We have a project with a unique strobe situation.

New installation into an existing building, Department of Defense so we're under UFC criteria.

The new fire alarm and mass notification system uses Alert strobes (as is common), but in some portions of the building there are blue security strobes. These are used as a warning with non-classified personnel are in the area.

These blue strobes flash at the same rate as the fire alarm/mass notification strobes, but they are not synchronized. The blue security strobes are manually activated at an attendant's desk.

Is there a requirement to synchronize these different systems, from UFC criteria or elsewhere?

Fundamentally, the strobe synchronization issue and potential epileptic exposure is the same concern whether or not it's a concert, fire alarm system, security or dancing club - I certainly understand that we don't want the hazard from the strobes. I do wonder if any of you have come across this, and/or what your opinion might be to handle the situation.

We're on closeout for the project and there has been explicit requirement to override, synchronize or shutdown either the fire alarm or security strobes.

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

I'm designing a fire suppression system for a new horse stables and barn. There is a hay loft above the stables, enclosed parking for farm vehicles, and a work area for food processing (mostly fruits).

The stables and hay loft are considered one space for fire suppression purposes. They will be heated (in-floor hydronics) to 10 deg C (50 deg F) so in theory, a wet system could be used. The heating system will use gas boilers connected to the local gas utility so I'm not too worried about losing heat. However, the stables will have barn doors around it (high infiltration) and the floors could be covered in hay/straw (reducing radiant heat from the floor).

So - would a dry system still be a prudent choice even though the space will be heated?

The project is in Southern BC, Canada. Our winter 1% design temperature is -6 deg C (21 deg F) but it rarely gets that cold. We currently use NFPA 13-2013.

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

Is there a minimum ceiling height that would be required for a Fire Pump Room?

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

We have a wet pipe system in a conditioned space.

If this is converted to a dry pipe system for the purpose of installing a nitrogen generator - would the existing pipe need to be sloped?

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

I've wondered for a long time if Section 19.3.3.1.5.1 of NFPA 13 (2019 edition) in a way allows for unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces, like a large wood canopy, if the remote operating adjacent to the area is increased to 3000 sf and there's a fire barrier between the two areas?

Is this an acceptable approach?

I'm assuming the barrier's rated must be equivalent to the required water supply duration, if so.

​Thanks in advance.

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

I have a project with a workshop space that has a ceiling height of 70-feet from floor level.

How do I approach sprinkler selection & system type for this height?

Does NFPA 13 have a ceiling height limitation?

I see a couple of tables in FM Data Sheets, but is this the only source for protection at these heights?

Thanks in advance.

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

Thank you to all those who make this community great. Special shout out to our Top Contributors in July 2022:

We have a church project with a 22'-0 wide dome in the ceiling (all steel w/sheetrock finish), the dome itself is 13'-0 tall.

The consulting engineer is saying the dome doesn't need sprinklers in it - they just did one in a different state and they put sprinklers around the base of the dome to protect it, but nothing in it or at the top.

The dome is on the second level ceiling/roof - so if you stand on the first floor you can look all the way up to the dome. 

They originally did not want us to sprinkler it. We ended up putting 4 pipes symmetrically with a sprinkler at the end of each one, keeping spacing correct, etc. They didn't hide it behind the sheetrock as originally intended and they don't want to build soffits around the pipe, so they are back to wanting me to remove them. I explained it is my interpretation that this is a ceiling pocket by definition and there is nothing in NFPA 13 allowing me to exempt sprinkler coverage from the floor space below this dome. 

The fire marshal and the engineer conversed and they suggested putting an open head deluge system in this area with 4 evenly spaced open sidewalls in the soffit at the bottom of the dome spraying toward the center with a single or double electric deluge system.

I wouldn't want to do it with a single device personally, I would suggest a heat and smoke, both needing activation for the solenoid to open. I think the sidewalls would get the spray over the hazard (covering the floor area), but I'm concerned they won't activate properly. 

What is your take on this?

Is detection using heat or smoke at the high point of the dome for activation with open-head deluge sidewall sprinklers code compliant?

New to me, thanks in advance!

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

For domestic (US) military work, we're generally required to comply with the Buy American Act. 

However, our fire alarm manufacturer's batteries (every listed brand) is sourced internationally. 

Is there some waiver to this requirement for specifically-sourced pieces of equipment? 

Or is there some third-party battery manufacturer that's accepted outside the listing?

I'm wondering how others deal with the Buy American requirements when it doesn't appear we have any options. Thanks in advance.

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

In NFPA 13, or any related/referenced standards, is there some guidance on where design criteria originates, and what its limits are?

I thought there was something that addresses the intent of the standard not to address arson, acts of God, etc.

I recall something to that effect but thought it was a jurisdictional requirement. I couldn't find any such thing.

Is there any such verbiage like this? 

Thanks in advance.

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

Does an exception for sprinkler omissions under NFPA 13 apply to a building protected under NFPA 13R?

In this particular case, we are in a cold-weather climate, and I would like to make use of NFPA 13-2019 Section 9.2.3.3(2) to omit balcony sprinklers. NFPA 13R-2019 offers no exceptions that I am aware of to 13R Section 6.6.5.1, which requires sprinklers protecting exterior balconies with a roof deck above.

This is a wood-frame 4-story apartment building.

In Ontario, the 2013 editions are enforced, but the wording is the same to the 2019 references cited. Thanks in advance.

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

I have a parking structure that is sitting in the middle of an apartment complex. The bottom two floors are "podium" design and the architect is saying those floors are "enclosed" - thus requiring dry sprinklers throughout those floors.

Above the podium the garage floors are considered "open" and therefore I believe do not require sprinklers.

Has anyone run into a similar situation?

Perhaps with a parking structure that has underground portions and above ground portions?

In those cases, what is the code logic for sprinklers in one area versus throughout?

Thanks for any assistance!

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

We have a proposed fire hydrant in our county that will have pressures ranging from 210 psi to 250 psi according to the engineer designing the underground line.

My Chief and I are looking into this in regards to NFPA standards/applicable code, and are concerned that the high pressure could injure firefighters or damage equipment.

Is there a maximum permitted pressure that a hydrant can be, per code?

Thanks in advance.

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

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