MeyerFire
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • TOOLKIT
    • ALL TOOLS
    • BUY THE TOOLKIT
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ALL COURSES
    • JOIN THE UNIVERSITY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE PREP SERIES
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

Recessed Building Entry Ceiling 2-Hr in Type III-B?

5/21/2025

3 Comments

 
We have a building that's Type III-B construction.

Does a recessed building entry's ceiling need to also be 2-hour fire resistance rated, and non-combustible?

Thanks in advance.


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

Which Hydrants Count for Available Fire Flow?

5/20/2025

7 Comments

 
When calculating a risk score on an occupancy, a question asked is "Is fire flow available?"

My question is this: which hydrants does everyone count towards being available?

IFC 507 states that if a hydrant is not within 400-600 feet, then an on-site hydrant is required. Some of my colleagues interpret that as "Anything outside of that radius does not count as available for Fire Flow."

We carry 1000 ft of supply hose, so some say all hydrants within a 1000 ft radius contribute. However, that is really to dress a single hydrant up to 1000 ft away, not to dress multiple hydrants within 1000 ft. Ultimately, we get to decide in the end, but we want to make an informed decision and document our methods for consistency.

This question is not about calculating the needed flow and assumes the water department can provide accurate flow data for each barrel.

​Any insight from the pros and other AHJ's would be fantastic. Thank you for your time.


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

Fire & Life Safety Requirements for Bike Tunnels?

4/28/2025

5 Comments

 
For cycle tracks within a road tunnel, what requirements exist for the bicycle tracks within the tunnels?

I have not been able to find any fire or life safety requirements for cycle tracks within road tunnels (exit separation, fire suppression, detection, and emergency communication system requirements) in any codes or standards.

​Any suggestions on where I could go to or any research papers that I could refer?


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

Can an AHJ Enforce a Standard Over a Code?

4/18/2025

15 Comments

 
I have a project that has me perplexed.

Let's call it a very large bus station with retail, maintenance and other back of house entities. The facility is more than one million square feet where the people are and the busses are all staged around the exterior. There is a second level, but it too contains only back-of-house personnel, systems, and storage. The related codes are the International Fire Code (2021), the International Performance Code (2021), and Standard NFPA 130 (2020). The Design team has decided to not have sprinklers for the public concourse but have sprinklers everywhere else and reference NFPA 130 5.4.4.1 for omitting the sprinklers in the concourse. 

Can an AHJ apply a standard over code without an amendment to the code(s)?

If so, what would the code to standard progression be outside of amendments?

In one state I've done work in for decades, the AHJ can only interpret the code and apply the standard as necessary. Not apply a standard and ignore the code. The facility exists and only the busses are exterior to the facility. 

​Thanks for your take on this.


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

Why Flow Switch False Alarm in a Large Facility?

4/16/2025

11 Comments

 
I have a customer who is a large production facility with a 12-inch underground fire loop. There are 14 risers, 2 of which are 4 inch, the rest are 6 inch, with 7 fire hydrants tied in around the exterior.

The issue at hand is that they are getting false alarms on random flow switches. The head scratcher is that the water flows all test fine at around 45-50 seconds. Maintenance is saying that the risers where the alarms happened were cold (indicating water flow) and the other risers were room temperature at the time of activation.

There is a 12-inch double-check backflow preventer at the water entry point.

I'm starting to think
about valve tampering, but I am looking for insight I may not have considered.

​Do you have any tips for what this might be?


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

Use NFPA 13D or NFPA 13R for Group Home?

4/10/2025

8 Comments

 
I am preparing an assessment for adding a fire protection sprinkler system to an approximately 9,000 sqft existing single-story building that is a state half-way house for juveniles after being released from detention. Fewer than 16 occupants excluding staff.

The architect has deemed it Group R-3 occupancy (although I wonder if Group R-4 Condition 1 is more appropriate.)

IFC 903.3.1.2 permits NFPA 13R throughout Group R, and this meets the three stated conditions for this section.

Section 903.1.3 allows NFPA 13D in some applications; the list is separated by semicolons and includes R-3 and R-4 condition 1. However
, more square feet of this facility is dedicated to non-residential purposes (meeting rooms, classrooms, kitchen, etc.).

This seems counter to the scope of NFPA 13D. Even the IFC commentary mentions the use of 13D, but for one- and two-family dwellings. And I'd prefer an FDC and more than a 10-minute water duration.

I'm a sprinkler guy, and not a building code expert. My gut says NFPA 13R is most appropriate (and I will ask the building code official), but what nuance am I missing here?

Budget-wise NFPA 13D is way more favorable, but it just doesn't seem right. I'd like to know if both NFPA 13D & NFPA 13R are acceptable options for this type of building.

​Thanks in advance.


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

Egress Speed for NFPA 2001 Egress Time Study?

4/9/2025

6 Comments

 
NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems now require an egress time study to show that the design limits exposure to halocarbon agents is no longer than 5 minutes, like FK-5-1-12 (NOVEC 1230), HFC-227ea (FM 200).

This comes from 2018 Edition Section 1.5.14, 2020 Edition Section 4.3.4, and 2022 Edition Section 4.3.4.

Exposure time for inert gas agents will depend on the oxygen levels within the space or room. Concentration below 43 percent shall be permitted where exposure is no longer than 5 minutes. Concentration between 43 and 52 percent shall be permitted where exposure is no longer than 3 minutes.

The annex of NFPA 2001 tells us to review the NFPA Handbook and the SFPE Handbook for more information.

Is anyone doing these calculations, and if so, what exit flow, movement speed, and reaction time would you consider appropriate for spaces using these systems?

​Thanks in advance.

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

Use 2-Hour Gyp. Chase for Standpipe Protection?

3/28/2025

11 Comments

 
Section 9.2.2 in NFPA 14 allows protection for a standpipe that is not in a stairway to be "the piping is enclosed in fire-rated construction with a rating equal to that of the enclosed fire-rated exit stairway."

In the Gypsum Association Manual WP 3910 for a chase wall with staggered studs has a rating of 2 hours.

Does such a 2-hour rated chase meet the intent of NFPA 14 when the standpipe is not in the stair?

Thank you for your feedback!


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

Shared Fire Line Monitored by Only One Building?

3/26/2025

6 Comments

 
Before people say, "Ask the AHJ," I am him; he is me.

I have an applicant who has combined plots of land with a mid-rise and some detached townhouses. A shared fire line supplies the two structures, but only the mid-rise FACP monitors the supply tamper.

The townhouse FACP will not know if the water is off (except for the tampers at the risers within the townhouse).

The buildings are owned by the same ownership. They are arguing they are technically meeting IBC 2015 903.4 "Valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels, and temperatures, critical air pressures, and waterflow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit."

It is being monitored, but the fire marshal and I are of the opinion this doesn't provide monitoring for the townhouse and does not meet the intent of the code.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether a shared line can be monitored by only one building that it serves?


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

What is Req'd for Central Station Head-End Tests?

3/25/2025

3 Comments

 
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
3 Comments

A-5 Assembly Occupancy Appropriate for Canopy?

3/24/2025

13 Comments

 
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
Picture
13 Comments

Interior Hose Valve if Over 130-ft from Exterior?

3/18/2025

8 Comments

 
I am designing a wet pipe fire sprinkler system in a one story Group B occupancy (16-ft high). The building is about 90,000 sqft in area. The building will be fully sprinklered with two zone control valve assemblies.

The fire department is asking to add fire hose valve cabinets as the interior remote areas of the building are more than 130 feet from an exterior door, only citing that its required by IBC 2021.

Is this correct?

I can't find this requirement. Any help is appreciated.


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

Duct Detectors Req'd to Connect to Fire Alarm?

3/7/2025

10 Comments

 
If a duct detector is installed, and the mechanical unit has a capacity of less than 2,000 CFM, it is required by code for the duct detector to be connected to the fire alarm panel?

Alternatively, removing the detectors can be considered in this situation.

Looking for relevant code and standard basis. We're under the 2021 IFC, 2021 IBC, and 2019 NFPA 72. Thank you!


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

OK to Locate Diesel Fire Pump Fuel Tank Outside?

3/6/2025

9 Comments

 
Does anybody have experience with locating diesel fire pump fuel tanks in exterior locations where the local ambient temperature can drop to below freezing point?

We have an unavoidable situation where we have to locate the fuel tank outside the pump room and we're hoping not to have to build a heated enclosure. NFPA 20 seems to require a heated enclosure, but FM not so much.

I am aware that condensation and fuel deterioration
are issues to be dealt with, but I was thinking maybe good quality thermal lag of the tank and feed/return fuel piping may be sufficient with just a roof structure above the fuel tank.

What are your thoughts on this?

any thanks in advance for your thoughts and advice

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

Does a Hydrant Fed From Building Meet Code?

3/4/2025

14 Comments

 
My jurisdiction (I am the AHJ) has had several buildings built with private hydrants supplying the sprinkler system where the main comes into the building, through the RPZ, feeds the sprinkler system/standpipes, and leaves the building and feeds the hydrant(s).
Picture
This has always seemed counterintuitive to me, at best. I feel we are "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and have wondered if this arrangement will adequately supply the sprinkler system when we (FD) pull water from the hydrant and pump it back into the FDC.

Per our state law, private hydrants have to be "protected" with a backflow.

Is this configuration code compliant, and if not, what is a solution?

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

Code Require Changes When Adding EV Stations?

2/10/2025

12 Comments

 
Is there anything in the code that specifically talks about EV (Electric Vehicle) charging stations?

Anything that might say "If you are adding EV Stations in a garage the sprinkler system must be checked, upgraded or analyzed?"

​Thanks in advance.


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

Difference of "Spray Room" vs "Spray Area?"

2/7/2025

5 Comments

 
Our facility is exploring constructing two large (7,200 ft²) facilities for media blasting and coating large steel structures.

The facilities have a ceiling height of approximately 40' and are enclosed via a large roll-up door on one end. The coating systems are categorized as flammable liquids.

There has been some internal debate on how to categorize these per the IFC - as "spray rooms
," which would require fire suppression, or "spraying spaces," which the IFC does not have a prescriptive requirement for fire suppression.

The commentary in the IFC notes that spraying spaces are typically "unenclosed", leading us to lean towards considering these spray rooms, even though they make up the entirety of the building versus a portion of it.

We've reached out to some of the local AHJs, who all seem to agree with the spray room determination. However, the builder of the structures has indicated that most of their installations have not required suppression, even when reviewed by the local AHJ.

​Is categorizing these structures as "spray rooms" the wrong application of the term?


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

Allow a Tank Fill Tee'd off the Building Fire Main?

2/4/2025

11 Comments

 
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
11 Comments

How to Address Control Areas in Old Buildings?

1/27/2025

8 Comments

 
We are a large metropolitan area with multiple universities that have been operating for decades with high levels of hazardous materials. They want to have separated control areas, but their building construction does not meet current requirements.

On one side we can only enforce the code that these were built to, which was BOCA or even no building code at the time, but on the other hand, there is a reason why control areas came about in the first place.

As they cannot easily upgrade the structure to meet 2-hr requirements, I am planning on just using equivalent level of safety through sprinkler protection and other factors, but was wondering if anyone had experience doing enforcement like this?

Is NFPA 45 enforceable here?


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

Do I Even Consider More-Recent Code Editions?

1/6/2025

15 Comments

 
My area's adopted building code references NFPA 13, the 2016 Edition.

Should I even consider looking into the later versions of NFPA 13 (2019-present)?

​If there are major differences, how do we reconcile following only 2016 since the building code references it even though it may be outdated now?

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

Are Townhouse Complexes Group R-2 or R-3?

1/2/2025

12 Comments

 
Are townhouse complexes (3 or more side by side and separated by fire barrier) considered R-2 or R-3?

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

Allow a Maintenance Hose Upstream of Jockey?

12/24/2024

7 Comments

 
I have a project where the Specifying Engineer has noted to have a small hose connection for periodic (maybe every 6 months) building maintenance use to wash down a water intake filter.

They have specified that
it be fed from the jockey pump upstream of the jockey discharge check valve and connection to the fire pump connection, so it would seem that it would not really affect the fire protection system or fire pump discharge.

However, I don't think it is a good idea
, and I think a separate pump for building maintenance should be provided.

​Looking to see if there is any code reference I can use for backup as common sense doesn't always work or maybe I am wrong.


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

Use Many (8) Water Storage Tanks in Lieu of One?

12/23/2024

17 Comments

 
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
17 Comments

When is Fire Alarm Req'd to Be Updated to Code?

12/13/2024

9 Comments

 
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
9 Comments

Can Non-Sprinklered F-2 Use Fire Flow Reduction?

12/10/2024

13 Comments

 
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
13 Comments
<<Previous
    SUBMIT A QUESTION
    Picture
    Why Sponsor?

    ALL-ACCESS

    Picture
    GET ALL OUR TOOLS

    SUBSCRIBE

    Subscribe and learn something new each day:
    I'm Interested In:

    COMMUNITY

    Top April '25 Contributors
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    YOUR POST

    SUBMIT A QUESTION

    PE EXAM

    Get 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
    SIGN ME UP!

    FILTERS

    All
    A1171
    ABA
    ADA
    ASCE 7
    ASME A17.1
    ASTM E1354
    Blog Thread
    Daily Discussion
    Design-documents
    EN 12845
    Explosion Protection
    Explosion-protection-prevention
    Fire Detection And Alarm Systems
    Fire Dynamics
    Flammable And Combustible Liquids
    Flammable-combustible-liquids
    FM Global
    Human-behavior
    IBC
    ICC 500
    IEBC
    IFC
    IMC
    IPC
    IRC
    ISO
    Means Of Egress
    NBC
    NFPA 1
    NFPA 10
    NFPA 101
    NFPA 11
    NFPA 110
    NFPA 1142
    NFPA 1221
    NFPA 13
    NFPA 13D
    NFPA 13R
    NFPA 14
    NFPA 15
    NFPA 16
    NFPA 17A
    NFPA 20
    NFPA 2001
    NFPA 214
    NFPA 22
    NFPA 220
    NFPA 24
    NFPA 241
    NFPA 25
    NFPA 291
    NFPA 30
    NFPA 307
    NFPA 30B
    NFPA 31
    NFPA 33
    NFPA 37
    NFPA 400
    NFPA 409
    NFPA 415
    NFPA 45
    NFPA 495
    NFPA 497
    NFPA 5000
    NFPA 502
    NFPA 54
    NFPA 55
    NFPA 654
    NFPA 68
    NFPA 70
    NFPA 701
    NFPA 72
    NFPA 75
    NFPA 770
    NFPA 82
    NFPA 855
    NFPA 90A
    NFPA 92
    NFPA 96
    NICET
    OBC
    OSHA
    Passive Building Systems
    PE Prep Guide
    PE Prep Series
    PE Sample Problems
    Poll
    Smoke Management
    Special Hazard Systems
    UFC 3-600-01
    UFC 4-021-01
    UFC 4-211-01
    UPC
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016


    PE PREP SERIES

    SEE LEADERBOARD

    RSS Feed

Picture
​Home
Our Cause
The Blog
The Forum
PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit

MeyerFire University
​Pricing
Login
​Support
Contact Us
Picture

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

​MeyerFire, LLC is a NICET Recognized Training Provider and International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.

All text, images, and media ​Copyright © 2016-2025 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. 
The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

  • Blog
  • Forum
  • TOOLKIT
    • ALL TOOLS
    • BUY THE TOOLKIT
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ALL COURSES
    • JOIN THE UNIVERSITY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE PREP SERIES
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT