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

Sprinkler Quantity for Residential Corridor Calc?

4/13/2022

11 Comments

 
I am working on a mixed-occupancy project using NFPA 13 (2013 Edition). The ground floor is commercial space and Levels 2-6 are residential.

The residential areas use residential-type sprinklers with two hydraulic calculations; one in a suite on Level 6 (4 sprinklers), and the other in the Level 6 Corridor.

How many sprinklers should be included in the corridor calculation?

Section 11.2.3.4.2 suggests it should be 7 sprinklers since they form a line down the corridor.

Section 11.3.1.1 suggests that it should only be 4 sprinklers since they are residential-type.

What section is correct here? 

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
11 Comments
Peter Howard
4/13/2022 06:37:06 am

I'd go with four because they're residential type sprinklers and you're in a residential occupancy, just a common corridor.

But I am curious to see if anyone would go with the 7 sprinklers.

Reply
Anthony
4/13/2022 08:14:54 am

7 if you're using QR sprinklers.
4 if you're using residential heads.

The type of sprinkler matters, as always.

Reply
RayJ
4/13/2022 08:20:35 am

I would calc both and have done a building similar to this.

Reply
JI
4/13/2022 08:26:39 am

I'd be more inclined to go with 11.2.3.3.6 for most corridors assuming the corridor allows the room design method is allowed to be used (which is 5 sprinklers, residential sprinklers while spaced like extended coverage sprinklers, are not extended coverage sprinklers and do not fall under the 75 linear feet rule). I don't think you can use 11.3.1.1 for corridors since it is not a dwelling units as per 11.3.1.5. Curious to see if others use the 4 head calculation in the corridors since you are allowed to use residential heads as per 8.4.5.1.

Reply
James Phifer
4/13/2022 08:27:33 am

The appendix (2016 ed) figure A.11.3.1.1(a) detail (b) shows an example of a calculated area in the corrido with 4 residential sprinkler heads.

Reply
Casey Milhorn
4/13/2022 08:30:30 am

Four, if the corridor is connected to at least one residential unit. If you have common areas, unconnected corridors, etc... then you will use SSP QR sprinklers and calc accordingly. I don't always do a corridor calc when using residential heads because many times your corridor heads are fed from a larger main down the middle (1-1/4" to 2") and your units are fed with 1". It would be a rare exception to need the corridor calc (for example, unit heads are spaced at 14x14, and corridor heads are at 20x20. Or if using a different K factor for units than for corridors). Even if you factor in a little more delta flow at the corridor heads, its not near enough to outweigh the friction loss through the 1" in the units.

Great question....

Reply
EYount
4/13/2022 08:30:47 am

If it’s residential sprinklers it would be 4 and if it’s QR it would be 5.
11.2.3.3.7  Where the area under consideration is a corridor protected by a single row of sprinklers with unprotected openings, in a light hazard occupancy, the design area shall include all sprinklers in the corridor to a maximum of five, or when extended coverage sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within 75 linear feet (22.9 linear meters) of the corridor.

Reply
Scott Stoltenberg Jr
4/13/2022 08:37:35 am

I would have to say it is 5 based on 11.2.3.3.6 or 11.2.3.3.7.

I just had this similar situation myself where I had residential heads under NFPA 13.

Since this area is Light Hazard and not residential, you will have to calc it with the "greater" (worst) of the two. Density, Head spacing with a min. pressure of 7 psi or per the pressure and the flow in the sprinklers listing.

• NFPA 13 19.4.1.3 states: “Unless the requirements of 19.4.1.4 are met, the minimum required discharge from each design area sprinkler shall be greater of the following:
1) In accordance with minimum flow rates indicated in sprinkler listings
2) In rooms or compartments 800ft² (74m²), calculated based on delivering a minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft² (4.1 mm/min) over the design area in accordance with the provisions of 9.5.2.1
3) In rooms or compartments 800ft² (74 m²) or less calculated based on delivering a minimum of 0.1 gpm/ft² (4.1mm/min) over the room or the compartment using the area of the room divided by the number of sprinklers.
Residential heads are typically calculated with a density of .05 but the calculation is driven by minimum flow rates in their listings, which in this instance is the greater of the options 1) & 3) because 2) does not apply because they are <800ft². I have provided additional calculations under the light hazard or item 3) from above to show that the original calculations, in fact, where the greater of the two options.


While I know this is 2019 you can find the similar reference in the 2013 edition at 11.3.1.3.

This was also my response when the plan reviewer was confused because were using residential heads in a light hazard area, since they can be point in adjoining corridors.

Hopefully this helps :D

Reply
Jack G
4/13/2022 08:48:48 am

I personally, because residential systems have unprotected areas/ rooms, would use the 7 sprinkler design.
I also try to align sprinklers near doorways, in case one is propped open.
A pipe size difference in a corridor has minimal effect on the cost.

Reply
Alex
4/13/2022 10:29:31 am

Hi Jack, curious on your design approach here. Would you add additional heads if the doors don't align with your spacing? Seems like it could increase the number of heads real quick!

Reply
Todd E Wyatt
4/13/2022 10:34:46 am

I recommend you have the Architect-of-Record (or AHJ) verify the exact "residential" occupancy(s) per the applicable IBC ...

Group R-1 (Hotels)
Group R-2 (Apartments)
Group R-3 (Dormitories)
Group R-4 (Board & Care)

... since each Group R# has different Fire Protection requirements per IBC Chapter 9.

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 April '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 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

    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