|
In a highrise building with a sprinkler system designed under NFPA 13, are above-ceiling smoke detectors required?
There are limited combustible materials (wiring, steel pipe, steel ductwork) and in other areas PVC pipe. Are smoke detectors required for the above ceiling spaces? Should they be considered if not? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
3 Comments
Where is (or is there) a code or standard provision for an existing/old standpipe system that mandates that the standpipe system must follow the codes (and edition) in which it was originally installed?
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We are looking at designing a fire sprinkler system for a 3 story, 20k sqft per floor apartment which is requiring an NFPA 13 system per the code plan.
The code plan also gives the option of removing the dry system in the attic if draft stops are provided. I have not read or heard of this ever being an option before. Are attic sprinkler systems allowed to be omitted with draft stops per some standard or code? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Some AHJs require travel distance to be measured orthogonally, meaning all changes in direction are made at right angles. This does result in a worst-case travel distance, but the IBC specifically says it should be measured using the natural walking path.
Generally, walking occupants do not make turns at 90-degree angles. How do you work through this code/interpretation with AHJs? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe What are the laws regarding an AHJ sharing plans and calculations?
This may vary by state. Does having a seal change anything? In CA, plans must have an Engineer's seal, but there is the "Industrial Exception" that says a Contractor can draw and submit his own plans as long as he also does the install. I had a city refuse to let me have a copy unless I had permission from the Contractor, but the Contractor went out of business a decade earlier. Are AHJs allowed to share prior plan submissions? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe The project consists of storing Group A plastics, Cartoned Unexpanded Plastics, in an ASRS (Automated Storage and Retrieval System).
The ESFR system has been designed accordingly. What type and size of fire extinguishers are required for the space? Any direction and guidance is appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Our jurisdiction has received plans for an addition/remodel of two different occupancy types.
The larger I-1 Condition 2 occupancy will not be undergoing remodeling and currently has a full NFPA 13 system; however, the R-4 occupancy will undergo a complete overhaul. The R-4 will also be added to accommodate a new activities room and additional sleeping units; it will remain an R-4 based on the number of occupants. The design team has drawn an independent 2-hour fire barrier between the two occupancies in the corridor connecting the two buildings. My question is, does the entire building (I-1 and R-4) now have to be served by an NFPA 13 system since they are connected regardless of the fire wall, or would they be allowed to install an NFPA 13R system in the R-4 occupancy? Also, does this now make the entire building an I-Occupancy regardless of the fire wall/barrier? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Do gas-burning boilers require gas detection above them?
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have an existing higher education laboratory suite (as defined by IFC) on the 8th floor that is used only for research (no instruction). The owner wants to store, and use in a closed system, liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen.
The MAQ for liquid oxygen is what I'm concerned about. Cryogenic oxidizing MAQ: 45 gallons (2021 IFC Table 5003.1.1(1)) > can be doubled because sprinklered building > must be reduced by 50% because it is a laboratory suite on a floor between (7-10 2021 IFC Table 3804.1.1). So we're at an MAQ of 45 gallons. The issue is that IFC 3803.2.1 states that the maximum container size for all hazardous materials must be 5.3 gallons. The most common dewars/cylinders for this application start at 42-43 gallons minimum, and that is what the owner has requested. It doesn't seem like there is a way around this requirement, though. The 2021 IFC is the adopted code by the jurisdiction. Do you see a path for compliance in this situation? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I represent an AHJ in Massachusetts and have a potential tenant who reached out to my office about what sprinkler work might need to be done during an upfit, I don't have all the information on their plans or level of alterations.
My question includes MA 780 CMR (Mass building code) and MGL 148 S26G (sprinklers in buildings over 7500 sqft). The building is all business occupancies and is a 1892 build with 12,952 sqft. No current fire protection in the building. The size brings into question 148 S26G, my question is would a level 2 alteration or level 3 alteration trigger 26g as "major renovation" and trigger the entire building needing sprinklers? The shop in question might only account for 10% of the square footage, so would that be major in the context of the building? If that doesn't trigger it, would the level 2 or 3 for B use group in the retail space that is smaller than 12,000 sqft itself, but part of a building that is 12,000+ trigger sprinklers in the renovated space? Thanks for your insights. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We have a consultant showing a 6" wet sprinkler riser routing through the 1st floor of a building, supplying sprinklers, then heading to a stairwell to supply a wet manual standpipe. I am confident that supplying a standpipe downstream of a sprinkler system is not allowed, as there would be no way to fight the fire with hoses without the ability to shut off the sprinkler system, but keep the standpipe live.
Can someone shed some light on the code referring to this in either NFPA 13, 14, or even FM Global that details standpipes can feed sprinkler systems in a combination setup, but a sprinkler system cannot feed a standpipe? Thanks in advance! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a warehouse that is 408,240 SF with a ceiling height of 39 feet. I want to fill the warehouse with pallet racking for Class III commodities. Pallet racking will be back-to-back with a 10 foot for reach trucks.
IFC table 3206.2 calls out the max pile dimension and the max pile volume. How do these limits affect how long my racking aisle can be, and if I'm limited on continuously racking out the warehouse? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We have an old Convent building (3-stories with long corridors) that currently has a Type III manual wet standpipe system and no sprinklers. They are remodeling and are installing sprinklers throughout, and want to remove the standpipe system.
As the AHJ, I would like to keep the standpipes but remove the hose cabinets, essentially to make it Class I. Is there a relevant code path to keep the standpipes even though, for new construction, they would not need them? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe The International Residential Code (IRC 2021) Section 310.1 states: "Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue opening. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, an emergency escape and rescue opening shall be required in each sleeping room. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court having a minimum width of 36 inches (914 mm) that opens to a public way."
My building code official is reading this as sleeping rooms in attics and basements need an escape window. I am reading "Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room " as a list of 3 without the use of an Oxford comma. Any sleeping room needs an escape window, right? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a project under the 2015 International Codes that is building onto an existing fitness center/gym. The existing building has an A-3 occupancy under 12,000 SF, but an occupant load over 300 people. The total fire area of this existing building is 22,300 SF. Also, the building is not sprinklered.
There is a new building going directly next to the existing building that will connect the two (they share a wall). The new building is an aquatic center (pool and splashpad) with an A-3 occupancy under 12,000 SF, but an occupant load over 300 people. The total fire area of this new building is 13,000 SF. The architect was originally trying to see if sprinklers could be removed from the scope (since there are none in the existing building), but based on the occupancy and square footage of the new building, sprinklers will be required (IBC 903.2.1.3). Since sprinklers are required in the new building, the architect is trying to determine what type of separation is required at the two buildings (fire partition, fire barrier, or fire wall) to avoid requiring retrofitting sprinklers in the existing building. My take on it was to provide a "Fire Wall" to completely separate the buildings and not calling the existing plus new spaces a "single building" which could push us into requiring sprinklers throughout the existing building. In addition, IBC 903.2.1 indicates that sprinklers "shall be provided throughout buildings and portions thereof used as Group A occupancies provided in this section" and sprinklers "shall be provided throughout the story where the fire area containing Group A-1, A-2, A-3, or A-4 is located and throughout all stories from the Group A occupancy to, and including, the levels of exit discharge serving the Group A occupancy." I then looked at the commentary on Group A-3 occupancies (903.2.1.3) which stated "an automatic sprinkler system is required throughout the fire area containing the Group A-3 occupancy, including the entire story where the Group A-3 occupancy is located..." Based on 903.2.1 and the commentary on 903.2.1.3 it sounds like anything less than a "fire wall" used to completely separate the buildings, we would need to sprinkler the entire floor that the A-3 occupancy exists including the adjacent building since the are connected and share a wall. The architect's code consultant said I was wrong and that sprinklers are only required within the "fire area" and a "fire barrier" is sufficient. In addition, IBC 903.1.1 indicates that if the code requires a building to be sprinklered then they are to be provided throughout. NFPA 13 (2019) also indicates that if a building is protected by a sprinkler system, then sprinklers are to be provided in all areas except for omissions indicated in the standard. I brought up this NFPA requirement and the code consultant said I was also wrong with this and that sprinklers are only limited to fire areas and aren't required to be installed throughout the building. I would appreciate any thoughts on this, thank you. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I’m working on a fire protection assessment for a facility that stores multiple oxygen cylinders, and I need to verify whether the stored quantity exceeds the Maximum Allowable Quantity (MAQ) per control area per the IBC/IFC.
The facility has a mix of oxygen cylinders in different sizes, and I’m trying to determine the correct method to calculate the aggregate oxidizing gas quantity. My main question is: When calculating total oxygen gas quantity, is it correct to standardize the volume to NTP (Normal Temperature and Pressure) before comparing with IFC/IBC MAQ limits? Or should the calculation simply use the manufacturer’s stated gas content (e.g., cubic meters or SCF at normal conditions)? The reason I’m asking is that if I convert pressurized gas to NTP volume, even a single “standard” 40-liter cylinder at 140 bar would exceed the MAQ for oxidizing gases and potentially classify the space as a High-Hazard Occupancy (H-2/H-3). I want to confirm whether this interpretation is correct, or if the code expects the use of the manufacturer’s rated gas quantity instead of a full expansion-to-NTP calculation. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe There is a seemingly willful gap in information in scoping code (IBC) for small group R structures: those on the threshold of IRC/IBC: I am working on an existing 4 unit building where we do not have verified assembly information so the construction is assumed to be V-B.
The owner would like to renovate the existing basement, which is ~50% above grade, into an apartment with a new exterior exit. Three of the units share a common interior exit stairway & the upper ones are served by a fire escape. The 4th unit is built like a townhouse on the rear of the building and does not share any exit components. If an existing 4-unit residential building (currently not sprinkler protected) adds a 5th unit in the basement — and that unit does not share exit components — is there a code path that allows the project to proceed without installing sprinklers throughout the entire building? Or, a way to construct the new unit in an existing fire area in a way that does not increase risk (ie: 2-hour separation)? While the group is a trigger for requiring a system, looking at Chapter 5 as a scoping reference, the total fire area is below the threshold for a sprinkler system in group R-2 with V-B construction. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe My fire department is requesting that a new large development in our district install a more robust water storage tank (20,000 gallons more than required by code, along with a wet hydrant adjacent to the tank).
We will use the extra water for fires in the area. My question is - how can the fire department refill the tank after the nearby fire is under control? Can we require a FDC adjacent to the tank (5"storz connection) so we can refill the water storage tank quickly from FD tankers? There is no public water supply in area-wells only. Thanks! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a client who has created a spray finishing area in the back of a semi-trailer. The spray booth area is noncombustible construction, but the surrounding area is typical semi-construction (combustible plywood). Are there any fire-related code requirements regarding spray finishing in a semi-trailer? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  I'm seeking clarification on where in code it dictates the need for a strobe device in the bathroom of a R-1 occupancy type (for the number of sleeping units required to have visual devices from IFC Table 907.5.2.3.2).
IFC 2024 Section 907.5.2.3.2 states "Habitable spaces in dwelling units and sleeping units" ... shall be provided with visible alarm notification. The definition of "habitable space" from Chapter 3 is "A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces, and similar areas are NOT considered habitable spaces". The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Section 702.1, states that alarms in guest rooms required to provide communication features shall comply with Sections 4-3 and 4-4 of NFPA 72 (1999 edition) or Sections 7.4 and 7.5 of NFPA 72 (2002 edition). Neither of these sections mandates a strobe in the bathroom. I would like some context on when this became an industry standard (if it has) and where the code reference driving it comes from. Thanks in advance!!! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Clarification on Use of Passive Natural Smoke Relief Openings in Walls Below ESFR Sprinkler Elevation
I am requesting clarification regarding the compatibility of 'passive natural smoke relief openings located in exterior walls' of buildings protected by ESFR systems. NFPA 13 prohibits the use of automatic roof-mounted heat or smoke vents unless they use high-temperature, standard-response sprinklers, due to possible premature venting interfering with sprinkler operation. Does NFPA 13 or NFPA 92 prohibit or restrict the use of passive, fixed, natural smoke relief openings located in exterior walls (not roofs), which are positioned below the elevation of the ESFR sprinklers and have no operating mechanism (neither automatic nor manual)? These openings are permanently open (fixed, non-operable), not connected to any fire detection or alarm system, intended solely to allow natural smoke movement during fire events, and located entirely below the sprinkler deflector level. Looking to see if these openings are acceptable and whether they otherwise would introduce any related concerns on sprinkler performance or smoke control strategy. Much appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We have a high-rise residential project with a sprinkler-protected glazing assembly on the 2nd floor, forming a glass screen facing a two-story space.
The currently proposed system is:
We would appreciate guidance on the following: For sprinkler-protected glazing, should the glass be fully tempered, or is proposed annealed laminated glass acceptable? Is the application of privacy film on the glass surface acceptable for a sprinkler-protected glazing assembly? Are frameless glass panels with structural silicone joints generally acceptable, or is full framing of each glass lite typically required for fire performance? Are there any height or size limitations we should be aware of for a 13-ft 1.5 inches (4.0 m) tall sprinkler-protected glass screen? Any references to IBC / NFPA 13 or relevant testing experience would be greatly appreciated! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am the third-party reviewer for an existing building that is a high-rise but does not have elevator pressurization.
If this were a new building, IBC (2021) Section 3006.3 would apply. But, this is an existing building, and the work qualifies as an Alteration Level 2. The primary engineer says that since the freight elevator is within the work area (although not being touched), per IEBC 801.3, the client will need to install either elevator curtains or a vestibule to keep smoke out per Section 3006.3. I am of the opinion that since they aren't touching the elevator, I think the IEBC 803.1 is a stretch, and the fact that per Exception 5 of the Vertical Openings Section (803.2.1), the elevator isn't even required to be enclosed. (I do think it's a good idea though, and it's not like it's every floor, only their project space would get curtained. This is purely a code required question, though. Does an existing high-rise with Level 2 Alteration trigger smoke management here, even though the elevator is not altered? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe IBC 3008.1 states that when elevators are used for occupant self‑evacuation, all passenger elevators for general public use must comply with Sections 3008.1–3008.10.
The language is unclear: does this require full 3008 compliance for every passenger elevator in the building, or only for the elevators specifically designated for occupant self‑evacuation (e.g., those serving levels above 420 ft / 128 m)? How is this typically interpreted in super high‑rise buildings where adding an additional exit stair is not feasible? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe In the absence of a code-mandated requirement, what safety factor should we apply when evaluating fire flow, if you apply one at all? I am currently working on a building that has a code-required fire flow of 2,000 gpm at 20 psi. Using the MeyerFire Toolkit to evaluate the water supply, I found that the available fire flow is 2,004 gpm at 20 psi. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop July '26 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
August 2026
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
