NFPA 13 and FM GLOBAL???? 1

[rmae]

I have been doing sprinkler design work and engineering for 10 years and have never had the pleasure to use the heralded fm global 2-0 Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet.

Now I get a project and performance spec forwarded to me that says:
Sprinkler system shall be in strict accordance with NFPA 13, latest issue and FM Global.

...and further on in the spec. there is a requirement to send the drawings to FM Global for approval.

What the heck???
Can you do both NFPA 13 and FM??
Just took a look at the FM 2-0 and looks like a completely different puppy to me!

And of course the sprinkler 'performance spec.' is under the plumbing section in the spec.

Experience???

R M Arsenalt Engineering Inc.

http://www.rmae.ca

 

[stookeyfpe]

Design to FM 2-0 and confirm those conditions where the Factory Mutual Data Sheet take precedence over NFPA 13. Be careful - FM's rules will are more restrictive.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Design to FM 2-0 and confirm those conditions where the Factory Mutual Data Sheet take precedence over NFPA 13. Be careful - FM's rules are more restrictive.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Design to FM 2-0 and confirm those conditions where the Factory Mutual Data Sheet take precedence over NFPA 13. Be careful - FM's rules will are more restrictive.

 

[PEDARRIN2]

NFPA 13 is a standard which becomes binding by a building or fire code.

FM Global is an "insurance company" that has fire suppression standards for its clients. It is generally more restrictive than NFPA.

The AHJ will review the design for compliance with NFPA, not FM.

I have only done one project which involved FM Global.

FM will review the design for compliance with its standards and will tell the owner how much the insurance premium will be for the building. The owner then has the task of deciding if the increased insurance premium is warranted over the increased cost of the extra requirements over NFPA.

On my project, in some of the more excessive requirements, the owner opted for a slightly higher insurance premium and saved $1000's up front.

Design with NFPA as the minimum, keep a record of the higher cost for meeting FM requirements and coordinate with the owner which direction to go.

 

[desnov74]

I second what everyone says.Recall that the code is a MINIMUM and reference. Always follow the more restrictive code and get feedback early from the AHJ aking for amendments. Keep the owner in the loop as PEDARIN2 suggests.

 

[rmae]

Thanks guys.
Its going to get interesting. I requested that the sprinkler contractor who hired me to put in an RFI to the G.C.

The G.C. has confirmed..."Ultimately, the system will have to be designed to the FM Global Loss Prevention Data Sheet 2-0. As stated in the spec, the design will have to be reviewed and approved by FM Global and as such must be designed to meet or exceed their standard"

I agree with peddarin2 that since our model in-force building code (NBC) requires sprinkler system installation to be in conformance with NFPA 13, the sprinkler design will have to meet or exceed its provisions.

Will completing drawings completely to FM Datasheet 2-0 satisfy ALL the requirements of NFPA 13 since it permits the use of an alternative design and the more stringent requirements of FM Global should be superior to NFPA 13's method?

I am not the one who is doing AHJ negotiations on this job and when the contractor commissioned my services only NFPA 13 was mentioned. I only received the spec. recently.

 

[rmae]

FYI

Nice little history of FM Global....

 

[desnov74]

Purple star for the presentation, I thought it was good post. Here's more of their history from the website.

http://www.fmglobal.com/page.aspx?id=01070000

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

When using FM Global I've always referenced the equivalency clause and haven't had a problem yet.

1.5 Equivalency.
Nothing in this standard is intended to prevent the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this standard. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency. The system, method, or device shall be approved for the intended purpose by the authority having jurisdiction.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to demonstrate FM standards would not provide an equivalent level of protection to the NFPA standard.

 

[rmae]

I agree sprinklerdesigner2.
I have provided this to the AHJ and they have OK'd having the design done to FM Global. Now if only the damn architect will release the digital files to me I could get rolling.

R M Arsenalt Engineering Inc.

http://www.rmae.ca

 

[scfirecode]

I agree with many of the posters. FM Global standards are in addition to NFPA 13. That being said, I have compared both on occasion and FM Global made no difference to the specific application to which I was designing.

 

[jimnogood]

Also look at FMDS 3-26 for design criteria vs. NPFA 13 for non-storage applications. Design area, K-factors etc. are typically higher than NFPA minimums.

Remember to check that all the sprinkler components are FM Approved (e.g. there is no approved concealed type, quick response sprinkler).

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

In April I received a 122,000 sq. ft. FM Global ESFR system. Four 6" risers with large feed mains crossing half the building on two of the systems.

About the time I started the drawings Travis drops this little bomb

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=272968&page=2

"top twelve list of some of the most significant changes in the FM Gl" and #1 immediately caught my eye almost causing me to fall out of my chair.

1. There is no maximum size of system. Instead, the "maximum area of coverage for a sprinkler system is limited only by the hydraulic requirements of the sprinkler system's design for the occupancy being protected" (2-0:2.4.1.6).

Eliminating three of the four 8" run-ins, post indicators, risers etc I could have easily saved $10k on the project but I chickened out not knowing how code officials would take the change and I didn't have time to take a chance.

Since then I have been asking and so far the answer has been unanimous; with published FM global guidelines a single system covering 121,000 sq. ft. would have been accepted. Still kicking myself for being such a coward.

Anyone else have experience with this?

 

[NJ1]

Interesting. I just got a job here in bayonne nj where the clients insurance stated that the system is not adequate for the use of accupancy and storage classification. They are all dry systems in a heated building. I will take Travis information and apply that to this job. Hopefully it gets accepted.