Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations IDS on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Design ideas for a NFPA 13 Residential Occupancy

Status
Not open for further replies.

jkampana

Mechanical
Aug 2, 2011
45
I am running into some issues on a somewhat unique design for an apartment complex in SLC. Due to the close proximity of adjacent buildings in the area. The builder cannot provide FD access within 150' of all portions of the structure per the IFC. The AHJ has requested, as an alternate means of fire protection, that the design densities in the fire suppression system to be increased a level. Therefore, parking areas will be designed with a .2 design density and residential areas with a .15 design density.

This is not so much of an issue in the parking garage but it is in the apartment areas. The contractor is requesting concealed flat plate pendents in all areas. with a residential head I will have a 4.9 k-factor head of a 5.6 factor head from Reliable. If I use a 16x16 spacing my end head pressure will be (.15*256/4.9)^2=61.41 psi or (.15*256/5.6)^2=47.02 psi respectively. Along with highest outlets being at 50' above the flow test point, adding an additional 21.65 psi to the required pressure for the system. That is even before I start adding friction loss in the pipe so I'm sure you can see my dilemma. A simulated fire flow for the area was 106 Static and 20 psi @ 3000 gpm. I will know the actual numbers next week.

Our hope is to do all residential areas in CPVC and to obviously keep pipe sizes as small as possible. My question is what are some design ideas that I may use to achieve the best and cheapest design possible? I thought about using a commercial head instead of a residential head. That way I can use a most demanding room design approach which would still have me calculating 4 heads in a unit (+2 in coordinator). This would allow me to avoid flowing 4 sprinklers on one branch line and would instead push me to where each compartment has a max of 2 heads on a single branch line. Higher k factors would also help the end head pressure.

I also thought about looping each floor using another standpipe, that would add another floor control assembly for each floor.

Does anybody have any other ideas I may be overlooking or any advice for me on this kind of design? Thanks

 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Ha ha.. We looked at that job and turned it down in the bid phase. I believe I know what one you are talking about.

I have dealt with similar in SLC. I would try some things with your sprinkler coverages.

1 - The way to determine area of coverage (assuming the compartments meet small room criteria) is to take area of compartment divided by number of sprinklers. You then apply the 0.1 density or the sprinkler listing, whichever is greater. I would see if you can get the AHJ to allow you to apply the 0.15 and compare to the listing.

For example, if you have a 600 sq ft compartment and it is covered by 4 sprinklers, the sq ft per sprinkler would be 150 sq ft. At 0.15 density, that is 22.5 gpm. You could compare that the sprinkler listed flow for your spacing. Obviously the 22.5 is greater than 20gpm for 20' spacing. So, you could have your sprinklers spaced at 10' off walls and still be OK. Also, your end head pressure would be a lot less than your 47 psi above.

This should be OK since the space is still light hazard no matter how much water the AHJ is requiring. You are following the criteria for determining area of coverage when utilizing residential sprinklers.

2 - As you mentioned, you can use the commercial extended coverage sprinkler. I can't recall if there is a flat plate concealer at 20' spacing. I think you can get some at 135°F instead of the typical 155. That could be an option, but flows will be a lot bigger. In the example I mentioned above, 4 commercial ex cov would be just over 150 gpm vs 4 residential at just under 100 gpm flows.

3 - I would avoid interconnecting the standpipes unless absolutely necessary because you will need another floor control assembly (minus flow switch and drain) and it is a real maintenance issue to have to shut two valves to work on a floor.

Shoot me an email or give me a call if you need any other ideas. These are always fun projects with the extra requirements that make sense, but the little details don't get thought through all the way as you are finding out.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
Not a designer,

What does upping the density in an apartment get you???

Is the attic going to be sprinkled??

If not offer that, sprinkle all enclosures, breeze ways/ corridors,

See if that makes them happy
 
That particular jurisdiction has been known to up the density on projects like the one described. It is not uncommon on other projects. I know the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) requires a minimum of OH Grp I on all projects >10k sq ft (or has in the past).

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
I am not sure that reference is being used correctly.
Does he want to drive the truck around the building? NFPA #13 allows us to not provide the FDC when the building is remotely located.
Beefing the density does nothing. Sprinklering the Entire building does as cda mentioned.
For an example, do the major cities where high rises sit close together up the density?

The sprinkler effectiveness is about speed. The flowing water is secondary. Hooking up to the FDC is like 4th or something..


R/
Matt
 
This is just a jurisdiction where this is how they do it. Right or wrong, it has been my experience that it will have to be done with the increased density. We can argue all day that it is not the correct way to go about achieving the desired goal. But this is how this project and others will be done in that jurisdiction.

It was clearly noted at bid time in the specifications that the densities were to be increased. I don't remember if the AHJ was mandating everything to be classified as OH1 as a minimum. If they classify as OH1, then cpvc is also out. But, I believe it was just the density increase.

It's always fun when you are dealing with places where things are just done arbitrarily because it is thought to be a good idea, but no one has gone through all of the minutia and how it impacts everything else.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
Ahh,,
OP had classified it as unique problem with a suggested resolution.

I am all for it if defined and is a level playing field.

R/
Matt
 
Yeah. Totally understand. It is unique to that jurisdiction. :)

They are definitely set in the ways they work. That particular jurisdiction is like military. They are very strict and implicit what they require. They are also good to work with.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
Travis, thanks for the tips on that. I didn't even think to use a small room approach for the area of coverage since my mind is focused on the .15 density. I will try that approach this morning as I try a new round of calcs. If that doesn't work I may be forced to run a loop on each floor.

That does lead me to a question though. The upper lever of these apartments have a loft that sits above the kitchens and looks out onto the living room area. From my understanding, that entire area loft +kitchen & living area would be considered one compartment. Is that correct? The floor area of the compartment isn't larger than 800 ft squared but would the fact that there are two ceiling levels in the compartment make it ineligible for a "small room" under the opening requirements?

Matthew - As Travis said, this is typical for this jurisdiction. In fact, All but one of the projects we have done in this jurisdiction have used this alternative method because a certain aspect of the IFC couldnt not be satisfied due the close proximity of surrounding buildings. Like Travis said, they are very particular in what they want and as far as understanding NFPA and its application, they know their stuff better than most jurisdictions. There is only one person in particular that I dislike dealing with. Otherwise they are pretty good to work with.

 
You may have an issue with the lofts. Does the square footage of the loft area plus all of the underlying area in the loft/kitchen/living still stay under 900 sq ft? If so, I would try to argue that it is still one compartment and your openings are only the doors, which may still keep you in the small room allowance. It may be splitting hairs, but with that upgraded density, it may be worth trying to get the point through to the AHJ.

I would definitely try to get them on the phone after you do some more calcs to see the impact of everything. You will want to make sure they are on board with these options prior to getting the full design done and finding they say NO!

My biggest concern you have is if they are classifying it all as OH1 instead of just mandating an increase in density. You can do light hazard and be above the minimum density without issue. However, if they are trying to call the areas ordinary hazard, I don't believe you can use residential sprinklers. Also, you will not be able to use CPVC as the continuous spaces will exceed 800 sq ft, which eliminates the use of CPVC. I would clarify that ASAP. It could really be a game changer on that project.



Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
None of them even get close. I think the largest one has 500 sq ft. and because of the architectural design there are 4-5 heads in those areas.

I actually went through and ran a bunch of calcs and it seems I am able to get them all to work. More 1 1/2" on branch lines than we usually like on these type of jobs, but we knew that before bidding so it should be fine. I have requested information from the AHJ for the design areas. I believe they will be designed under their true hazard classifications with only a density increase. That's what the approved Alternate Means and methods for states. I am going to make sure first though.

Travis, thanks for your help. Do you do a lot of work in Utah? I have actually ran across your plans a few times on projects and they are always well done. Glad to have you on the forum to share your expertise.
 
I have a couple customers in Utah. I used to do a lot of work in UT, but it has slowed for me in the past couple years. Just a couple of my customers have slowed down a bit and/or have hired in-house designers, but the area seems to be going through a boom right now.

That is great about the increase in density and not an increase in classification. Hopefully the AHJ will agree and you guys can have a nice, profitable project.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
In defense of the SLC Fire Department, this is probably a one story Type I-A 1st story parking garage or retail space (and leasing office) with 5 or 6 stories of steel frame and wood frame (IBC Type III-B) apartment units on top of the pedestal Type I-A building. The FD can't get access because the size of the apartment building is limited by the parking garage that it wraps around amd the geometry of the land parcel. I deal with this every week on these Cities in A Box and getting access to work can be a royal pain. I have required sprinklers in many parking garages when this construction practice is employed because of the building's size. The success of the occupants evacuation and firefighter access will be predicated on the success or failure of the sprinkler system. We're already starting to have issues in some of the 5-7 year old Cities in the Box in my jurisdiction because of less than stellar ITM. SLC FD (just like my FD) is nervous about these buildings because of their size, the number of occupants, and the fact that NFPA 13 has 18 different exceptions for eliminating sprinklers in combustible concealed spaces. I agree somewhat in principle with some of the provisions in Section 8.15.1.2 but getting the designers to pick the correct material and getting the sprinkler designer to clearly indicate which method(s) they are applying can be an effort.

A lot of this comes down to MEP engineers not knowing $hit when it comes to the fire protection design issues in these buildings and the owner gets to pay for that when it takes me 4 plan reviews to get the plans corrected to a point where I can comfortable issue a permit to proceed.

As to the OH-G1 density in the dwelling sleeping units, this was most likely part of the Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) I suspect. The architect said, yeah sure just give me the permit, and off to the races he went. I would hope the architect submitted the AMOC in writing because if he did, you need a copy because other requirements may have been imposed.

Sorry for your pain but welcome to Cities in A Box.

 
Scott,

Besides the parking garage, what other requirements have you put on them ?

We are getting an apartment with the parking garage in the middle, but I do not think anything else.

Are you dividing the building up with fire walls?

Any other sprinkler requirements??
 
stookfpe you would be correct. there are two levels of parking that are Group S-2, I-A Construction with one below grade. Then there are 4 levels of apartments on top of it that are group R-2, V-A Construction. Due to the building being in an urban location, adjacent buildings are too close for FD access to be provided to all exterior portions of the building. If a fire were ever to start in the middle of the building they would have no way to attack the fire from the outside. This is very common for the area.

We actually helped with the Alternate means and methods in the design build process. It is presented before a committee and needs approval. This is typically the only thing that they will buy off on in my experience. We have tried other things with no luck.

I don't blame the FD department at all. We definitely knew it going into the project and planned for it in our bids. It should be a great project for us. I was just seeking ideas that would help the design to not get too crazy since I was running into some problems. Not really trying to complain about the AHJ as they are just doing their job.
 
Yeah. They are trying to protect their guys running into the building. I would look at requiring sprinklers in all areas, not allowing for use of the 18 exemptions that Scott mentioned above. The increase in density just doesn't make all that much sense to me. I think that comes from the result of a conversation I had with a guy about the old BIA requirements. I was told that they mandate the increase in density because they know the maintenance is horrible, so they hope that by having a system over-designed by 50% in some cases gives it a better chance of working. My response was that does nothing to prevent a closed valve, which I believe is one of the largest causes of system failure.

These buildings of lightweight construction do scare me to have guys running into them when they are smoke filled and limited to zero visibility. It would be interesting to see some fire modeling of the benefits of increasing the density to some other alternative means of protection.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
In some cases we have had them look at FRTW but the problem with it is that it's design limits are reduced by the IBC because of the pressure impregnation, so 20% more framing is needed. Changing to noncombustible generally is a deal killer. Owners love the filling the combustible concealed space with noncombustible material but this has its own issues. One is that not all materials one would intuitively believe are noncombustible are not when tested per ASTM E136. Secondly, these material settle and will be removed after the first domestic water or condensate line leak because the maintenance guy hates loose fill insulation.

One option is truss sprinklers, but again, the architect needs to understand up front this means draft stopping. The architect correctly understands that draft stopping is not required IBC Chapter 7 when a NFPA 13 system is employed doesn't understand that it is required to ensure successful sprinkler operation.

Travis, the performance sprinklers in conjunction with light weight construction (or as I call it math versus mass construction) has been well documented by UL in a number of fire tests. Reliability of the valve is paramount. I would advocate a chain & lock with electric supervision, especially when floor control valves are located in stairs.
 
I can't tell you how many times I have to be the bearer of bad news on projects where sprinklers are required between the floors. The specially listed sprinklers are required (Tyco CC, Viking COIN, Reliable has one and so does Victaulic). These all require a draft curtain to be installed. I have yet to see a plan from an architect that has ever indicated the required draft curtains. I keep waiting for the day it happens, but won't hold my breath!

I'm glad to hear that the sprinklers and lightweight construction has done well in fire testing.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
"Follow" us at
 
Scott should have asked one other question

Fire flow reduction,

What per centage have you been allowing in this type of building set up?[pre][/pre]
 
Off topic, sorry..

But it is damn refreshing seeing intelligent conversation on these topics....


R/
Matt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor