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

Pipe Allowed to Run Under NFPA 13R Building?

2/6/2019

7 Comments

 
NFPA 13 has clear requirements which do not encourage pipe to be routed underneath buildings (NFPA 13 2016 Section 10.4.3 / 2019 Section 6.4.3).

As best I can tell NFPA 13R does not have similar provisions, although the reasoning for not routing underneath is the same (pipe can become compromised by building settling, leakage is extremely difficult to repair, leakage could cause significant building damage).

Do I have any justification to not allow pipe to be run underneath a building designed under NFPA 13R? The project at hand is an attached block of apartments that has a breezeway in-between, and the contractor is looking to run pipe back underground (below footings and the breezeway sidewalk) to serve the block of apartments on the opposite side.

Posted anonymously by a member for discussion. Discuss this  | Subscribe
7 Comments
Mike Patti link
2/6/2019 10:51:28 am

Would you not want to consider that part of the installation as underground fire main, complete with inspection for depth-of bury, size of main, etc.?

I would believe that is two completely different requirements.

Reply
PETE
2/6/2019 10:52:24 am

NFPA 24 (2016) 10.4.3.1.2 piping shall be installed minimum of 12 in. below building foundations or footers.

I don't think installing beneath a breezeway sidewalk qualifies as beneath a building.

Reply
WES
2/6/2019 10:58:28 am

I don't think the breezeway sidewalk is the issue though.

In order to go from one block of housing to the other, interior pipe on the first block of apartments would need to go from aboveground to below grade, under a building footing, underneath the breezeway (sidewalk), under another building footing, and then stub up into the other block of housing.

What difference would this be from running underneath a building? I would see the risk of damage to the pipe and the potential damage to the building from leakage as the same scenario as simply running pipe underneath a building.

Reply
PETE
2/6/2019 03:14:41 pm

Wes,
We run beneath the footing into the building all the time for a lead-in. Similarly, we run out of the building in the same manner when running to a free-standing FDC.

A leak beneath a footing can be detected and excavated from the exterior. A leak beneath a building would have to have the foundation demo'd and excavated, and would likely not be detected. 10.4.3 allows for 10 feet inside the building footprint. If it is really a concern for some reason not mentioned, consider using AMES in-building risers, which don't have any joints at the 90s.

WES
2/6/2019 03:35:22 pm

Thanks so much Pete.

Right - running under a single footing for a lead-in is done all the time, and out of necessity.

My alternative was to find a way to accomplish the same thing (connect the different apartment units) in an aboveground fashion. This could be a heated soffit or a heated pathway below a deck, in the attic space or something creative.

As currently proposed, the system would be running through more than 10 feet of interior floor slab and multiple footings on each block of housing units. To me that seems against the intent of NFPA 24 (& NFPA 13), but to your point if it only goes underneath one footing on each side and a breezeway sidewalk, then there would be limited exposure underneath the "building".

Appreciate the input Pete!

Leroy
2/6/2019 09:49:11 pm

Very frequently we run into contractors that don't want to opt for the creative options. We usually end up running copper from an interior wall under the breezeway and back up inside the adjacent unit. This "loop" is detailed in the submittals and submitted to the AHJ. In our area the FM usually elects to witness a 200 psi test on the loop before the slab is poured.

Reply
Greg McGahan
2/28/2024 02:43:30 pm

13R 2016 Ed annex A 5.3 says SHOULD, not shall, but does refer back to NFPA 24 for supplies 4" and larger.

Reply



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