This building is an H-1 occupancy. There is an area of refuge on the 4th floor. The shelter-in-place Class 3 area of refuge is protected from interior and exterior hazards. There are vertical openings through all 4 floors. The UFC is governing.

Based on this, do the stairwells need to be intertied directly to the shelter-in-place area of refuge for an exit enclosure that is a direct accessible means of egress (we are providing accessibility provisions)? Does the shelter-in-place area need to be a smoke enclosure as well as the interconnected stairwell system?

Based on this will both the stairwell and the shelter-in-place need to be pressurized to meet design intent?

Both exterior and interior air is hazardous and a scrubber would be needed to inject air for stairwell pressurization.

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

Being told I need two fire dampers to serve a single fire wall. The fire wall is made of a "double wall", essentially two masonry walls next to each other with a very small (less than 2-inch) air gap in-between. The engineer on the project is stating that this "double wall" requires a fire damper in each.

I've never come across this as a requirement before. Do I need two fire dampers?

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

Solution | Posted 06/05/19

We have a project where a control module is connected to the mechanical controls that is programmed to the variable frequency drive for a fan on a large unit. When a duct detector senses smoke, the control module (which is normally-open circuit) will close the circuit, sending a signal to the mechanical controls which shuts down the unit.

On this project we had a bad set of control modules that didn't work. We discovered this in testing with the local jurisdiction, and swapped out the modules and the system now works correctly. 

Both the jurisdiction and I wondered whether this normally-open arrangement is acceptable. If a control module were to fail, the duct detector would not be able to close the circuit on the module and the fan would remain running. In this scenario, there would be no supervision or way to know that the control module failed other than someone standing at the fan or finding the issue during testing.

My inclination is that in the future these modules could be normally-closed and open upon duct detection. That way if the module fails and opens on its own, the unit will shutdown in a "failure" mode.

Is it code required that this arrangement be fail-safe?

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

Have a project that requires the sprinkler system to be zoned by the areas with active smoke control. Each floor of the highrise is approximately 12,000 sqft is to be divided into two zones. I intend to have multiple floor control risers (valve, check valve, flow switch, pressure gauge, inspector's test & drain) for each smoke control zone. Is there any less costly way of accomplishing this?

It has been suggested that multiple flow switches can be placed on the same system with different retard settings so that the fire alarm system can identify where the water is flowing, but I don't have experience with this option.

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