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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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