We have a job that is a non-conditioned, pre-engineered metal building that serves as essentially a shipping hub for small parts. There are approximately 34 roll back overhead doors, half on one side of the building, half on the other. We live in an area where freezing happens every year, and the coldest temperature recorded during each year averages 4.6 degrees from 2021 to 1948. The doors' tracks are installed at approximately 11'-0" AFF and the door opening is approximately 9'-6" tall. The doors are approximately 10' wide and equally spaced down the building in the 25' bays. The sprinkler system inside the building will be a dry system due to the fact it is not a heated building but we will need sprinkler protection underneath the roll back doors. I think technically speaking the code would allow Option A; a single drop to feed two HSW heads with a 1" valve for drainage per 8.16.2.5.3.2 and 8.16.2.5.3.5 (2016 NFPA13). But this would mean the owner is responsible for draining approximately 17 drains every year that are not even installed with drum drip assemblies, so tripping a system and/or yearly freeze ups could be a very real possibility. Do you guys believe this would even technically be a code accepted method of protecting under these doors from a dry system in a building with no heat? Option A: Or, Option B; run a line parallel to the exterior wall below the door, but above the door opening and do so with needing just two drum drips (one per side) which should decrease the odds of a freeze up and accidental system trips for the owner substantially in my opinion. Option B: What do you guys think? Would option A even be allowed?
Is option B the clear winner (especially with the owner in mind) even though the materials would cost more? I have attached a rough bluebeam sketch to help illustrate the two arrangements. Thank you.
21 Comments
When a building is 84-feet from an existing public fire hydrant located across a 2-lane 45mph roadway, can we assume it is standard practice to use it in an event of a fire? Or would the owner be required to add a personal-use fire hydrant or water storage device on their side of the road? In the latter case, how far would the fire hydrant have to be placed from the building? Thanks in advance.
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am overseeing an NFPA 101, Chapter 43 reconstruction project in an existing storage occupancy that is changing to an industrial/high hazard occupancy.
I am trying to coordinate the means of egress during construction. Other parts of the building are currently occupied and the new area is less than 50% of the building. Section 43.7.2.3 requires that the area comply with the applicable new construction chapters of the occupancy. The hazard category per table 43.7.3 leads me to believe this would be a hazard category 1. The question is: when is the construction area considered to be high hazard? The contents of the hazardous occupancy will not be present through the entirety of the construction and will only be put in place after the space is ready to be occupied and compliant with all means of egress requirements. During construction, the "high hazard contents room" is just a small room with nothing located inside. Even with no high hazard contents present until the space is ready to be occupied, does it need to meet the egress requirements of new industrial/high hazard or can it meet the egress requirements of existing for storage? Thanks. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I had always been taught that we do not allow more than one fire alarm system within the same building.
Does anyone know where that might come from (NFPA 72 or International Fire Code)? Do you allow a Dedicated Function (sprinkler monitoring system) in addition to a fire alarm system, which are separate? We have a multi-tenant strip shopping center, where developers used to build the shell with sprinkler and a sprinkler monitoring system, but a tenant like a restaurant might come in later to build out and need to put in a fire alarm system. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a new construction 5-story residential (dormitory) being constructed under UFC.
The architect inquired if lobbies need to be provided for the elevators, and, if not, do smoke protection (draft-curtains) need to be provided? My immediate thought was of course, something needs to be provided. However, when I follow the code track of NFPA 101, it is not exactly clear in comparison to IBC. The IBC is very clear, Section 3006 regarding the protection of hoistway openings. Without going through the entire NFPA 101 code-track here, we end up back at NFPA 101 Chapter 8. Section 8.5.3 states a fire barrier can be used as a smoke barrier, provided it meets the requirements of Section 8.5. Hoistway openings, specifically elevator doors are not specifically mentioned in NFPA 101 Section 8.5. The only thing I can point to is Section 8.5.2 Continuity and Section 8.3.5.2 Joint Systems for Fire Barriers. Other items: The hoistway is to be protected with a 2-hour fire rating, which requires the elevator door to be 1.5 hour rated (Section 8.6.5), and the building is protected throughout with automatic fire sprinklers, including the elevator shaft. By definition, the building is not considered a high-rise. The hoistway height is ~57 feet. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Since sidewall sprinklers must be installed below smooth, flat ceilings, when I am confronted by beams installed perpendicular to the wall in which sidewall sprinklers are installed, I always install sidewalls below the smooth flat ceiling of each beam pocket.
My challenger suggests that if the "Obstruction Along Wall" rules of NFPA 13 Figs. 10.3.6.1.4 (2019 ed.) / 8.7.5.1.4 (2016 ed.) for standard spray sidewalls is met* then you can "skip" a beam pocket if the overall spacing and coverage is met. Can you skip a beam pocket with a sidewall? My opinion is that these are not intended for continuous obstructions such as beams, which adversely affect heat collection. Y'all on my side? *or the relevant figures for extended coverage sidewalls, or via the MeyerFire Sprinkler Obstruction Tool are met Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe Thanks to everyone for another outstanding month on the forum, and a shout out to our top ten forum contributors for February 2023 as well!
Where does - or does - NFPA 13 and NFPA 13D (2022 Edition) say that hydraulic calculations should be run from the most remote sprinkler to the water supply?
Apparently some hydraulic calculation programs print out the results backwards, which makes them harder to follow. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe How would you typically access a smoke detector at the top of an elevator shaft to change a battery or test it?
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I'm working on a performing arts theater in California. There are floating clouds with pendents in them.
I seem to remember an inspector bringing up an NFPA requirement for either a swing joint or a flexible drop to connect to the pendent sprinkler. I can't find anything in the 2016 Edition of NFPA 13. Is there a requirement for a swing joint or flexible drop for a cloud? Could anyone provide a code reference? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe For a workshop paint spray, is there a delineation for when NFPA 30B is applicable?
I am working on a maintenance shop which has a few spray paint cans. Since they are aerosols, NFPA 13 says to use NFPA 30B which has some pretty drastic requirements for design density. Yes, the easy answer is a flammable storage locker, but has anyone ever had to design to the full requirements just by the mere presence of paint spray cans? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe For a horizontal split case fire pump, 10 pipe diameters of straight pipe is to be provided for the suction inlet.
My design includes a gate valve and strainer within the 10 pipe diameters. Is the strainer allowable in this range? I'm unable to find in NFPA 20 any input on this. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe What is the proper point in a system to take the antifreeze sample?
I have taken readings at both outlets at the check valve, unfortunately a contractor is saying to take it at the most remote point. Those locations are either 25-feet in the air, or not installed at all. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have (2) different storage scenarios with the same product. They are empty 5 liter HDPE containers from 2 different manufactures and packaging slightly different but both having cardboard dividers and on wood pallets. I am leaning towards exposed expanded encapsulated Group "A" on the pallet load without cardboard sides due to the row of containers enclosed in plastic bags. The pallet load with the cardboard partial sides and full cardboard top would be the same due to having only partial sides. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
I have question regarding fire pump capacity.
In my situation the water department is requiring a city tap size to be 2 pipe sizes larger than the fire protection backflow preventer. In my project, I was using a 4" backflow and 400 gpm fire pump so my underground/city tap would be required to be at least 6 inches. The AHJ is requiring me to increase the area size in one of my remote areas. So, my sprinkler demand now becomes 582 gpm. To avoid having to use a 500gpm fire pump (with a minimum suction size of 6-inch) and increase the underground to 8-inch, could I still use the 400 gpm fire pump to supply the 582 gpm demand? This comes out to about 145% of the pumps rated capacity. I have never come close to the 150% mark before and just want to see what others think. If the underground size wasn't required to be 2 inches larger I wouldn't even think about it and go with the 500 gpm pump. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We have a project where we're adding a sound (anechoic) chamber and and protecting it with clean agent.
A question came up as to whether or not dampers are required for the HVAC system that provide supply and return air to the pre-manufactured chamber. Is an anechoic chamber required to have dampers for limiting the migration of the clean agent? My thinking is that the clean agent will be activated by an air sampling system, so there should be no meaningful amount of smoke in the chamber. That said, do the dampers have to be listed for fire/smoke? Any help with getting specifics from code or a clearer understanding is always appreciated from the community so thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We are working on freeze protection for an enclosed canopy which is also attached to the main building. There is no exposed metal pipe to the elements.
Per the AHJ, the only approved insulating process for metal sprinkler pipe is a thermal paint insulation. I found the section for wrapped insulation that is allowed on non-metallic pipe by NFPA 13, but is there a section where wrapped insulation can be used on metal pipe? Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We have a building that is constructed. It has a very deep footing.
The contractor originally submitted an Ames In-Building Riser, but it's too deep for the in-building riser in the building's (essentially) existing condition. They proposed using C900 to come under the footing, without a sleeve, going below the 12" footing and then stubbing up into the riser room without thrust blocks. We have concerns about restraint and a change of direction underneath the foundation. NFPA 13 applies and C900 is a permitted material, which is what the contractor has suggested makes it acceptable. Is routing C900 under a building footing, changing direction, and then stubbing into the building acceptable? NFPA 20 says that if the test header supply main is more than 15 feet from the fire pump, it must be increased one pipe size or hydraulically calculated based on 150 percent of the rated pump capacity.
What form does the hydraulic calculation take? Are we trying to determine if the main can flow 150 percent of the pump rating without running out of pressure? How low a pressure would be acceptable? Is this a one time calculation to size the main or is this a calculation that must be performed during each annual fire pump test? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe The installation contractor and I have had an argument about how sprinklers should be spaced and calculated in a 13R system.
I have argued that per NFPA 13R Section 7.1.1.3.1, we should calculate 3 sprinklers in the greatest hydraulic demand area. This area is furthest from the riser and the calculation permits 16x16-ft spacing for the area that has the most sprinklers. Section 7.1.1.3.1: For each of the following situations, the number of sprinklers in the design area shall be all of the sprinklers within a compartment, up to a maximum of four sprinklers, that require the greatest hydraulic demand: The contractor wants to remove a sprinkler in a single room and move a sprinkler 10 feet off of the exterior wall, but in NFPA 13R makes no mention of a single sprinkler proof calculation that could justify such a move. There is no mention of a single sprinkler calculation in NFPA 13R permitting a spacing of 20x20, and so all sprinklers on the project can be only 16x16 if the greatest hydraulic demand is permitting it. In NFPA 13D, it makes no mention of a single sprinkler calculation either, but does refer to single sprinkler operations in A.10.1. I did not feel comfortable designing a sprinkler system that was not up to code standards and need an outside opinion on this matter. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I am trying to figure out how to protect an existing building that has never had a sprinkler system.
The building peaks at 46'-5" and in that area you can only have a max height of 25'-0 in storage, due to operable cranes in the bay. Additionally, the building is constructed using 12" purlins, so ESFR pendants are out unless we want to put them on return bends. I am trying to give the owner as much storage space as possible, and commodities as they plan to rent the building out to tenants in the future. I have searched through CMSA, CMDA, ESFR and storage to find a situation that best describes it. The issue I always come up on, is the distance from top of storage to ceiling. Every scenario I have looked at, we seem to exceed the 10' or 20' maximum distance. Does anyone have some criteria they used that is close to the situation above? Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe We are a structural engineer currently work for an architect on a small assembly hall project; a wedding venue that will seat over 99, which will require sprinkler protection. The roof structure will be wood scissors trusses, 5’-7” deep at the center – see below. I mentioned to the architect that they will have to protect the “attic” space also with sprinklers.
In response, the architect said the owners want to finish the ceiling and insulate the attic space. Where is it written about the maximum cavity size without sprinklers? Is it any cavity? If so possibly we fill the entire attic space, which is small because of the unique scissors trusses. I don’t think this would be economical or practical. But, what would the cavity depth have to be (underside of roof deck to top of batt or blown insulation) so that sprinkler protection of that concealed combustible space is not required? I assume if this space is not sprinkler protected that “attic” compartments would be required. Any guidance on this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe 3M recently announced they will no longer manufacture NOVEC 1230 by end of 2025 due to the presence of PFAS (https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025).
Other similar agents, such as FM-200, have similar environmental concerns due to having HCFCs. Does anyone know a chemical fire suppression agent that doesn't have CFC or PFAS issues? I know there is a new NFPA standard (770) on hybrid systems and that the Victualic Vortex is one such system, but not sure what other alternatives are out on the market. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I have a situation where I need to protect a modular home manufacturing facility.
It has a paint both that's self-contained with its own sprinkler hookups, all the regulars of a tiny home making shop basically. They will have rack storage of wood products up to 20' high and wanted the design to be such that they could move the storage rack locations in the future if they wished. NFPA 13 (2016) A.5.4.2 gives a list of some Extra Hazard Group 2 occupancies and it specifically lists (4) Manufactured home or modular building assemblies (where finished enclosure is present and has combustible interiors) I had made the assumption that ESFR was a worst case, safe bet design for the entire facility due to the amount of water you get from heads opening up. The contractor is concerned with how code says one thing in one place and something open to interpretation in another place. Section 8.4.6.6 says "ESFR sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect light and ordinary hazard applications." That's fine, but I just see that as just a statement. When you get to the requirements for Storage, Section 12.6.7.1 says the following: "ESFR sprinklers designed to meet any criteria in Chapter 12 or Chapter 14 through Chapter 20 shall be permitted to protect any of the following: (1) Light hazard occupancies (2) Ordinary hazard occupancies (3) Any storage arrangement in Chapter 13 referencing OH1, OH2, EH1, and EH2 design criteria" Item 3 is where I want to make the argument that we can in fact use ESFR sprinklers in an Extra Hazard Group 2 scenario. Can ESFR be used for an Extra Hazard Group 2 situation like this? I need some expert opinions/interpretations. Thanks in advance. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe I'm a plan reviewer for a project that's coming into our area. We have a local gym/special amusement facility that has several foam pit areas.
What is an appropriate sprinkler design criteria for a foam pit? The plans call for a 5-ft platform, which leads us to believe the pit is 5-ft or less in depth, but we're not sure about the building on the platform of other foam pads; so there's a chance this depth could exceed 5-ft when it's all said and done and measured with a tape. Best I can relate to for this type of situation is in NFPA 13 2022 edition, Section 4.3.1.7.2.4, which references Table 4.3.1.7.1.1. Also, I've referenced IFC 3203.7.1 for classification. Is there any other information that you can point me to for guidance? If so, it would be greatly appreciated. Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop June '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
July 2024
PE PREP SERIES |