What is a "Revamp" Under NFPA Standards?

6/21/2024

How does NFPA define a "Revamp"?

In NFPA 13 2019, Section 29.5.2 states that "Calculations shall be provided to verify that the system design flow rate will be achieved" when revamping a hydraulically designed system.

The problem me and my coworkers are having is that we cant agree on a definition of "Revamp" and NFPA does not seem to define it either.

One opinion is that any "modification" constitutes revamping, and so any sort of modification will require calculations.

Another opinion is that any sort of new addition to a system or hazard change requires calculations. We have almost always defaulted to just calc it and leave it be, but would love a more defined definition on when calcs are needed.

Thanks in advance.

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

10 Comments

Pete H

6/21/2024 06:40:32 am

No actual authority behind this, not even double checking books to see if I can verify, just taking a shot in the dark:

Any change that would effect whether the original design parameters.

Did a hazard classification change? Did walls change the spacing of the heads in the design area? Were heads added to the system at a greater than 1:1 ratio? Did the system go from steel pipe armovers to sprinkler heads to flexible connections? Was an extension that would change the remote area added? Did walls change the spacing in other areas that they now cover enough square footage that they're the remote area? Was the main/bulk run altered to add additional fittings or piping? Were valves added?

If yes to any or more.... run a calc.

Scott McBride

6/21/2024 08:19:34 am

When it comes to NFPA or ICC if the definition is not within the document itself then the definition is to be common meaning from the dictionary, such as webster's.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revamp, which states to "Revise, Remake, Renovate or Reconstruct."

6/21/2024 09:26:02 am

I agree to all of those points. The addition of a backflow preventer of some sort is another item that comes to mind.

Dan Wilder

6/21/2024 08:15:23 am

Well, Chapter 3 has definitions and also states where a term is not defined "...they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revamp
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/revamp

I also checked the NFPA Glossary of Terms with no luck.

https://www.nfpa.org/downloadable-resources/definitions/nfpa-glossary-of-terms-2021

So, the dictionary definition is very broad but "to remake revise, renovate, reconstrut"...so just about anything done to the system would trigger this. Yes, this would lead to requiring a calculation for anything performed on a system but there can be good arguments against the requirement like adding pendents to a light hazard occupancy with ceilings from an ordinary hazard shell space, like for like modifications of sprinklers with the same K-factors (relocations without adding additional sprinklers), change outs from SR to QR, even use of the Eq. K-Factor flex hoses coming onto the market (without adding sprinklers), possibly scope of work compared to the remote area/distance to the riser.....but that is purely an allowance provided by the AHJ.

We have two AHJ's that are currently requiring calcs on any submittal regardless of scope or quantity, exception being removal of sprinklers...owners are not the most excited to realize keeping all those closeout documents was in their best interest vs. the cost of system surveys and new flow tests.

Glenn Berger

6/21/2024 08:26:55 am

Sounds like judicial (lawyer) speak to me because of a previous definition interpretation.

RayJ link

6/21/2024 08:45:19 am

From NFPA 13, 2019 Edition: 29.7.1.1 Where modification is made to an existing system affecting more than 20 sprinklers, the new portion shall be isolated and tested at not less than 200 psi (14 bar) for 2 hours.

Jesse

6/21/2024 10:02:26 am

I want to reiterate a couple comments related to definitions and a dictionary.

In my experience, there are some things technical committees intentionally don't define. And like Dan said, the intent is to have the user go to a dictionary.

One of my technical committees had a lively discussion for 2 hours about a dictionary definition this revision cycle. I can not begin to describe how super-exciting that was......

Troy N

6/21/2024 10:33:21 am

Great question,
We have a plan reviewer that uses this to have almost any tenant improvement calculated and I haven't found anything in NFPA to make a case the other way.

Chris Heyer

6/21/2024 10:58:01 am

I would take it on a case by case basis, but definitely if changes were made beyond the most hydraulically demanding area

Jack G

6/21/2024 12:17:09 pm

Good points and I agree.
Most AHJ s require a calculation if the revamp/ modification is more than 1 to 1, and the area is 40 sprinklers or less.
So many nightmares in a recalculation—- how old is the pipe—- has an internal been done in the last 5 years to check for corrosion around the inside of the piping to affect flow. ( especially dry sys)
Things that are not considered when the architect asks the area to be recalculated after modifications.
I go for asking for the 5 year internal. Usually not done so I get a change order to perform. Then I can put my mind to ease. Also if there are areas that need to be replaced, another change order.
The corrosion definitely will impact the calc however most recalcs are performed with a c factor of 120, wet systems, and not ask for the 5 year internal. ( liability) you can ask the architect for the c factor to be used and see if you get an answer. Then I ll bet he grants the internal.
When performing the mods, the fitters can evaluate the piping also.
For adding flex sprinklers, bfp, a new calculation should be done because of the k factor alteration.

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.

What is a "Revamp" Under NFPA Standards?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES