My company is hiring a contractor to install our central station headend equipment (servers and software).

I would like to include the testing requirements in the statement of work. I looked through NFPA 72-19 Chapters 14 and 26, as well as other chapters and codes.

I do not see the requirements for central station headend testing.

I think the subscribers will need to ping the central station with the date, emergency code, building, etc.

Does code require a minimum amount of information the subscribers must send to the Central Station?

If so, could you tell me the required subscriber information that needs to be sent to the central station or provide the location in code for the information to be sent to the central station from the subscribers?

I don't see any requirements or criteria for testing, and I want to be sure we're conducting this appropriately. Thanks in advance.

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

My company just completed design/build construction of a canopy structure over a courtyard between two restaurant buildings located on the east & west sides.

We assigned an Occupancy Classification of A-5. The structure is all steel, other than the roof construction is comprised of the following layers: 22 gauge steel B deck, 7/16 inch OSB, 24 gauge metal standing seam. The standing seam contractor asked for a solid substrate, instead of metal to metal (Standing Seam attached to the B Deck.

We agreed to add the OSB. We examined the 2018 IBC and assessed that we could use the OSB. Our assessment concluded that the entire structure could be built with wood framing without sprinklers (A-5, no enclosures, height 37ft, 6,090 sf, Type V(A) Construction).

The AHJ shut us down and told us we needed to remove the OSB (combustible material).

What we didn't know was that the City and developer executed a Covenant Agreement that stipulated the Canopy was an A-3 Assembly occupancy. This was arranged because the developer didn't want the exterior restaurant walls to be fire-rated because of the ease of movement from the restaurant to the courtyard.

As a result, the OSB needs to be changed to fire-retardant-treated plywood.

Was the original classification of A-5 occupancy (which could have been wood) canopy assembly an acceptable approach?

Picture below, showing the galvanized steel deck.

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

What specific criteria or code references determine whether a standpipe system is classified as 'separated' rather than 'combined'?

I've seen AHJs state that even though the sprinkler system and the standpipe have separate vertical riser assemblies (control valve, check valve, and supervision), they are fed from the same underground supply (one underground service main) and will still be considered combined.

We are working on a project where the AHJ has deemed the building 'partially sprinklered,' requiring the standpipe to be upgraded from 4" to 6" (which would necessitate a pump) but only if it is a combined system. We are looking for clarification or language that supports the distinction between a combined and a separated standpipe system to explore options that may avoid the need for a pump.

Additionally, does anyone have thoughts on how we might be able to keep the standpipe at 4" or explore alternative approaches to avoid the pump requirement?

​Thanks in advance.

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

Subject: Two story convenience opening separation from corridors.

NFPA 101 (2021 edition) Section 8.6.9.1 permits convenience openings for two adjacent stories. But, these convenience openings shall be separated from corridors (requirement #3) and further states that separation should be by a smoke partition (requirement #5).

How do you define a corridor versus an open floor area or lobby per NFPA 101, since no definitions are given within the code?

Jurisdiction is required to follow NFPA 1 and NFPA 101.

For example, a building has a large assembly space on the second floor. All doors from the assembly space lead to a ~40'-0" wide circulation space (+200'-0" long in the other direction). To reach the building exit stair, occupants from the assembly room must traverse the 40'-0" wide circulation space. Within this circulation space is a ~20'-0" x 40'-0" vertical opening that connects the 1st and 2nd floor.

Should this circulation space be considered a corridor, and should the vertical opening be prohibited from being classified as a convenience opening without a smoke partition separating from the corridor?

Or is the 2nd floor space to be considered an open floor area, with exits immediately accessible in different directions (NFPA 101 7.5.1.1.1) and not consider it a corridor?

​The width of the circulation space seems too wide to be defined as a corridor but NFPA only provides minimum width requirements for corridors, and no maximum width for a space to be considered a corridor as far as I can determine.

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

I'm working on an interesting scenario in which the client would like one main line into the building for fire and to tee off that line inside the building, with one line going to a giant indoor tank that holds 350,000 gallons.

It would be filled just one time per year. Assume 1,000 gpm for 6 hours that one time per year.

First - do you all see this as a possibility right off the bat?

We were talking about putting motorized valves wired back to FACP that shut off if the fire protection activates flow as a potential solution if it could work.

Initially I asked about a water tank for that until I learned it was 350,000 gallons.

Second - is it even possible to calculate out in that scenario?

One thing I love about FPE is the unique, always challenging scenarios that come up regularly. I'm looking forward to figuring out how we're going to handle this facility. Thanks in advance for any input.

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

For a sprinkler pipe that is low enough above the finished floor that it could be walked into by a person of standard height, can it be wrapped in foam or soft material by code to prevent knocking one's​ head on it?

Alternatively, is it allowed to wrap this pipe in yellow tape or adhesive to increase its visibility to prevent running into it?

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

I work for a local fire department that does plan reviews for fire protection systems. We are reviewing a project that requires 40,000 gallons of stored water. They are proposing using multiple fire water tanks and eight 5,000-gallon tanks.

While NFPA does not restrict the use of multiple tanks, I would like to see fewer tanks than eight. I am more inclined to allow two separate tanks at the most.

However, I wanted to see what others thought and if there was a standard understanding or practice to number or size of tanks to the total needed water demand. Thanks for any help.

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

I hear so many times that if the fire alarm panel dies, the entire building's fire alarm system must be brought up to current code.

Can anyone educate the world on when building fire alarm systems must be completely upgraded to the current code?

The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) Section 6 lists all possible combinations. Level 1, level 2, and Level 3. None of them require a full upgrade to the current code when the main panel hits its end of life.

If a system was to need to replace all items in its location with a different system, reusing locations and wire, it would not meet a Level 3 requirement alone and would simply be using new equipment or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

Can someone give me an actual code path that requires a full upgrade in this scenario?

​Thanks in advance.

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

A 40,000 sqft, F-2 Occupancy, single-story metalworking facility of IBC Type II-B construction is not required to be provided with automatic sprinkler protection due to the lack of sufficient combustible loading in the IBC.

However, the same 40,000 sqft single-story facility of IBC Type II-B construction of a Mercantile (M) occupancy must be provided with automatic sprinkler protection due to sufficient combustible loading to warrant sprinkler protection.

Unfortunately, IFC Appendix B does not distinguish between these different occupancies with regard to Fire Flow except that a 75% reduction is offered to the M occupancy for sprinkler protection.

Since no sprinkler protection is required for the F-2 occupancy, can't it be treated the same as occupancies requiring sprinkler protection and provided with sprinkler protection - allowing for the 75% reduction?

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

Why is there a drastic change for limiting an NFPA 13R sprinkler system from a four-story, maximum 60 feet height above grade plane in IBC 2018 to the maximum of the top floor being only 30 feet above fire department access in IBC 2021?

Here, we have many townhomes (R-3 group) that could easily comply with the 2018 edition of the IBC, but they will exceed the top floor 30-foot limit of the 2021 edition of IBC.

Also, the 2024 IBC tries to fix the drastic change by providing an exception for Group R-2 buildings by raising the top floor height limit from 30 ft to 45 ft. That's great and all, but townhouses are still considered R-3 buildings and do not qualify for the exception.

How would you proceed for a townhome with a top floor over 30 feet above fire department access?

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