Is There an Arson or Act of God Clause in NFPA 13?

8/4/2022

In NFPA 13, or any related/referenced standards, is there some guidance on where design criteria originates, and what its limits are?

I thought there was something that addresses the intent of the standard not to address arson, acts of God, etc.

I recall something to that effect but thought it was a jurisdictional requirement. I couldn't find any such thing.

Is there any such verbiage like this?

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

7 Comments

Alex

8/4/2022 05:52:29 am

Hi,

The closest thing I can think of is NFPA 13 (2013) 1.1.3 which states the standard is written assuming "the sprinkler system is designed to protect against a single fire originating within the building".

A.1.1.3 further states the systems are design for "protection of a fire from a single ignition source".

The standard doesn't contain either the words arson or God. For arson, we protect our system against tampering by installing tamper switches, chains (to hold valves open), etc. But not sure of specific verbiage regarding either word.

Thanks,
Alex

Jesse

8/4/2022 08:08:26 am

Alex is right. 13 indeed states the standard is for protection of a single ignition. There are a lot of engineering reasons for this, but the primary one being each ignition represents a single fire event and the water supply would be too taxed. I once investigated an arson fire with 23 separate ignitions so I understand the spirit of your question.

Dan Wilder

8/4/2022 08:11:59 am

I would say that most of the NFPA and Building codes out there preface their documents with - "...purpose of this code/standard is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety..." or some varied version of that.

There are codes/standards/risk management documents out there to address higher hazard structures that may take this into account but it will be specific to that scope.(things like hardening of structures for terrorism won't be in an IBC, but will be a supplement to that base standard of construction).

Chris Nelson

8/4/2022 08:22:36 am

Only partially relevant, but I remember being taught by my professor that generally PBD Design Scenario 2 was an arson fire. Just my two cents.

Overall I would agree with Dan Wilders portion. We design a fire to what is expected to occur in the building. We generally dont expect arson and in terms of Force Majeur: grounding for lighting strikes, seismic restraints for seismic zones, dry/preaction for cold or accidental discharges etc etc.

Brad K

8/4/2022 09:42:00 am

I would add that any presence of accelerants would be outside of the scope of light and ordinary hazard occupancies as an expected event. You may reference the occupancy definitions/examples from NFPA 13.

Mike

8/4/2022 10:30:19 am

That's insurance policy nomenclature who would be responsible for paying a claim in the event of a fire.

Franck

8/4/2022 12:34:24 pm

As indicated above, the fire protection is designed to be controlled over a designed area, with the assumption that the fire starts at a single point (following a single event) and spread as expected by design.
With arson, you normally have multiple starts of fire (not a single event), have additional combustible (accelerants) which definitely change the occupancy hazard, and may even impair the fire protection system (closed valve…).
For all these reasons, this out of the scope of NFPA 13.
It has been diplomatically defined as “… is designed to protect a single fire originating within the building” or “a fire from a single ignition form”. You can translate it into “not to address arson, act of God, etc.”, as it may be easier to understand. But not NFPA 13 wording.

Leave a Reply.

Home
Our Cause

The Blog
The Forum

PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit
MeyerFire University

Pricing
Login
Support
Contact Us

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 © 2016-2024 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.

Is There an Arson or Act of God Clause in NFPA 13?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES