Underground fire water for separate building

[trashcanman]

Suppose you have two separate buildings to be sprinkled, less than 52,000 sq.ft. Is it allowed to have the riser in 1 building and run a line underground to the 2nd bldg. to avoid the cost of a 2nd riser? NFPA 13 does not specifically prohibit this (that I could find), but does say you cannot run a line under a building. What if the line is run underground, but not under pavement? Comments please. Thanks.

 

[stookeyfpe]

I seem to recall the 2007 edition of NFPA 13 now has addressed this issue. As a former code official, I never approved this because buildings are bought and sold and such an arrangement is difficult for the responders to figure out.

 

[cdafd]

so do the math are you saving that much??

looks like you still use about the same amount of UG pipe

would need an alarm valve for each building, depending on system proposed.

so where is the saving

 

[DonPhillips]

If you have two buildings on two separate parcels, that would be different than two buildings on one parcel. If the juridiction (local) has to approve lot splits before they are recorded (county), that would prevent someone from selling the builings separately.

A building department involved in reviewing lot splits can flag not only shared fire lines but other shared utilties (like sewer taps) that may have to be split before the lot split can be approved. I was involved in something like that when a grocery store was separating from a mall. Once the fire and sewer lines for the split building was installed, inspected, and approved, the city signed the plat, it could get recorded, and the transfer could move forward.

Without that local review, if a lot is split, they could be in violation of their CO. In Ohio, you have 2 years to catch them before they become existing builings, based on the statute of limitation on misdemeanor offenses.

Probably more than you wanted to know.



Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[armyengr]

I have a similar sitution. In my case though we are renovating several buildings that are currently unprotected. Our current thought is to install one fire line with BFP ect to the largest building, this is currently the only one that will have a pump room. Then "T" from the fire line to the other buildings and install FDCs. Can anyone point me to a source that can either validate this approach or suggest another? We are brainstorming ideas. Also in this case the building changings owners will not be an issue.

 

[trashcanman]

My issue is the same. It is a school to be sprinkled with a separate gym also to be sprinkled. No change in owners for the forseeable future. What about running a line above grade in a heated enclosure? I think that is allowed by code.

 

[cdafd]

armyengr

see no problem with your set up as long as can be proven hydraulicaly.

would have a seperate raod valve for each building, where it tees to feed each building.


trashcanman

seems like you are making the install harder than it should be.

either run two UG's to the buildings or do like armyengr is doing and one ug and tee at some point.

seems like this would be cheaper than all the stuff you are proposing.

 

[FFP1]

Cutting corners simply because of cost is usually a bad approach when designing fire protection systems.

I say provide a dedicated sprinkler riser for any stand alone or detached building with the possible exception of very small support buildings which would essentially have no viable purpose if the primary building/complex was razed (demolished or removed from the site).

This resolves the issues listed above, reduces confusion for fire fighters trying to determnine the system layout and this approach also reduces liability to the installing sprinkler contractor. There is really no justifiable reason to play around in the grey area in this instance. There could be liability if a court of law determines the system was not installed in accordance with NFPA standards (i.e. water damage & no one knows where to close the valve, fire fighters response is delayed because the water motor gong at a separate building caused confusion, inability to sell individual building due to combined fire protection system, etc.).

These statements are not facts.........this is simply my personal opinion.