Replace Existing ESFR K14.0 in Existing 40' Deck?

9/23/2021

I was asked to evaluate a warehouse that was built in 1996 for a new racking permit.

The original fire sprinkler system was designed with ESFR sprinklers with a K factor of 14.0. During the evaluation I found that the building peak was 40'-0" tall. Knowing that NFPA 13 no longer allows K-14 ESFR sprinklers in a building over 32'-0", I informed the building owner that the existing sprinklers need to be replaced with a larger-orifice ESFR sprinkler.

The building tenant has tried everything they can to find away around this and does not understand why the building is not grandfathered.

I am just curious if anyone else has encountered this situation and what the outcome was.

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

16 Comments

Dan Wilder

9/23/2021 07:57:30 am

The area of the new racking would need to be upgraded but areas outside of that scope should be excluded...however, in many cases (justifiably in most of them) this provides the AHJ the means to require building upgrades. Has the AHJ adopted the newer NFPA that removed the allowance (I'm assuming so but it's an argument if not)

The 2018 IFC (what I have available) gives the AHJ the power to require the upgrade within due to the new work being performed:
-Sections 101, 102
--102.1 Construction and design provisions
--102.3 Change of use or occupancy
--102.4 Application of building code
-Section 901.2 Construction Documents
-Section 901.4 Installation

In the case of a large financial impact, we have been successful in having the owner make the upgrades in increments over a specified timeframe and documented in a signed letter from the owner. Seeing how the ESFR's are up for or beyond testing anyway (NFPA 25 - 20 years for fast response), are they passing that testing where replacement may be needed regardless of new scope?

Glenn Berger

9/23/2021 08:09:29 am

Situation is always ugly. Good Luck

matt

9/23/2021 08:30:32 am

I have found on occasion that swapping out k14's for k16.8 ESFR heads will still function hydraulically and also will provide updated coverage criteria. That has been a less-expensive route for upgrades. That or in-racks for the revised storage plan.

matt

9/23/2021 08:33:14 am

...also, it is technically grandfathered right now since they are using the facility under outdated design criteria with their current permit. If they need a new racking permit, then it is a new use. You can't "grandfather" a new use. (generally)

Alex

9/23/2021 05:12:46 pm

My thoughts exactly ^

9/23/2021 08:34:14 am

We run into this often. 14K ESFR heads were really popular in our area in the early 2000's which is terrible when tenants change. If new racks are being added or modified to an existing warehouse we usually don't have problems matching the existing design criteria, but new use and occupancy typically requires the system to be brought up to the currently adopted NFPA 13 standard. Most of these buildings have fire pumps so there are multiple things you can do to upgrade the existing system without significant modifications. Consider in-rack options if you don't have a fire pump. Talking to the local AHJ first is usually a good place to start.

9/23/2021 08:38:58 am

Could you consult with the AHJ to allow the use of FMDS 8-9?
Table 8: Class I-IV and CUP allows K14 ESFRs under a 40' roof.

Jesse

9/23/2021 09:00:31 am

I strongly dislike the "grandfather" concept. We've always operated under the "fire doesn't care about your grandfather" mode.

Its a difficult situation, I get it. K=14 in that building height were pretty common 15-20 years ago. Since then, we've had some experience and seen testing data indicating K=14 wasn't the best approach, which is precipitated the standard change.

FM still allows this in storage applications for up to unexpanded Group A / cartoned. Maybe the AHJ will allow this as an alternative method of compliance.

But their insurer may not.

Franck

9/23/2021 12:27:19 pm

Fully agree with Jesse regarding the "grandfather" concept.

If there is a change, there is normally a good reason and the path between an adequately controlled fire and a disaster is very narrow with storage arrangement. And the higher the storage and the height of the building, the less flexibility you have.
Not to speak about the change of commodity.
There is a huge number of fire losses because of inadequately protected storage warehouses or change in occupancy.

Matt

9/23/2021 09:06:50 am

be sure to review the specifics in the FM data sheets before trying to use those criteria. The FM discharge requirements can be much higher than NFPA.

It is possible that attempting to use the same piping/head layout to meet an FM design could be more costly than in-racks or a head change. if it is even possible.

Bob

9/23/2021 11:15:10 am

Upgrading or changing out racking is different than a change of use and does not necessarly mean an increased hazard. We have hit similar situations related to smoke venting and tenant changes in existing warehouses.

Discussion wise, there does not appears to be any dispute about the current requirements nor about the validity of the original design using K14 heads. However, in general from a design standpoint almost ALL warehouse fire protection designs from 20+ years ago are not as robust as they are now, but if the hazard has not increased you should not have to do major reworks every time a tenant moves out or just wants to upgrade racking.

If this was originally permitted and used as high piled storage in the past and the new racking does not create a higher hazard than as originally permitted, then many AHJ's would go along with the existing system.

From an Owners perspective, one would hope that the design professionals engaged would sort through all of the "gray area factors" and provide an accurate view of the changed risk factors and not just apply “current code” blindly in this type of situation. From the limited perspective garnered from your initial question (and not knowing the AHJ involved), it appears your facts are correct, but there may be some pragmatic nuances to consider here also.

Joshua Freedman

9/23/2021 04:41:57 pm

As a property consultant for an insurance company, I often have to tell building owners that we honestly don't care if the City says they are grandfathered in for one thing or another, the City isn't going to pay for the damages caused by a fire. If I have to rate a sprinkler system as inadequate, they can see their insurance rates double which can be quite a lot of money and puts the investment of a few sprinkler heads into a different perspective. Also, the cost of doing the upgrade now while you are out there and have the engineering and permitting going on is going to be a lot less that if they have to do the update down the road and start from scratch. Just from a cost/business perspective, it would probably be in their best interest to upgrade.

BOB

9/24/2021 09:11:39 am

I think Joshua makes a very valid point from about the insurance issue and I have heard it often "in the field".

However, as a general contractor working with some very large national companies and limiting this discussion to warehousing only (Note: on the production and manufacturing side the "loss production" risk factors do seem to motivate change) this insurance rate increase concern centered around grandfathered items has seldom seemed to be a factor for their decision to upgrade or not.

For our clients this is seldom an initial cost issue and their decisions seem to be made based more on long term return on investment. I know this branches into things like "marginal cost of production" to replace losses, etc.

Does anyone have some additional insight on this insurance aspect?

Brian Gerdwagen FPE

9/24/2021 08:54:43 am

To make a real quick point:

K14 ESFR's were not "popular" in the late 1990's and early 2000's. They were all we had, unless you wanted to use a Specific Application storage sprinkler.

Stef

11/12/2022 04:19:43 am

Is it technically easy to remove current K14 heads by bigger orifice ones (K17 or even bigger) considering threadings are different... ?
What does that involve?

Andrew Valente

4/27/2023 09:55:08 am

k14 and k17 (16.8 actually) are almost always 3/4-inch thread.

Replace Existing ESFR K14.0 in Existing 40' Deck?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES