs of a 13R system and only have to add an additional layer of gyp to comply!?

If I am missing something, please let me know! Maybe I just need to accept them as townhouse?

It sure doesn't "feel" right. 

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

I was recently cited by a surveyor for not having supervised control valves (isolation gate valves) on the jockey pump.

All other control valves are supervised for the riser and fire pump. I view the jockey pump as not critical or a necessary part of the fire pump and would not have an adverse effect if the jockey pump were out of service for any reason.

Is there a NFPA code reference that requires supervision on jockey pump gate valves?

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

We are reviewing a proposed indoor play structure that is taller than 10-ft in height.

Do these structures need to be tested in accordance with ASTM E1354 and NFPA 701?

This project is under the California Building Code. Within CBC Section 424 - Children's play structures, 

• Play structures installed inside all occupancies covered by this code that exceed 10 feet (3048 mm) in height or 150 square feet (14 m2) in area shall comply with Sections 424.2 through 424.5.
  
• 424.2 Play structures shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or of combustible materials that comply with the following:...
  
• 424.2 (6) Plastic materials used to construct rigid components of soft-contained play equipment structures (such as tubes, windows, panels, junction boxes, pipes, slides and decks) exhibiting a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 400 kW/ m2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E1354 at an incident heat flux of 50 kW/m2 in the horizontal orientation at a thickness of 6 mm.

The consultant proposes the following:

• All of the combustible materials are “consumer grade” and carry test certificates stating compliance with NFPA 701 “Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films” as well as ASTM E84, “Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials”. The materials are not classified as “fire resistant” but are manufactured to the same fire safety standards as household products such as mattresses, plastic furniture, upholstery, and carpet. Unlike synthetic fibers (which contain trapped air), molded/extruded plastics and films are solid and have higher auto-ignition temperatures. The polyurethane foam is classified as “fire retardant”, and this material is likely the easiest of all the materials in this assembly to involve in a fire, however, this installation is located in a building where there are few – if any – potential sources of heat and ignition that would be robust enough to involve it in a fire. 

I don't see this proposed structure being compliant with ASTM E1354.

Is there a significant increase in fire-hazard for playground areas and structures when they are above 10-ft in height, which requires the plastics to be compliant to E1354 (and textiles and plastic foams to NFPA 701)?

Thank you all very much for your time and technical input.

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

I have a highrise that exceeds 400-ft in height. The engineer designed a combination riser with all of the floor control assemblies coming from one riser, and not alternating as is in code. 

I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing - any way around alternating the floor control assemblies, like upper-level pumps being considered separate systems or something of the like?

​Looking for better understanding here and being sure I'm not missing something bigger picture. Thanks in advance.

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

Hi all, is anybody aware of a sealed sprinkler that is available in the market with an elongated spray pattern?

I'm looking for something specifically designed for conveyor protection.

Have tried the main manufacturers (Reliable, Tyco, Viking etc.) but nothing seems to be out there. The FM data sheet (FMDS0711) suggests that they are out there.

Many thanks in advance.

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

​In the corridors of an apartment building (wrap) there are fire doors that are double-egress pairs that are left-hand-reverse by left-hand reverse which follows the natural traffic pattern within the corridor.

However, there are also several right-hand-reverse by right-hand-reverse in the same corridor.

Is there a requirement one way or another on which direction these are supposed to be?

​I informed the project manager that the egress needs to follow the natural traffic pattern. I was curious about the different flow patterns of the doors so I researched the code but was unable to locate anything in the code regarding whether it was code or not, except for the AHJ. The county where I live also agreed with me but if someone out there knows if this is code please respond.

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

We are doing the install for a new building. The fire sprinkler underground comes in the building and they are requiring ductile pipe be used inside the building up to the backflow preventer.

Can anyone cite literature for this?

I know NFPA does not require the use of back-flow prevention, but am interested in the code basis for the pipe type until the backflow preventer.

Thanks in advance.

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

We have a project with a Class IV commodity rack storage area. The building has a roof slope around 24% (5.5 / 12).

Based on NFPA 13 2022 Edition, Section 20.9.1, one option for this case is "where storage is protected with in-rack sprinklers in accordance with one of the options in Section 25.6, provided no storage is placed above the highest level of in-rack sprinklers."

The question is: if a horizontal barrier and a level of rack sprinklers are installed above the last load level, and there is not going to be any storage above this level, can a system design be done based on 25.6 omitting the ceiling sprinklers?

The gap between the top of the load and the roof is about 6.5 meters in the highest area. 

Thanks in advance.

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

A business occupancy we're working on has 550 occupants, and requires three means of egress per Section 7.4.1.2 (NFPA 101, 2018 Edition).

Section 7.5.1.1.1 indicates that egress shall be arranged such that each occupant has access to not less than two means of egress.

When the three means of egress are required per Section 7.4.1.2, does access to all three means of egress need to be provided to each occupant?

Or will providing access for each occupant to a minimum of two means of egress satisfy the code requirement?

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

We have three traction elevators side by side, and the three elevators are run in a shaft with no dividing walls between the elevators.

The construction is poured-concrete with a concrete ceiling.

Is this shaft considered to be "enclosed" for the purpose of omitting sprinklers from the bottom of the shaft?

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

​

NFPA 101, Section 39.2.2.2.2* Door Locking to Prevent Unwanted Entry. Where approved, doors, other than those complying with 39.2.11.2, shall be permitted to be locked to prevent unwanted entry provided that all of the following conditions are met:

1. The locking means shall be capable of being engaged without opening the door.
2. The unlocking and unlatching operation from the egress side of the door shall be accomplished without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge or effort.
3. Egress shall require not more than one releasing operation.

​Question on Item (3) above: Is a knob on a (exit) door considered a 'one releasing operation' or two releasing operations (i.e., turning the knob to unlatch and push it to open the door)?

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

I am designing a two-story dormitory Type II-B (under 2018 IBC) with CMU walls throughout.

The floor deck consists of 5-inch composite metal deck. The corridor walls and walls between suites must be 1/2-hour (due to sprinkler exception - NFPA 13 fully sprinklered).

There is also a horizontal separation between the two floors of 1/2-hour minimum.

There are two stair towers which are required to be 1-hour fire rated.

With the walls of the stair tower requiring a higher rating than is required between the two floors, is the floor then required to also be 1 hour?

In other words, can the floor penetrating a shaft enclosure (the walls of the stair shaft will sit on the metal deck) be of a lesser rating than the actual stair enclosure walls?

From what I've read regarding continuity, I'd say the floor rating would have to be 1 hour; but, I'm not clear. Please help.

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

We are converting approximately 100 extended coverage, ordinary hazard upright sprinklers (off of a 1x3/4 bushing) to standard spray chrome pendents (light hazard).

The ceilings are approximately 6'-0" below the existing branchlines at the deck.

We are planning to use "2-Stage" drops where we add a 1" double elbow ( with a 1" close nipple) off the branchline, then drop down about 5'-0" to get down near the ceiling and terminate this with a 1" plugged elbow.

Then when the time comes, we will add a flexible sprinkler connector to this and fix the sprinkler in the suspended ceiling (ASTM C635 & C636).

I am a fire sprinkler fitter a military installation. Have a question regarding low expansion foam systems with the use of Viking Grate nozzles.

Of course with the concerns of AFFF, there are many issues and decisions flying around about the existing systems we have out here in our aircraft hangars.

Is it acceptable to use the Viking grate nozzles without the low expansion foam?

How does this provide any fire protection?

Obviously, this is not how the system was designed, in my opinion.

Please help me understand how this can be acceptable. I appreciate any and all input. 

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

I am trying to understand how low suctions control valves in a fire pump work.

At what point would you need to have one? Could anyone help me understand that?

Thanks in advance. 

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

If a material has a Class A flame spread rating, can I assume that it does not diminish the rating of a fire-rated assembly?

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

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

I'm looking at a few projects that have fire pumps and above-ground cylindrical storage tanks for fire protection.

Some projects I have seen have recirculation after the fire pump discharge underground and back into the storage tank. Frustrated I can't find much on this in NFPA 22 or elsewhere.

Is this part of a means for freeze-protection, or to keep the water from getting stagnant, or for pump testing (in which case I guess it would have to branch off from the flow meter)?

Or is it likely engineer preference? Is it a military requirement?

Thanks in advance.

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

We are working on a whole suite of fire protection systems designed for a new power plant. We'll be submitting the systems for owner and consultant's approval.

Are power utilities governed by the same jurisdiction (building code) as other properties?

If not, how are they regulated in regards to determining the building code (ie: who dictates the applicable codes)?

Thanks in advance.

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

Lots of great discussions this month; thanks for making this industry as great as it is. Here are November's top contributors on the Forum:

My project scenario: We have 2-hour fire-resistance-rated vertical chases than span multiple floors. These contain plumbing vent piping. All the penetrations are properly sealed.

Does the chase still need to be provided a sprinkler due to the vent piping?

Or, am I permitted to omit sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13 Section 8.15.1.2.14?

Thanks in advance.

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