How to Coordinate System Types with an Architect?

MeyerFire University | FX104.04

​By Joe Meyer, PE

< PREVIOUS

NEXT >

RESOURCES

FX110 SERIES

RESOURCES

NOTES

• Notes Page [PDF]

FX110 SERIES

1. Why Coordinate with an Architect?
2. How to Coordinate System Requirements with an Architect?
3. How to Coordinate System Standards with an Architect?
4. How to Coordinate System Types with an Architect?
5. How to Coordinate Insurance Requirements?
6. When to Consider Solutions Above Code?
7. How to Coordinate Space for Equipment?

---

How do we coordinate system types with the architect? 

Now in this video I'm talking about sprinkler systems but the same could be said about standpipe systems as well. 

When we're talking about sprinklers, I wanna be sure that everybody on the design team is on the same page about having a wet pipe sprinkler system or a dry pipe sprinkler system, or maybe even a pre-action or deluge system. 

While deluge is very rare for the type of light commercial projects that I typically do, I do come across dry pipe systems all the time. 

When we have areas in the outside of a building that need protection but are prone to freezing, we usually have dry side wall sprinklers antifreeze systems in some cases or a dry system. 

This comes up all the time in projects I do. What am I looking for? Looking for Porte-cocheres, attics, unheated concealed spaces, overhead doors that might stay open for long periods of time in the winter, unheated parking garages, overhangs, canopies, and really any other unheated space that need sprinkler protection. 

Is protection required in each area? 

If it is, can I cover it with just a dry sidewall sprinkler? 

Dry sprinklers and well, dry side wall sprinklers have a dry shaft as part of the sprinkler assembly. So, water instead of being right at the interface where the sprinkler plug is holding the water back, water is kept all the way back at the thread and really not right at that sprinkler plug. These sprinklers are more expensive and require some extra design effort, but a handful of dry sprinklers can be significantly less expensive than a dry pipe sprinkler system. 

If I can't cover the area that I need protection with just a dry sprinkler, do I need to use an anti-freeze or a dry pipe system? 

This is kinda the thought process I’m going through when I come across areas where we need protection, but it's prone to freezing. 

The reason to confirm our design approach with the architect is that the architect has more control over the actual end building product. If a small dry system is gonna add 10 or $15,000 to a project, the architect might think holistically and ask what they would have to do in order to avoid a dry system. Maybe their canopy can be built out of non-combustible materials. Maybe it can be filled with non-combustible insulation and wrapped with non-combustible materials. Maybe the ceiling detail could use faux wood cement board instead of wood itself. It's possible that just a few material changes on the architect side of things can save some serious money on the sprinkler install and the end result could be a better solution for the owner. 

I once did not coordinate the system type with an architect. It was a long narrow warehouse project. And on the far end from the riser, there was a 24-foot-wide bay on the warehouse where there was gonna be storage. It was basically covered, but three sides of it were open. I couldn't cover that 24-foot distance with dry sidewall sprinklers based on the type of storage they had. So, I had to go with the dry system in order to get the production out there that it needed. Then because we had a dry system, I had to slope all of the pipe that were part of that dry system. Dry systems require that all the dry pipe is sloped, whereas wet systems are allowed to be installed horizontal. 

With a long run of pipe and slope that was a quarter inch of drop for every 10 feet of run, we had differences of about a foot in height on the pipe from one side of the building to the other. That may not make a difference if we had a lot of height to work with, but the building had been designed so tight that we were having clearance issues with trucks and the overhead doors on one side of the building and then the distance between the overhead doors and the frame, the structural frame above it. 

The architect called me late in the project and asked why we had to slope our pipe to begin with because we were having clearance issues. I explained we had to use a dry system. And once we had a dry system, we had to slope the pipe and he asked, why do you need a dry system? I said, because we need to cover that far side bay. And we couldn't do it with dry sidewalls. 

The architect then worked with the structural engineer and the building owner, and they actually shortened the building on that last bay so that it was short enough that we would be able to cover that area with dry sidewall sprinklers. To date, it remains the only project I've worked on where the actual building size changed because of the limitations of the sprinkler system just to allow us to use a wet system. Now, I don't know if that'll ever happen again. But as the architect explained it to me, shaving six feet off the edge of the building was going to save them way more money. One, on the dry system. Two, on the clearance issues that they were having inside. And three, save them money structurally and square footage wise when that was some of the least valuable square footage on the whole building. It was a really rare case, but it's one example of why coordinating the system type whether we went wet or dry, and talked about those limitations, and cost impacts, and walking through the architect would've saved a whole lot of headache on that project. We would've been able to come up with that solution way earlier in the project and not so late when it's really more costly to make any of those changes. 

Personally, I had no idea that adjusting the size of the building was even on the table for that project. But from my perspective, I'm also not thinking about the design of the building holistically across all disciplines. I usually think about the building just in terms of fire protection. 

When we confirm our approach on the type of system we want to use with the architect, then we're working with someone who does have the opportunity to adjust big picture items for the best overall solution for the building. An architect certainly will not make changes due to just a fire protection all the time, but at least if we present options and we're offering opportunities to work more collaboratively with the architect, it can help the building owner get the best possible overall solution. 

So – how do we go about coordinating the system type, whether it's wet, dry pre-ex or deluge with an architect? 

Well first, I usually dig into the plans, find what's heated and non-heated and what does and doesn’t need protection. 

I then discuss the system type. I discuss my approach on how I think we can best cover the project and really get confirmation with the architect on that. Then we're either able to both agree and move on, or we then have an opportunity to work through alternative ideas, to figure out really what's the best end solution 

I'm Joe Meyer, this is MeyerFire University.