No FM Approved Quick-Response Concealed?

5/14/2019

Have a project where the client is wanting fully-concealed sprinklers, but the project is insured under FM Global. FM does not approve any fully-concealed sprinklers as quick response.

However, under NFPA 13, light hazard spaces are required to have quick response sprinklers.

How do you normally address this conflict?

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

13 Comments

Clifford Schulze

5/14/2019 10:11:38 am

Most concealer style sprinklers have a dual rating, UL Quick Response, FM standard response. The UL rating satisfies the NFPA requirement, the FM rating satisfies FM Global.

FIREPE25

5/14/2019 10:12:04 am

My understanding is that the concealed sprinklers are still UL listed as quick response. Therefore as far as NFPA 13 is concerned you are installing a listed quick response sprinkler. I do not believe there anything in FM that states you need a listed quick response sprinkler in HC-1.

Bruce Seiler

5/14/2019 01:09:58 pm

I agree with the previous comments. Most concealers carry a duel listing. FM does not require quick response. We have installed thousands of concealed sprinklers in light hazard spaces per NFPA 13 and FM requirements.

Wayne Ammons

5/14/2019 02:33:11 pm

Like many instances in this industry, you may ultimately need to have a conversation with the FM representative as well as the local AHJ to come to an agreement on what sprinklers will be allowed.

Most AHJ's want to strictly conform to NFPA requirements, and most FM insured projects require conformance to FM Data Sheets as well as having all products specifically FM approved, this includes sprinklers be used as approved by FM. For example, the Tyco RFII specifically states on the data sheet that FM does not approve concealed sprinklers for quick response, you could not use that sprinkler in a space where quick response sprinklers are required by NFPA and still comply with FM. I have come across some AHJ's that do not even want to consider FM compliance, they insist on NFPA. Those instances can be challenging because I have to create a "dual" submittal that complies with both. Other AHJ's are more open to allowing designs that comply with FM criteria that may differ from NFPA in some aspects.

I do not know of a black and white solution for this. Hopefully someone else might.

Wayne Ammons

5/14/2019 02:46:31 pm

I should reconsider my response to align more with the other replies above, I think the dual listing is what will allow you to use the quick response concealed sprinklers in your light hazard space. Taking a quick look through FMDS 2-0, quick response is specified for certain instances but I did not see where they are required for a light hazard/HC-1 occupancy...

Jesse

5/15/2019 09:14:09 am

Agreed - in the end, its the AHJ that issues the approval. They are, after all the Authority Having Jurisdiction. FM has no jurisdiction other than a voluntary relationship with their insured. And there are numerous HPR insurers out there.

Nimal Tissa Wijetunga

5/14/2019 11:35:06 pm

If it is insured with FM Global, you need to consider FM Global requirements as there is no alternative or other options.

JOE MEYER

5/15/2019 09:13:38 am

Nimal,

I don't believe this is true. Most jurisdictions adopt a building code and (often by extension) NFPA 13. NFPA 13 is still a requirement for the jurisdiction even when FM Global is the insurance carrier.

Jesse link

5/15/2019 09:09:31 am

My 2 cents.

I was an insurance HPR engineer for many years before coming to the design side, and I'm intimately familiar with FM. As a design engineer, who the customer retains for property coverage on the carrier and brokerage sides couldn't be less relevant. I work for the customer. The design I sign using my license states "these plans comply with NFPA 13 and local fire code". If the AHJ has adopted XX version of NFPA 13, that's my standard. Not FM. If 13 is silent on an issue, like expanded Group A in 2013 version, then the AHJ we work with may allow FM 8-9 be used.

Nimal Tissa Wijetunga

5/16/2019 01:09:03 am

I maintained that my position on this issue is correct. Therefore, FM Global maintain Data Sheets searately to any other.

Mike

5/17/2019 03:13:35 pm

FM Global Data Sheet 3-26 states that quick response sprinkler heads are to be used in nonstorage wet systems. FM Global is an insurance provider not an AHJ. So if you choose not to follow the Data Sheet by installing a sprinkler head that is not recognized by FMG as a quick response head, but does meet the requirements of NFPA-13, then they can deny coverage in the event of incident.

WES

5/17/2019 03:34:33 pm

Where does FM 3-26 recommend sprinklers be quick response for non-storage wet systems?

FM 3-26 Section : 2.1.1.1 For new installations of wet-pipe sprinkler systems in Hazard Categories 1, 2, or 3 (HC-1, HC-2, or HC-3) occupancies with ceiling heights up to 60 ft (18 m), use FM Approved upright or pendent, standard or quick-response, standard-coverage or extended-coverage, nonstorage automatic sprinklers with a temperature rating of 160°F (70°C), where applicable.
--- This section permits standard response.

FM 2.1.1.9: Use quick-response (QR) non-storage sprinklers in wet systems only.
--- Here, the only is referring to the wet system, not the quick response. I read it as "don't use quick response in dry systems", not "use only quick response sprinklers in wet systems".

Also, I wouldn't think FM would deny coverage by not following their recommendations. They could raise premiums for their coverage, but I wouldn't see an issue like this as a denial of coverage. You'd have to speak with an FM representative on that.

Kelly C link

6/15/2021 03:09:23 pm

FM Global has a specific standard for Clean rooms FM1-56. It specifically stipulates that you must use quick response and that you cannot use a concealed sprinkler head. Thus, we are left with only one option unless someone has a special listed sprinkler head. You must seal from behind the sprinkler. You would have to have a boot system similar to a freezer system.

I personally don't have a problem with a standard response system if you are over a production room that is Ordinary Hazard, but the Light Hazard occupancies are the tough ones. I also don't have a problem with using a standard response listed concealed sprinkler head for clean rooms, but it is hard to go against 1-56. Maybe it is time to update that code???

No FM Approved Quick-Response Concealed?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES