|
I'm designing a sprinkler system for a wood chips warehouse where the material will be stored directly on the floor of a covered shed. I classified the hazard as Class III according to NFPA 13; however, I was unable to determine the appropriate type of sprinkler to use, as the storage method is not addressed in the standard's tables.
How would you classify wood chips stored directly on the floor? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
5 Comments
I have a customer who is a large production facility with a 12-inch underground fire loop. There are 14 risers, 2 of which are 4 inch, the rest are 6 inch, with 7 fire hydrants tied in around the exterior.
The issue at hand is that they are getting false alarms on random flow switches. The head scratcher is that the water flows all test fine at around 45-50 seconds. Maintenance is saying that the risers where the alarms happened were cold (indicating water flow) and the other risers were room temperature at the time of activation. There is a 12-inch double-check backflow preventer at the water entry point. I'm starting to think about valve tampering, but I am looking for insight I may not have considered. Do you have any tips for what this might be? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am working on a retrofit project where the owner wants to replace the existing electric baseboard heaters with electric cove heaters. Being a radiant heater, NFPA 13 clearly states that sprinklers within the high and intermediate temperature zones would need to be changed out to suit.
I am getting pushback from the design team, given the small size and low power (1KW) of the heaters. NFPA 13 seems petty cut and dry on this. Am I missing something? Anyone run into this before? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We are currently discussing with the authorities regarding obstructions and their implications subject to FM Global design requirements (FM 2-0, 2021-10).
Specifically, the scenario involves a round duct (2.3 ft / 700 mm in diameter) positioned 12 inches (300 mm) below the sprinkler deflector in a non-storage application. Is it necessary to install sprinklers below the duct in this case? Below is a relevant excerpt from FM 2.0 (2021-10): 2.5.2.5.4.1 Any object up to 4 ft (1.2 m) wide, as measured in the object’s least dimension and in a plane that is parallel to the floor, does not qualify as an obstruction to the sprinkler’s discharge pattern. I would like to clarify whether any object up to 4 feet wide is considered not an obstruction, regardless of the vertical distance from the deflector (or thermal element). Alternatively, must we adhere to the 3 feet (0.9 m) clearance requirement? Your expertise and clarification on this would be greatly appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Hi, I am asking a follow up question to the post, "What's Required to be in a Shop Drawing?"
Having completed working drawings for contractors in NYC in the past, everything on the NFPA 13 Chapter 23 list was required. I've even been asked to resubmit for lack of a graphic scale, "jerks!" Ever since then, it has been my opinion that the Working drawings should be able to be used as a standalone reference, meaning no other document retrieval should be required to completely understand the system layout and duplicate the calculations. I'm currently reviewing shop drawings prepared by an extremely reputable FP engineering firm, and many of the required items from the checklist are missing. Of the applicable items, the explanation is that the information such as compass point, building sections, water service line, etc., are part of the CD set and therefore not required. Pipe elevations are included in the calcs, so they are not required on the drawings. Fire sprinkler and major valve manufacturer and model numbers are included in the product data, which, by the way, was not submitted by the contractor with the drawings and calcs as specified and is not this engineer's fault. Having said that, when sealing working drawings for contractors, we would require that information on the drawings so that it was clear to other entities that the equipment being provided matched the calcs. They also said that cut lengths are not required because these are not fabrication drawings. They said the quantity of sprinklers doesn't matter because there is only 1 riser and they are all the same temperature. I have complete confidence in this engineer, I'm just wanting to check myself for future reviews. For the record, I'm of the opinion that this should be returned and resubmitted with the product data. Other than that, things like graphic scales, compass points and other minor missing line items I would say minor correction to be included in the Owner's Record Copy. I don't know how many times I've asked for FP information for a building and the only information available is the working drawing. Am I wrong in thinking it should be as easy as possible to duplicate the calcs with only the working drawing available? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am preparing an assessment for adding a fire protection sprinkler system to an approximately 9,000 sqft existing single-story building that is a state half-way house for juveniles after being released from detention. Fewer than 16 occupants excluding staff.
The architect has deemed it Group R-3 occupancy (although I wonder if Group R-4 Condition 1 is more appropriate.) IFC 903.3.1.2 permits NFPA 13R throughout Group R, and this meets the three stated conditions for this section. Section 903.1.3 allows NFPA 13D in some applications; the list is separated by semicolons and includes R-3 and R-4 condition 1. However, more square feet of this facility is dedicated to non-residential purposes (meeting rooms, classrooms, kitchen, etc.). This seems counter to the scope of NFPA 13D. Even the IFC commentary mentions the use of 13D, but for one- and two-family dwellings. And I'd prefer an FDC and more than a 10-minute water duration. I'm a sprinkler guy, and not a building code expert. My gut says NFPA 13R is most appropriate (and I will ask the building code official), but what nuance am I missing here? Budget-wise NFPA 13D is way more favorable, but it just doesn't seem right. I'd like to know if both NFPA 13D & NFPA 13R are acceptable options for this type of building. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems now require an egress time study to show that the design limits exposure to halocarbon agents is no longer than 5 minutes, like FK-5-1-12 (NOVEC 1230), HFC-227ea (FM 200).
This comes from 2018 Edition Section 1.5.14, 2020 Edition Section 4.3.4, and 2022 Edition Section 4.3.4. Exposure time for inert gas agents will depend on the oxygen levels within the space or room. Concentration below 43 percent shall be permitted where exposure is no longer than 5 minutes. Concentration between 43 and 52 percent shall be permitted where exposure is no longer than 3 minutes. The annex of NFPA 2001 tells us to review the NFPA Handbook and the SFPE Handbook for more information. Is anyone doing these calculations, and if so, what exit flow, movement speed, and reaction time would you consider appropriate for spaces using these systems? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Question regarding a mechanical closet and/or plenum. We have what I'll call a mechanical closet because it houses an electric AC/heating unit for an apartment using NFPA 13. The sprinkler designer/contractor is calling it a plenum/small space and is omitting sprinklers. The plans do not show any sprinkler coverage. Is this closet a plenum or small enough space to omit sprinkler protection? Is there code justification for this? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  Is ESFR ever permitted as a dry system (for applications like unheated warehouses)?
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I'm designing a system that has multiple, narrow tenant spaces divided by 2-hour rated fire walls.
When using density/area method, the square root × 1.2 design area doesn't include enough space to satisfy the 1500 square foot requirement. In this case, would I extend the area further parallel along the branch lines, extend it along the main into the adjacent space, or call it good where it's at? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Valve Cabinet Clearance Is there any code which requires a minimum clearance for a valve cabinet. I typically say 36” or 1m (in Canada) as that is the typical clearance required in front of equipment. But I have been asked if there is any supporting reference for this specifically and I can’t find one for hose cabinets.
Just hose valves in a cabinet or where they are not to obstruct egress. Looking to see what others use and if they have any code reference. Along a similar thought - does anyone know if equipment access clearances can overlap, or do they need to be independent of each other? Can clearances overlap? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We are preparing drawings and hydraulic calculations for the storage of XLPE & XLEVA foam panels in an existing warehouse equipped with an Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (OH2) sprinkler system.
Based on NFPA 13, these products would fall under Group A plastics; however, independent testing indicates they do not exhibit the same ignition characteristics as standard polyethylene. • XLPE (Cross-Linked Polyethylene) is chemically or physically cross-linked, enhancing its fire resistance. • XLEVA (Cross-Linked Ethylene Vinyl Acetate) contains EVA, further modifying its properties. Third-party testing found that these materials did not have the same ignition characteristics as Group A Plastics. Here are notes from the test report: 1. The specimen did not ignite. 2. The specimen ignited but self-extinguished prior to burning into the timing zone. 3. The material stopped burning before it burned for 60 seconds from the start of timing and did not burn more than 51 mm from the point where timing was started. 4. The test was discontinued at 5.0 minutes. The customer plans to store 4' x 8' panels on wood pallets in a solid pile arrangement exceeding 5 feet in height. Given that an OH2 system does not support Group A plastic storage above 5 feet, I'm looking for input on whether the test data could justify a reduced design density under NFPA 13 or if this scenario would require a performance-based design approach. Does NFPA 13 allow adjustments based on fire testing like this? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Spring has sprung, and so has the awesome sharing in this community! Big thanks for pitching in and making it great, especially our Top Contributors for April 2025:
Can you omit fire sprinklers in HVAC towers where the entire building is sprinklered?
The HVAC towers have a full-size door and HVAC equipment inside. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe NFPA 14 states that "hydraulically designed standpipe systems shall be designed to provide the waterflow rate required by Section 7.10 at a minimum residual pressure of 100 psi at the hydraulically most remote 2½" hose connection and 65 psi at the outlet of the hydraulically most remote 1½" hose connection" (Section 7.8.1, 2019 edition).
So does this mean if you have a single 2½" hose valve on your project, you need 100 psi residual at that valve? This seems pretty cut and dry, but I've been thinking about this, and off the top of my head, I can list at least 5 projects that had 2½" hose valves and less than 100 psi of static pressure on the ground floor, let alone 100 psi residual on the 4th floor. Not only projects that I have personally witnessed get signed off, but also buildings I have found myself walking through that have had gauges on the hose valves, and those gauges more often than not (in my area at least) read a pressure less than 100 psi static. Are these just all designed wrong? Or am I missing something? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Section 9.2.2 in NFPA 14 allows protection for a standpipe that is not in a stairway to be "the piping is enclosed in fire-rated construction with a rating equal to that of the enclosed fire-rated exit stairway." In the Gypsum Association Manual WP 3910 for a chase wall with staggered studs has a rating of 2 hours. Does such a 2-hour rated chase meet the intent of NFPA 14 when the standpipe is not in the stair? Thank you for your feedback! Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  We're looking at "refuge areas" per 2024 IBC (not to be confused with "areas of refuge" in NFPA 101) within smoke compartments to satisfy the requirements for smoke barriers in Group I-1, Condition 2 in the IBC. Can the "refuge area" be calculated to include portions of the floor/smoke compartment that are open to the exterior of the building? For example, an occupant load of 80 persons receiving care on the fifth floor of a Group I-1, Condition 2 occupancy would require a minimum of two (2) smoke compartments to be provided (420.6). Each smoke compartment must be provided with a refuge area sized to accommodate 15 sqft/care recipient plus 6 sqft/other occupant and "areas or spaces permitted to be included in the calculation of the refuge area are corridors, lounge or dining areas and other low-hazard areas" (420.6.1). If each side of the smoke compartment is provided with an exterior lounge/amenity area, may this be used as the "refuge area" to meet the minimum required square footage?  Before people say, "Ask the AHJ," I am him; he is me.
I have an applicant who has combined plots of land with a mid-rise and some detached townhouses. A shared fire line supplies the two structures, but only the mid-rise FACP monitors the supply tamper. The townhouse FACP will not know if the water is off (except for the tampers at the risers within the townhouse). The buildings are owned by the same ownership. They are arguing they are technically meeting IBC 2015 903.4 "Valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels, and temperatures, critical air pressures, and waterflow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit." It is being monitored, but the fire marshal and I are of the opinion this doesn't provide monitoring for the townhouse and does not meet the intent of the code. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether a shared line can be monitored by only one building that it serves? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe My company is hiring a contractor to install our central station headend equipment (servers and software).
I would like to include the testing requirements in the statement of work. I looked through NFPA 72-19 Chapters 14 and 26, as well as other chapters and codes. I do not see the requirements for central station headend testing. I think the subscribers will need to ping the central station with the date, emergency code, building, etc. Does code require a minimum amount of information the subscribers must send to the Central Station? If so, could you tell me the required subscriber information that needs to be sent to the central station or provide the location in code for the information to be sent to the central station from the subscribers? I don't see any requirements or criteria for testing, and I want to be sure we're conducting this appropriately. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe My company just completed design/build construction of a canopy structure over a courtyard between two restaurant buildings located on the east & west sides. We assigned an Occupancy Classification of A-5. The structure is all steel, other than the roof construction is comprised of the following layers: 22 gauge steel B deck, 7/16 inch OSB, 24 gauge metal standing seam. The standing seam contractor asked for a solid substrate, instead of metal to metal (Standing Seam attached to the B Deck. We agreed to add the OSB. We examined the 2018 IBC and assessed that we could use the OSB. Our assessment concluded that the entire structure could be built with wood framing without sprinklers (A-5, no enclosures, height 37ft, 6,090 sf, Type V(A) Construction). The AHJ shut us down and told us we needed to remove the OSB (combustible material). What we didn't know was that the City and developer executed a Covenant Agreement that stipulated the Canopy was an A-3 Assembly occupancy. This was arranged because the developer didn't want the exterior restaurant walls to be fire-rated because of the ease of movement from the restaurant to the courtyard. As a result, the OSB needs to be changed to fire-retardant-treated plywood. Was the original classification of A-5 occupancy (which could have been wood) canopy assembly an acceptable approach? Picture below, showing the galvanized steel deck. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe  I have a small 580 sq. ft. attic, fed by a dry system, next to a wet system in a retail outlet mall. They are 2 separate systems at the valve assembly. The ceiling for the dry system is 10-ft higher than the wet system.
Would a phantom flow be required here? If so, would it be added at the valve assembly, where they meet? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We are working on hydraulic calculations for a military hangar, and we are referencing UFC 4-211-01, which calls for the design area to be 0.20 over 5000 sqft.
The hangar is 60 feet tall at its peak. To prevent overflow, we are proposing K5.6 sprinklers for the area. Are K5.6 sprinklers allowed, or does UFC 3-600-01 apply where buildings 45-ft up to 60-ft would require minimum K11.2 sprinklers? The area is overflowing by around 600 gpm. Any advice on this would be helpful. Thanks. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe For forward-flow test connections, is a 4-ft length of pipe inside the heated space required?
NFPA 13 Section 16.10.4.9 would require this of any main drain test connection. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am designing a wet pipe fire sprinkler system in a one story Group B occupancy (16-ft high). The building is about 90,000 sqft in area. The building will be fully sprinklered with two zone control valve assemblies.
The fire department is asking to add fire hose valve cabinets as the interior remote areas of the building are more than 130 feet from an exterior door, only citing that its required by IBC 2021. Is this correct? I can't find this requirement. Any help is appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe For a fire sprinkler system, if you have a loop running around a typical hip-roof attic, and you have a center riser, can you tie it into the loop in two locations?
NFPA 13 doesn't really discuss when a looped system turns into a gridded system. None of the branch lines would be connected, so in my opinion this would be acceptable as long as you meet the discharge time through the remote inspector's test connection. What are your thoughts? Is this a gridded or double-loop systems? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop April '25 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
May 2025
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
