The 2015 Edition of the International Fire Code added some clarity for water supply for buildings with automatic sprinkler systems.

The Annex B material (not enforceable unless adopted) states:

B105.3 Water supply for buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. For buildings equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the water supply shall be capable of providing the greater of:
1. The automatic sprinkler system demand, including hose stream allowance.
2. The required fire-flow.

In the past I've heard several people say that only inside hose allowances are included when determining the total volume required (which sizes the water storage tank). Would you interpret this section of IFC to include both the inside and outside hose allowance?

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

For years on my code calls I have asked the Authority Having Jurisdiction what the maximum distance the nearest hydrant is allowed to be away from a building's fire department connection. I get answers that range from 50 feet to 400 feet or even more.

I was looking into the code basis behind this question, and the only applicable section that I found is the International Fire Code, Section 507.5.1.1 that addresses hydrant locations for standpipe systems:

"Buildings equipped with a standpipe system installed in accordance with Section 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet (30 480 mm) of the fire department connections. Exception: the distance shall be permitted to exceed 100 feet (30 480 mm) where approved by the fire code official."

Is there any relevant requirement for hydrants near fire department connections for sprinkler-only systems?

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A dormitory has 1/2-hour fire barriers separating each residential unit. On each side of the 1/2-hour wall, penetrating the 5/8" gypsum, are shower valves that serve showers within bathrooms on each side.

The shower valves have the valve assembly itself and an opening that's covered with a metal escutcheon. These would qualify as a membrane penetration under the International Building Code.

For back-to-back vales in the wall, how is this commonly addressed to still maintain the 1/2-hour fire resistance rating?

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Concerning fire flow, you mentioned that the IFC is based on the ISO Method, how close are they and can you provide any more background on that?

If a building meets IFC, would you expect it score very well under an ISO evaluation?

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit a Question | Subscribe

I was needing a little help validating the methodology for fire flow requirements in my city. They do not allow you to verify fire flow per a fire hydrant flow test.

Our city always uses hydraulic calculations (a hydraulic model) to determine acceptable flow in an area. However, in their hydraulic model they always assume that the water usage that day is 19,000,000 million gallons which was established by taking the highest usage in the history of our community of all time, which occurred in 2012 when we had 30 plus days of 100 degree weather of 18M gallons and adding a 1 Million to that. Our average daily usage in our community is around 10 to 11 million gallons per day.

Anyway, the local engineers say that methodology is consistent with the International Fire code. What are your thoughts? I would love to understand what the IFC requires.

Posted anonymously by a member for discussion. Discuss this | Submit a Question | Subscribe