What is the required duration for a Secondary Water Supply within Seismic Zone?

IBC Section 403.3.3:
​
"The secondary water supply shall have a duration of not less than 30 minutes as determined by the occupancy hazard classification in accordance with NFPA 13."

Does this mean minimum 30 minutes, with the gpm/demand determined by NFPA 13?

Or the minimum duration is also determined by NFPA 13, such that the secondary water supply could require an even longer duration, like 60 minutes?

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

Has anyone dealt with the robotic parking garages?

The 2021 IFC/IBC Section 903.2.10.2:
​
Mechanical-access enclosed parking garages. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings used for the storage of motor vehicles in a mechanical-access enclosed parking garage. The portion of the building that contains the mechanical-access enclosed parking garage shall be protected with a specially engineered automatic sprinkler system.

Some of the articles I read indicated a water mist with foam. Completely new thought processes to go through for these since there is very little access for fire personnel.

Any thoughts on where to begin or what to read would be appreciated. Thanks.

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

There was a warehouse that was struck by a tornado in 2021 which is in my jurisdiction, and we are now seeing some warehouses wanting to place pre-built tornado shelters within their buildings (which is great).

My question is: do the pre-built shelters need to have sprinkler protection?

My feelings are that the shelters are non-combustible, the only fuel-load would be from the 5-gallon bucket-style water closet and a privacy drape.

Obviously, a fire in this unit while occupied would not be tenable long before a sprinkler head would activate. I also understand that if a portion of a building that would normally be sprinklered (a school hallway) and is "hardened" to make it qualify as a shelter would still require sprinklers.

Thanks in advance for any help or guidance.

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

I’ve been reviewing standards to determine the equivalency between fireproofing thickness and the fire resistance rating.

This is for an industrial plant structure. I realize there are many factors but at some point I need a reference to determine what the rating is required to be.

What is the process to determine what the required fire-resistance-rating of a component needs to be?

In this case, it is for structural steel supporting columns of the open structure. The structure is composed of the main support columns and those supporting vessels, etc. The structure is about 5-6 levels tall.  For simplicity I wanted to address the main columns starting on floor 1 where a pool fire may start.  If I could find the standard / guidance for this then I can adapt for vessel supports, etc.  

I’ve been through calculations and information from API 2218 to determine the fireproofing thickness for a certain hour rating. However, I have yet to determine or find the hourly rating requirement.

I’m assuming it will be 1-3 hours, for example, using API 2510 (LPG) as a guide with reference to UL 1709. It does specify a 1½ hour time rating which then gives a fireproofing thickness. Further, the fire protection requirements will come from a risk assessment of the system. I have to be able to give guidance to the risk team to help them come to suitable answers.

What can I use to provide a best answer to an hourly rating, hopefully, chapter and verse?

Thank you for your help 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

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

​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

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

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

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

I am doing some work on a combined fire-fighting/domestic pump house for a small community.

A couple things look odd to me.

1. They have a 12-inch flanged basket strainer after the pump discharge just before the mains. I was under the impression that any devices or fittings between pump discharge and need to be listed for fire protection use.
   
2. Instead of a jockey pump, they have three potable water pumps which run all the time pushing potable water to the mains. The primary fire pump automatically operates when the pressure drops to 4.5 bar and the backup pump at 2.3 bar.
   

There seem to be two deviations from NFPA standards here:

First, the jockey pump should be small , so that in case of fire it is the fire pump taking the load, and second, the starting sequence requires the jockey pump to start above the fire pump churn, the first fire pump a little lower and so on.

Is there any exception for such combined domestic/fire protection systems in the NFPA line of standards?

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

I'm working on a mid-rise 5-story residential building.

The building structure is permitted to be combustible construction per 3.2.2.50 of the National Building Code of Canada.

For sound proofing the developer decided to build with cast in-place concrete columns and slabs, but decided to use combustible studs for the interior partitions .

So far, nothing wrong here. Now being that the ceiling is 10-ft high, a drop ceiling was built creating a concealed space for the duct and wiring and so on. The architect says that the top part of the interior combustible partition needed not to be drywalled inside the concealed space to the underside of the concrete slab.

The concealed space is made up of a concrete slab with fire separations sealed to the underside of the slab containing every unit individually without sharing any concealed space with the other units.

On the other hand the sprinkler guy says that the exposed 2x4 studs surface in the concealed scape are not considered "limited combustible material," per NFPA 13 Section 8.15.1, and the space should be sprinklered or filled with non-combustible insulation.

Being that the building was permitted to be of combustible construction and the developer went above and beyond with the concrete structure, I'm not sure whether the space needs to be sprinkler protected or not.

Anybody had this scenario happen before, and if so, how should it be addressed?

Thanks.

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

I have a project involving spray application of resin, and an exhaust system including multiple 60-ft tall exhaust stacks.

We are located in Ontario Canada, and the Ontario Building Code takes precedence. Any other codes cited need to be enacted by the OBC, or by a code enacted by OBC in order to be relevant. NFPA 13 is relevant here.

Chapter 26 (NFPA 13-2019) includes material from other codes. Section 26.4 relates to Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials, and references NFPA 33.

I have not found a reference in NFPA 13 that states that an in-duct sprinkler system SHALL be provided.

It appears to me that Section 26.4 states requirements for IF a system is provided.

Unless otherwise stated, are the requirements of Chapter 26 to be used in isolation, without enacting the full text of the other NFPA Code/Standard cited?

If another NFPA Code/Standard is cited in Chapter 26, is the full text of the cited document to be followed?

Where is the line drawn between the two documents?

I have the NFPA 13 Handbook, and the supplemental text does not clarify this for me. Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this one.

​

We have a stand alone open-air pool pavilion with no attached building.

There is a gas grill under the roof with a very elaborate hood/exhaust/Ansul system. There is no fire alarm system in this pool pavilion.

The Fire Inspector wants the Ansul system monitored by the clubhouse fire alarm system that is 100-ft away.

Is he correct by code?

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

We are a sprinkler contractor running into a new situation for an apartment building. The apartment is designed under NFPA 13R.

We have an inspector requesting that we firestop a draft stop from the corridor into an apartment.

Can you point us in the right direction whether this is required?

A high-rise is considered a building with an occupied floor located more than 75-ft above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.

Would a rooftop access stair with floor level located at 76' warrant the requirements of a high-rise building?

IBC 2015 Section 1011.12.2 states that where a stairway is provided for roof access shall be provided through a penthouse complying with 1510.2. Section 1510.2 states penthouse complying with 1510.2.1-5 shall be considered part of the story below.

The roof is not occupied and is only provided for egress for equipment access for equipment located on the roof.

Technically a portion of the occupied story is located above 75-ft.

Do I need to meet highrise requirements?

Thanks in advance.

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

We have a new construction highrise that's more than 128-ft in height.

Under the IBC, 2018, Section 3007, it would require two firefighter elevators.

Can we use one dedicated firefighter elevator, with a protected lobby, and the other one an emergency passenger elevator, without a lobby, where we would use the pressurization option in lieu of the elevator lobby requirement?

Thanks in advance.

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

We have a building that was designed with exit width and stair width per occupant using the exception CBC 1005.3.1 for a sprinklered building with EVACS (emergency voice/alarm communication system), however, the fire alarm design drawings show horns/strobes.

Found out through the fire alarm deferred submittal corrections.

Changing the width of stairs and exit doors is not an option as the shell is already built.

The EVACS option will cause delays, cost impacts, and material procurement challenges and not advised by FD because building has inherent ambient noise associated with building operations.

What options do we have?

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

I am an architect working on a project where we're construction an air-supported structure (dome) for a school district to use as their physical education gymnasium.

The fire marshal here wants the dome fire suppressed.

I told him we cannot hang water piping from the dome.

What are the options to provide fire suppression inside of a air supported structure that is 180 x 135 feet?

Are there alternatives, like water cannons along the perimeter? If so, what kind of costs might that suggest?

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

I come from a consulting perspective, working for contractors and architects, but I have a question that I would appreciate others' perspective on, especially other consultants and AHJs.

I've been in multiple project meetings where an architect or building owner for a warehouse or storage area has suggested (not outright said, but either hinted or suggested) that they'll just wait until the project is completed to store however they want with whatever they want to store.

This is usually when we're trying to figure out commodities and design criteria for large storage areas, and the owner is far less concerned about the sprinkler system suppressing a fire and much more concerned that an ESFR system or in-rack sprinklers are 'overkill' or too expensive. 

A big piece of this is education and advocating for proper protection of their assets. I get that part. Many owners get that too, so I don't want to say that it's always bad, but I've just had a few projects and one here recently where a building owner directed a Fitter in the field to 'not install the in-rack sprinklers' because they didn't want them (even though it had been discussed at length), also saying that they were going to move around their plastics however they wanted after our guys left the job.

I see this as a major issue.

​I can put it in writing, put disclaimers on the drawings, document what information we do get from the owner, and I can try to educate an owner, but ultimately its not always a situation where I'm going to convince them of anything they're not open to hearing.

Part of it is legal, which I think we generally do our due diligence in that respect. But the other part is just practical - trying to create a situation where the system actually has a chance to suppress a fire.  

How do you navigate these situations, or recommend that I do?

How do you address owners like this who might be intentionally deceiving the engineering and contracting teams to keep costs low knowing full-well that they will store whatever they want, however they want after we all leave?

Is this something, as an AHJ, you want tipped off?

In some cases (some of these areas) we don't have strong enforcement bodies so building owners are left a little to themselves and their insurer visits to catch anything after we're off the job.

Thanks for your input, sorry for the long-winded question.

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

I am a recent architectural graduate designing and developing a small apartment building with a robust dedicated bike storage room (in lieu of car parking). The goal is to foster sustainable, walkable, urban design.

My concern is the recent and growing occurrence of e-bike electrical fires often triggered by non-UL certified lithium batteries. As I understand it, electrical fires are a different animal than your traditional wood fuel fire, in so far as effective suppression, burn rate, etc.

Does current code satisfy any electrical fire concerns?

Does NFPA 13 or even 13R provide sufficient protection for tenants and occupants in this new e-bike era?

Is this a topic of discussion among the ICC and code communities?

Concerned and looking out for safety. Thanks in advance.

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

Is there a code requirement - IBC, IFC, or somewhere else - for a Knox Box?

I understand some jurisdictions amend code to require a specific key box - and I'm sure a specific "Knox Box" brand isn't written into code - but just a requirement that triggers the fire department key box to begin with.

I've always asked the jurisdictions whether they wanted one, and they usually do, but I've never found a requirement that I probably should know about by now.

Also, I've had this missed on many a job in a scope gap between subcontractors and the general contractor. What division would supply and install these? 

As a consultant I usually get a bunch of pointed fingers elsewhere anytime I ask who is planning on providing it.

Thanks in advance, appreciate the variety of perspectives here.

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

I have a project with four separate apartment buildings with 4-units in each building.

All buildings identified as R-3 Occupancy, Type V-B Construction, single story. There are demising walls between each unit that are 1-hour fire-resistance-rated including a 1-hour draft stop between each unit.

The Architect has noted on the approved plans, "Fire Sprinklers Per NFPA-13D".

My question #1: would NFPA-13D be allowed in these 4-unit buildings?

These are not townhome style zero lot line buildings built independent to one another. I think the project should be designed according to NFPA-13R.

Question #2: One building has a unit designated as a "Laundry room and folding room". I think this single unit should be designed according to NFPA-13 under Ordinary Hazard Group-1, correct?

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

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