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

Coverage Area of Sprinkler within Remote Area?

2/21/2022

19 Comments

 
When calculating a sprinkler system using the area/density method, I have heard several schools of thought:
  1. All sprinklers within the remote area are to be calculated with the maximum sprinkler area coverage installed within that area (all 100 sqft, as an example).
  2. Each sprinkler within the remote area can be calculated with its individual coverage area within the listing limits (94 sqft, 98 sqft, 100 sqft, etc.)
  3. I have also seen, where software doesn't allow otherwise, all sprinklers within the area given an average area coverage within the calculation by adding the coverage area of each sprinkler and dividing by the number of sprinklers. 

I tend to go with the most demanding as I don't worry about bidding projects most of the time, but in short, I was wondering what the consensus was concerning validity of each of these methods.

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
19 Comments
Dan Wilder
2/21/2022 07:52:47 am

1 & 2 would be the "most" correct and interchangeable, with #3 be applicable in some specific circumstances but still allowable.
My personal approach is more conservative with taking the max available sprinkler spacing, but allowing for area reductions just because of the ability to allow the field to change spacing.

For a Light/Ordinary hazard example:
You can provide a full 1500 FT² remote area with each sprinkler discharging at the max area x density which will have the most safety factor for things like water supply and total fitting changes but it comes at the cost of pipe size, install labor.

Providing a 900 FT² at actual density x area is also acceptable allowing the smallest pipe sizing, but if there are changes in the field (additional fittings or sprinkler spacing changes), then you may run into an issue with a calculation that no longer under the curve requiring pipe size increase after the first installation.

Taking a calculation to a safety of 0.01% (after water supply reduction) is also perfectly acceptable in either case, but again, changes to install can wreak havoc on the final product.

I do know some contractors that have argued that even with the design encroaching into the safety factor in the as built phase, it is still under the total available water supply.

Reply
Mike L
2/21/2022 08:00:47 am

Assuming you're doing a demand calculation, the purpose of the calc is to determine the minimum water supply required to ensure all sprinklers are providing the water density for the hazard classification given the system layout.

As an example, for light hazard classification using K-5.6 sprinklers, each sprinkler must be able to provide 0.10 gpm per square foot of coverage. NFPA gives the method to determine sprinkler coverage area.

Most software needs a starting point, the end-head condition. If we assume the most hydraulically demanding sprinkler is providing the required density over the maximum coverage area, then the system demand with have a high required water pressure and flow. This may be acceptable for a new system as it gives a big safety factor for future modifications.

However, if you are working with an existing system with a limited water supply, the calc may not work. In this case, you may want to use actual sprinkler coverage area and ensure each sprinkler is providing minimum density.

Reply
Glenn Berger
2/21/2022 08:10:21 am

Item 1 is standard practice.

Item 2 can sometimes be considered when trying to reduce pipe sizing to sprinklers not directly connected to the branch line (elbowed over). Note calcs may need to be rechecked with the change in pipe sizing.

Item 3 - I do not believe that any of the current (up to date) programs still uses this method.

Reply
Pierre
2/21/2022 08:24:49 am

What say NFPA about that ?

Reply
Anthony
2/21/2022 08:25:19 am

With in the D/A method there is a clear method to determining coverage area per sprinkler ie:S x L as defined in section 8.5 (NFPA 13 2016).

In many hydraulic calculation programs you can enter a specific discharge minimum per sprinkler head which is perfectly acceptable. HOWEVER that head discharge condition will be over ridden if and raised if the head down stream requires more water/pressure.

Say you have a branch line where the last/end head requires 22.5gpm and the rest of the heads up stream only require 19.6 gpm. In this case all the sprinklers on that line will discharge minimum 22.5 gpm. Thus a savvy sprinkler designer will endeavor to keep the heads on the end of the line discharging as little water as possible to reduce pipe sizing and errant friction losses.

So you can enter each head's minimum discharge but it has limited application unless you really understand the math behind the calc.

Garbage in Garbage out.

I strongly urge anyone that does sprinkler calcs to yearly do at least one simple tree calc by hand. If just to stay fresh on the math and physical principals being modeled in a sprinkler demand calc.

Reply
Jesse
2/21/2022 08:26:10 am

Item 1 would be standard.

Manually would also work to find the ceiling level density of each sprinkler. Calculations can tell us the pressure that each sprinkler is operating at. Sq. root of pressure x K-factor / coverage area can give us density provided by each sprinkler individually/

Reply
Jay
2/21/2022 08:37:35 am

I always use #2.
This helps identify which sprinkler is most demanding (hydraulically remote) and therefore where changes can be made to minimize overdischarge.
NFPA 13 says:
28.2.4.7.1
Each sprinkler in the design area and the remainder of the hydraulically designed system shall discharge at a flow rate at least equal to the stipulated minimum water application rate (density) multiplied by the area of sprinkler operation.
I use HydraCad, which allows you to measure and/or assign an area of coverage for each sprinkler.

Reply
Pierre
2/21/2022 10:44:51 am

Thanks.

Sorry but i don't find chap. 28.2.4.7.1 ! Can you give me more détails ? NFPA 13 2019 ?

Reply
Jay
2/21/2022 01:34:41 pm

2022 edition of NFPA 13

Franck
2/21/2022 10:59:37 am

I will explain you how I review hydraulic calculation as a loss prevention engineer working for an Insurance Company.
This will explain you why option 1 is conservative but works, and when option 2 may not work easily and may become a nightmare. Especially if you do calculations manually as suggested by Anthony (definitely a good practice to better understand).

1. I check that the selected remote area is correct
2. I check that the number of sprinklers by branch line is correct
3 I check if there are various area per sprinkler.
If not, option 1 is the right one. Easy to check - take the pressure at end head and confirm you have the right density.

If yes, then take the pressure at end head and confirm you have the right density (remember the 7 psi minimum pressure). Then take sprinklers with a greater coverage area and check if the available pressure given by hydraulic calculation from the end head is also enough to have the right density.
If not, this means that the end head needs a higher pressure.

Let’s take an example.
K5.6, area end head is 100 sq ft and design density is 0.15 gpm/sq ft.
This requires a minimum pressure of 8.1 psi
Now, imagine that because of friction losses, this ends up with a pressure of 11.2 psi but the coverage area is 120 sq ft. This still works as the resulting density would be greater than 0.15. But if the pressure is only 10 psi, then the resulting density would be less than 0.15.

Normally, when coverage areas are very close, there is no issue. But if the end sprinkler area is much smaller than the second sprinkler coverage area, you might have big surprises!

With option 1, no coverage area would be greater than your end sprinkler, so no issue (but you will end up with an artificially calculated remote area bigger than reality).

This is one of the reasons why FM global is not thinking in term of design density for storage occupancies, but number of operating sprinklers @ a minimum pressure.

Reply
Carlos E. Jara Fire Protection P.E. (Ca. license #1056)
2/23/2022 11:29:10 am

Franck, the required minimum pressure is 7.1psi, not 8.1

Reply
Alex
2/21/2022 02:40:18 pm

I have always used the square footage the sprinkler is covering. Like mentioned above, software will determine the most remote sprinkler and work backwards. Therefore, a sprinkler in a closet might require far less pressure than it will receive. If you use software like Revit (HydroCalc), you can input Sq.Ft. per head. Old old software like Hass, you are stuck with a single Sq.Ft.

Reply
Casey Milhorn
2/21/2022 02:42:18 pm

Method #1 is correct when using extended coverage, residential, or other heads with specific areas and pressures. Also acceptable for CMDA standard spray heads but kind of a lazy way to do it.

Method #2 is the correct way (in my opinion) on CMDA heads and as someone else mentioned, it helps you identify under utilized heads, driving head, etc.....

At the end of the day, any head other than the driving head is going to flow what its going to flow based on the driving head. So a lot of the time its going to be a moot point. I always liked to find the maxed spaced head, put that number in there for all of them, and then find the driving head and start adjusting to actual head areas to see if the driving head jumped and where to, and then keep doing that until it either stopped jumping, or went back to the original driving head. I teach my designers to think about their design area before they lay out the first head. That can save you a lot of headaches if you plan ahead.

Reply
Cliff Schulze
2/22/2022 09:41:15 am

I always use method 2. This comes in handy in trying to see what heads are driving up the flow and thus the pressure.

Reply
Brian Cockburn
2/22/2022 10:42:55 am

I usually use Option #2, but I will use #3 if each sprinkler area is similar. For example, if there were three sprinklers covering 94, 98, and 100 sq.ft respectively; I might calculate them each at 100 and call it a day.

Option #1 is typically what is required for extended coverage sprinklers (at least it's what I do).

Reply
Pete H
2/23/2022 07:14:03 am

Would agree with the consensus that 1 works for extended coverage, 2 works for standard coverage.

#3 only really works for standard coverage upright/pendents in a small room that fall into 10.2.4.1.2.1 (where the area of the small room can be divided by the number of sprinklers in the room for the protection area of each sprinkler.)

Reply
Brad
2/23/2022 01:35:04 pm

Might I ask the question from a fire district plan review perspective? If I am reviewing a fire sprinkler plan and let say these are the design parameters used:

Design area: 1500 sqft
Density: .10
K-Factor: 5.6
Coverage per sprinkler: 200 sqft

In my opinion, all fire sprinkler heads located in the design area should provide a minimum of 20 gpm at 12.75 psi.

I also believe that there should not be a fire sprinkler head spaced over 200 sqft per head, unless additional hydraulic calculations are provided supporting spacing above the 200 sqft.

If you have a design area and the fire sprinkelrs are only spaced at 100 sqft per head and they are hydraulically calculated to provide the minimum gpm and psi for 100 sqft spacing, then how would you be able to space a fire sprinkler in that building at anything over 100 sqft?

Am I wrong in this type of thinking?

Reply
Casey Milhorn
2/23/2022 02:40:23 pm

Great question Brad. If during initial review you discovered a head in the calc area spaced at 225 sqft lets say, when the designer had 200 sqft max in the calc, then yes. I would ask them to revise their calc. If you happened to find some heads outside of the calc area spaced more than 200 sqft, then personally no I would not ask for more calculations to be done, or the original revised.
The thing to remember is that the calc should take place in the hydraulically most remote 1500 sqft area. This could mean it captures 8 heads at 200 sqft, it could mean it captures 7 heads at 225 sqft, but the end result is going to be very similar. You will see around 160 gallons of demand, plus delta flow. The point is that when you have a smaller head area per head, you end up with more heads in your calc area, and when you have a larger coverage area per head, you end up with less in principal. It mostly equals out. The only issue is that the end head pressure will be higher with the larger coverage area but this should be minimal.
BUT, at the end of the day most fires are extinguished or controlled by 1 to 2 sprinkler heads. Most fires don't happen in the hydraulically most remote areas. The calculation procedure itself has safety margins built in and on top of that, and many fire/code officials ask for additional safety margin. That all being said, many people get caught up on the details and want to talk about 1 or 2 psi, when a good compliance program will do more to save lives and buildings than worrying about the what ifs of design. A valve being closed, an unsprinklered addition/room, a major occupancy change from mercantile to storage, and on and on. Its like measuring with a micrometer and then cutting with an axe.
Sorry, got on my soapbox. Long story short, in your scenario you are proposing, no that wouldn't concern me unless it was obvious that the designer was trying to pull a fast one and deliberately under spacing heads in their calc area while heads outside their calc area were maxed out in spacing.

Reply
Brad
2/24/2022 07:17:05 am

Casey, thanks for your response and explanation. It is always good to get feedback from others within the same field!




Leave a Reply.

    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 June '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 850
    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

    July 2025
    June 2025
    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