HOW DO WE FIX BAD SPECIFICATIONS?
Last week I touched on a concept of using large language models to instantly review a series of specifications. Thanks for the comments! I’ll write up the step-by-step and incorporate that in a how-to video for posting here and on YouTube. A special shout out to Kimberly Olivas, Brian Gerdwagen and Casey Milhorn on their comments in that thread – very helpful and insightful. The discussion brings me back to two questions I may have inadvertently skipped right over –
A PROBLEM WE CARE TO FIX? If part of a bidding contractor’s value proposition is using their expertise to sort through bad specifications and give an advantage; either in exclusions or clarifications, or change orders later in the process due to inaccuracies, scope not meeting code, or scope gaps. In other words, based on a bidding contractor’s position – there might not be any incentive for them to play their cards for competitors to see through the Pre-Bid RFI process other than a smoother project experience for the owner. A bidding contractor is not a representative of the owner; the consultant is. Ultimately the consultant is responsible for protecting and supporting the owner – which is why they were hired in the first place. Perhaps many contractors don’t look at it that bluntly – but I can understand the sentiment not to tip a hand at project issues when it could mean losing a bid. WHAT’S THE ANSWER? If Pre-Bid RFIs are not the cure-all in today’s pace of estimating – and contractors are not incentivized to be correcting consultant issues – then do we care to actually fix it? For estimators – are bad specifications purely an annoyance for you – or do they cause issues on your projects? Would you prefer that specifications actually be well written? I’m not being facetious – I’d love to know your take on this. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES If better specifications (and plans) are something we deem better for the industry – and we collectively want better plans and specifications – what is the approach to get there? More specifically, how do we encourage those who don’t really care about fire protection to put a little more effort into their plans and specifications? This was last week’s idea:
Here are some alternative from-the-hip ideas that I’d love to kick around with you and see if you find any of these might be viable: IDEA #1: PUBLISH AN OPEN MICROSOFT WORD FILE BASIC FIRE PROTECTION SPECIFICATION
IDEA #2: CREATE AN AI TOOL FOR CONSULTANTS TO QC THEIR OWN SPECIFICATIONS
IDEA #3: PROMOTE OR CREATE A LOW-COST SPECIFICATION GENERATOR
IDEA #4: HAVE A FORMAL THIRD-PARTY REVIEW PROCESS (A GROUP) FOR SPECIFICATIONS
IDEA #5: PUBLIC HUMILIATION
IDEA #6: YOUR IDEAS
Do you (1) think this is a problem that should be fixed, and (2) what concepts do you think could make a difference? Comment below – would love to foster a deeper discussion on how we might solve this problem before skipping ahead and creating something that might not be impactful.
3 Comments
One of the things that frustrates me to no end about our industry are bad specifications. If you want to skip the story and dive right to the end – my ask today is that you comment below on what you would want an automated tool to check for when it reviews a set of specifications? In other words, what issues have you found in specifications in the past that you would want an ideal tool to check for? I’M GUILTY, TOO Before I dive deeper and sound preachy, I have two disclaimers:
WHAT MAKES A BAD SPECIFICATION? What makes a bad fire protection specification? The most dangerous is probably direction which would not meet code minimum. Ambiguity or conflicting information makes bidding difficult. Mandating things which don’t exist for the rest of the industry (such as velocity limitations in hydraulic calculations) can be unnerving and increase cost unnecessarily. Some of the most obvious parts of a bad specification are mandates for products or manufacturers that no longer exist. The goal of a good specification is the same as the plans – clear, unambiguous communication of what is included and not included in a scope of work. LITTLE RECOURSE
After a project is awarded, a contractor naturally has very little leverage to change the scope of work. Perhaps there are cost-savings options that may be asked of a contractor. Perhaps there’s a change in the project that opens up opportunities to revisit early design decisions. But essentially, after contract award, there’s not a whole lot of leverage against complying with a bad set of specifications. How do we address bad sets of bid documents in our industry? If it’s life threatening and/or egregious, perhaps we could turn people into the governing boards. But how often is that done? How useful is it to permanently burn a bridge for reporting someone that may not even have any consequence? The answer from those I speak with is almost never. Consultants who don’t care about fire protection continue to issue plans and specifications, mostly the same as they always have, with little concern or incentive to change. OUR INITIATIVE Part of creating the community here is recognizing that uplifting everyone makes our industry better. More knowledgeable contractors mean better detailed design and installations. More knowledgeable plan review and inspectors means better policing and better final results across the board. More knowledgeable consultants means that projects flow smoother, owners get what they need, and projects are more timely and on-budget. Part of our responsibility here is to uplift the industry by sharing best practices and making helpful information & tools available that help us all do work better. We have the educational piece (MeyerFire University), we have shorthand tools and cheatsheets. I write posts here. I have ideas in the works on helping improve access to basic, quality sets of specifications. But what about now - as in today? What is the best possible way to actually address a bad set of specifications that will get in the way of a smooth project? PRE-BID RFIs In my opinion, the most underutilized and best way to help foster a smooth project is challenging the scope before bid with a pre-bid RFI. Pre-Bid RFIs (Request for Information) is a documented way to ask questions about the scope of a project before it is bid. These can give an opportunity for a consultant to check their work, check their assumptions, give an opportunity to make a change if necessary, or give a chance to clarify an aspect of the scope. Consultants can choose to play ball – help clarify the job on what should and shouldn’t be included. They can make changes if necessary, and allow bidders to bid apples-to-apples. Contractors can also choose not to play – perhaps double down on the (incorrect) mantra of “this is the contractor’s responsibility to determine”, or something similar. In either case, whether answered or not, Pre-Bid RFIs give the bidders either the information they seek or have greater permission (leverage?) to do as they see fit regarding the scope of the project. SO MORE WORK FOR ME, JOE? Crafting a good pre-bid RFI historically isn’t the easiest thing, though. First – the writer has to digest enough of the project to write something coherent and competent – meaning they need to spend time looking through everything. Second – pre-bid RFIs can sometimes have the presumption that a contractor is causing issues before they’re even on the job. This all comes down to the tone, silly as it might sound. If the pre-bid RFI is accusatory, that’s one thing. But if it’s written to help streamline a smooth project for everyone – then that’s a win for everyone. Third – and perhaps the reason that pre-bid RFIs don’t happen as often as they should, is simply time. Bid days are time crunches. There’s a lot on the line. Going out of your way to clarify a project when you’re already on a time crunch can be tough. This is the piece I’d like to help solve, and I think we can with some of your input. THE CONCEPT What if we had an automated tool that read a set of specifications and generated a helpful, appropriate, Pre-Bid RFI for your project? While you’re reviewing the specifications and putting together your estimate, you do a 3-step copy and paste into ChatGPT (or something similar) that checks a whole host of specification issues and writes a Pre-Bid RFI for you? You could have the time savings (huge), but also have AI do the work for checking for the 30 or 50 or 80 things that have been issues in the past – all stemming from specifications. How convenient would that be? If we could take the onus off of reporting bad players to state boards and instead focused on finding clean, appropriate, and easy ways to help make a project smoother for everyone – without adding any time burden – well that would be nothing short of awesome. What I want to do from here is write a prompt and a step-by-step that I can share back with you all, that incorporates your list of grievances. Essentially – everyone then has access to an easy way to gut-check specifications and get a custom-written Pre-Bid RFI out of it. I need your input though to make it as useful for you as possible: WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM ME JOE? What I would love your input on is your answer to the following: What have you seen in a specification that was clearly wrong which negatively impacted your project? What have you found in a specification that makes bidding difficult, isn’t code compliant, or hurts the project? I’m looking to create a list of checks that AI can do, for you, when it only has access to a project’s specification. Comment below and let me know your thoughts – and in the next few weeks I’ll test and share a prompt and provide instructions back with you on how to use it.
Last week I worked error propagation for a pitot measurement to flow rate conversion.
Because it's a measurement, there is a natural level of precision that we can only estimate that depends on the precision level of each of our measuring points (our tools). Yet, we (maybe just I) often overlooked the concept of measurement error. In this tool (below), I've incorporated the error propagation to suggest a range for the result instead of what we typically express as a near-certain test measurement. So, now, you can convert a pitot pressure into a flow rate and immediately get the error tolerance based on the tools you've used and measurements you've taken. Hardly any additional work. While it may sound trivial, knowing what amount of tolerance we are actually achieving in a test measurement could be the difference between a test pass or test failure - especially in regards to fire pump testing. Check out the tool below, and let me know what you think! It has an IP and SI version built in (I'm finally catching on).
If you're a member of MeyerFire University this will be added to the iOS and Android app automatically.
Thanks and have a great rest of your week! - Joe When you conduct a hydrant flow test, how precise is your resulting measurement? Let’s say a flow test summary shows 82 psi static, 54 psi residual at 956 gpm. Is it really 956 gpm? Well, no, of course – but 956 is the best resulting estimate of the flow test with the information and measurements we have at hand. It’s where the dial best predicts. But how precise is that measurement, really? Are we certain that it’s 956 gpm and not 957 gpm, or 960 gpm, or 1,000 gpm? Now of course, a hydrant flow test is a point-in-time measurement. It’s not representative of daily fluctuation or seasonal fluctuation. Let’s save that discussion for another time. What I’m really interested in is when we take a flow test or run a pump test, how accurate are our results, really? SIGNIFICANT DIGITS The concept of significant digits is one simple way avoid suggesting a higher level of precision than a measurement justifies. In other words, if our flow test results said 956.21 gpm, we’re suggesting, based on the decimal placement that we actually know that the value is not 956.4 gpm; it’s instead between 956.2 and 956.3. That’s a level of precision that is suggested by significant digits. Technically, if we had a pitot gauge reading of 9 psi during a flow test, then we would have one significant digit. Using one significant digit is very problematic in flow test results. Q=29.84×C×d²×√P In this flow conversion formula above (the Freeman Flow Formula), we take we take pitot pressure (P), opening diameter (d), and the Coefficient of Discharge (C), to get a resulting estimate of flow through an opening. The problem with using the significant concept is that a pitot reading of a single digit value would mean that we round our resulting flow would yield one significant digit. LOW PITOT MEASUREMENT NFPA 291 actually recommends that pitot readings less than 10 psi should be avoided, if possible. That would mean flowing fewer outlets to get a higher pitot reading to avoid inaccurate readings. So, at least in theory, three 2.5” outlets with a C-factor of 0.90 and a pitot of 9 psi each would result in a flow estimate of 1,511 gpm being rounded to – what – 1,000 gpm or 2,000 gpm? The concept of ‘significant digits’ here would result in massive rounding error. This line of logic is where I was really curious about our flow test results – or really any measurement of flow, such as pump testing. How precise are our measurements? BIG GAUGES, SMALL TICKMARKS If you’ve tried to take a close reading and nitpick the difference between 96 and 97 psi on a 300 psi gauge – that can be extremely difficult to do. Yet, at least in the case of fire pump testing, that result can be the difference between passing or failing a fire pump test. How precise can we read a higher-range gauge with small or grouped tickmarks and a small-diameter face? If you don’t think that’s a high-stakes proposition, then I’d invite you to wrap up final acceptance testing on a federal project with every stakeholder present and watching. It can be high stakes. Perhaps the more appropriate way to understand precision is by doing error propagation on this conversion. Error propagation is a sore point for me, as I pretty much failed every physics lab in college that required it. Time to shed those demons. If you’re not into math, skip ahead to the summary to see where I ended up. I want to show my work here as I haven’t seen this done and I’m very much for transparency and getting feedback, especially when I venture a little beyond my own fenceposts. ERROR PROPAGATION FOR FLOW TEST CONVERSION Error propagation is a fancy way to describe the reliability of the resulting calculation. How precise is the result? That’s what we want to know – and knowing so can help us make more informed decisions in our assessments. A formula with multiple variables, where each have their own uncertainty, the overall uncertainty depends upon how each variable affects the final result. In other words – if I’m not exactly sure about the numbers I’m putting in, how unsure should I be about the answer I get out? IMPACT OF DIAMETER VS. PITOT PRESSURE In this equation, a percentage error in measurement of a diameter could have an outsized effect on the resulting flow since diameter is squared. To run an error propagation on a formula involving variables which are multiplied together, we square the relative uncertainty (change in a measurement divided by the measurement), square them, add them together, and square out the result. EXAMPLE: 60 PSI GAUGE So, let’s say we ran a flow test where we were certain in the Coefficient of Discharge (0.90), we measured and were confident in the diameter of 2.5 inches (within a 1/16th of an inch), and took a pitot reading of two side outlets each at 8 psi using a 60 psi gauge with 1% accuracy. Practically speaking, that’s a very reasonable amount of tolerance of a normal hydrant flow test or fire pump test. With those results, we would calculate a total flow estimate of about 950 gpm. How precise is that flow? (Error in flow test reading measuring opening within 1/16” and pitot with 60 psi gauge) So, with a variation of + 59 gpm, our resulting flow estimate would be 950 gpm + 59 gpm, or a resulting range of between 890 gpm and 1010 gpm. That’s a pretty wide variation – and it’s certainly a lot wider than I would have expected considering we’re using a 60 psi gauge with 1% accuracy. EXAMPLE: 100 PSI GAUGE What would happen if we used a 100 psi gauge with 1% accuracy? (Error in flow test reading measuring opening within 1/16” and pitot with 100 psi gauge) EXAMPLE: 300 PSI GAUGE Taken to an extreme – what if we used a 300 psi gauge to measure pitot? A bad idea for sure (it’s nearly impossible to read sensitive low amounts, and likely in the least-accurate portion of the gauge. But just for kicks: (Error in flow test reading measuring opening within 1/16” and pitot with 300 psi gauge - which we would never recommend doing) EXAMPLE: 60 PSI GAUGE WITH IMPRECISE DIAMETER Now, what if we were less confident in the actual inside diameter of the hydrant side outlet? What if we thought it was 2.5”, but only within an 1/8th of an inch? With our 60 psi gauge: (Error in flow test reading measuring opening within 1/8” and pitot with 60 psi gauge) Yikes! Did you notice that? Even with a 60 psi gauge, if we only know the inside diameter within an 1/8th of an inch, it’s worse than using a 100 psi gauge. Knowing the precise inside diameter is important as it has a huge effect on the level of precision. HOW DO WE IMPROVE PRECISION? Based on the inputs – there are a few key ways to improve the precision of flow test readings when we use pitot gauges to estimate the amount of flow. I’m interested in writing more on this in the coming weeks, but there are a number of ways in which we can improve the precision of our flow testing and have more confidence in our results. #1 MEASURE THE OPENING SIZE First – and probably the most important based on our calculation – is to know the exact diameter of the orifice opening. If we are flowing out the side of an outlet, we actually need to measure, with precision, the inside diameter of that opening. As I’ve been told, not all inside diameters are equal. They depend on the exact make and model of a hydrant. I’ve made this mistake before and assumed all 2.5” side outlets are the same inside diameter. To improve precision, take a careful measurement of the exact inside diameter of the opening down to the 1/16th of an inch. Alternatively, using a factory-created attachment with a factory-milled opening will help define and make that variation go away. A known diameter with a very tight factory tolerance helps us reduce or eliminate this concern altogether. #2 USE SMALLER RANGE GAUGES In general, we want to use the smallest range for the gauge possible. Using a 300 psi gauge to measure anything within 0-30 psi is problematic. Not only is that a less-accurate range for a gauge (near the ends), it’s extremely difficult to read. The tickmarks just become too small to read well. Instead, we want to use the lowest gauge range that’s possible for the test. If we’re expecting results below 100 psi, can we use a 100 psi gauge instead of 200 or 300? If we’re measuring pitot and expecting values under 60, can we use a 60 psi gauge? Even a 30 psi gauge? The bigger the tickmarks and the smaller the range, the better we’re going to be able to see and read the results. Using a lower-range scale gauge can lead to far-easier reading of the gauge, but also be within a more accurate range for the gauge itself. #3 LARGER-DIAMETER GAUGES
This goes against my “travel with small things” concept, but larger-diameter gauge faces are so much easier to read in the field. They cost more. They’re bigger. But man are they easier to pull values from. Again – on an important fire pump closeout with many people all watching – having nice clear results to prove the system works as it should helps. #4 USE CALIBRATED GAUGES For fire pump testing, NFPA 20 requires that all gauges undergo annual calibration testing and be accurate within 1 percent. (NFPA 20-2022 Section 14.2.6.1.2) For fire hydrant flow tests, that same mandate doesn’t necessarily apply. NFPA 291 is a recommended practice, and requires calibration within 12 months, but is not necessarily enforceable in the same way that NFPA 20 is. Now, if you’re on a federal project and NFPA 291’s “shoulds” become “shalls”, then there are enforceable teeth. But for private practice work, many flow tests are simply run with whatever gauge is on the truck that day. Using a calibrated gauge will obviously hone in for more precise measurement. #5 USE STREAM-STRAIGHTENERS NFPA 291 now specifically states a preference for playpipes or stream straighteners to improve the accuracy of readings. Not only do these address the precise opening sizes we talked about earlier, but they hold the pitot measurements in a fixed-in-place mounting position. This also means we should be measuring at exactly the right center-of-stream location. This is explicitly listed now in NFPA 291 (2022) Section 4.6.2. SUMMARY Doing a little error propagation highlights a few things about the measurement process in a calculated way. We can look at the accuracy of our input measurements an in turn, get a level of confidence about the resulting range of flow from those measurements. The more precise we are able to measure, the more confidence we have in the result – which is both an obvious ‘gut-feeling’ but can also be mathematically proven. YOUR TAKE I’m interested in your take. What are your tips for more accurate readings? What stories do you have about fire pump acceptance testing or hydrant flow tests in this regard? NEXT STEPS I’d like to venture down this rabbit hole just a little further. My next thought is to apply the error propagation concept into a quick calculator tool where you could see your error range yourself – and experiment with different situations. You might just find an error range based on your normal test equipment that could present your test results in a more appropriate and transparent way. That's TBD (to be developed). Thanks for reading – and, as always, for fighting the good fight. Have a great rest of your week. - Joe A couple weeks ago we updated the NFPA 13 shop drawing checklist with new references to the 2019 and 2022 Editions of NFPA 13. With the 2022 update, the NFPA 13 Committee revamped the list of requirements for “working drawings” in the 2022 Edition. It was pretty much gutted and rewritten. DOES A 2022 UPDATE CHANGE ANYTHING? What impact does this actually have for me or my team? Who uses the 2022 Edition right now? Well, perhaps no local jurisdictions have adopted the 2022 Edition yet. Perhaps that’s a few years away still. But what about US Federal work, which references the latest standard edition at the time of the job posting? Or large corporate or healthcare users who might mandate adherence to the latest codes & standards? Or, what if we’re just being prudent and looking to be ready to adapt when it is enforced? Well, yes then, it could have an impact on your process whether you’re creating the working drawings or reviewing them. Here’s the list of noteworthy changes to the working drawing list as I understand them. Please note that I’m far from a Committee member and it’s only my interpretation of the list. As this plays out in time, I’m sure plenty of gray areas will get sorted out in online discussions, informal clarifications, or code changes. The list of shop drawing requirements went through an entire revamp with the 2022 Edition. #1 SHOW THE MEANS OF FORWARD FLOW (ADDED IN 2019) A means of conducting a forward-flow test has long been required, but historically overlooked or was possibly achievable by flowing out of a fire department connection or main drain (for very low hazards). We talked about the big change for a fixed means of forward flow that was introduced in 2019 and clarified in 2022. How does this affect shop drawings? Well, we now need to locate and identify the means of forward flow on the plans [NFPA 13-2019 Section 27.1.3(25) and 2022 Section 28.1.3(18)]. The location and labeling of the means of forward flow is required in the 2019 and 2022 Editions of NFPA 13. #2 THE BUILDING CROSS-SECTION WAS REMOVED If you’ve ever prepared or seen a random building cross-section on shop drawings (with no pipe or sprinklers shown), that’s because NFPA 13 had a requirement showing a full-height cross section that showed ceiling construction, protection for non-metallic pipe, and structural member information. This was a constant source of review comments, which does help clarify what’s going on, but is only a single slice of a building that otherwise could be very complex. In the 2022 Edition, the list goes away from the building cross section and instead requires identification and locations of major structural members [2022 28.1.3(11)], labels of Obstructed or Unobstructed where applicable [2022 28.1.3(11)], and ceiling heights labeled on the plans [2016 23.1.3(45), 2019 27.1.3(5), and 2022 28.1.3(9)]. From a matter of design and practicality, showing ceiling heights and structural members on the plans themselves helps us all communicate a bit better. Showing all the ceiling heights, structure, and Obstructed vs. Unobstructed with plan labels was something I incorporated a few years ago and helped me be more disciplined during design. It also beats out a single-slice section of a building that may or may not actually clarify how much of the building is being constructed. A building section that doesn't detail sprinklers or pipe, nor is at a position or scale that effectively communicates the relationship of structure, ceilings, and coverage - doesn't do a lot of good. It may not have been the original intent of NFPA 13 anyway. The NFPA 13-2022 Edition removed the requirement for a whole-building cross section but added plenty of labels and requirements to the floor plans to adequately address the original reason for inclusion. #3 LIGHTS, DIFFUSERS, AND OTHER CEILING FIXTURES Many bid specifications require that lights, diffusers and other ceiling-mounted devices (fire alarm, occupancy sensors, etc) be shown on sprinkler working drawings. Doing so certainly helps prove that the ceilings have been coordinated – or at least other systems considered. But now that’s been codified. In the 2022 Edition, Section 28.1.3(8) requires diffusers, lights, and other ceiling fixtures or major MEP equipment just above or below the ceiling be shown on the sprinkler working plans. This seems easy enough to require for a consultant – but for a sprinkler contractor, pulling in this information can be a chore – especially if the sprinkler subcontractor doesn’t get a full set of CAD plans to begin with. Hopefully, with this being codified, a sprinkler contractor’s request for CAD backgrounds on this information gets a little easier to push back up the food chain. We know lights, diffusers, and other ceiling fixtures will be on a project. Now we're required to have them on sprinkler installation plans. #4 PLACARD INFORMATION Hydraulic Data Nameplate information has long been required to be shown on the working drawings, but now the hose demand, method of calculation, and total flow and pressure have been added to the list. This comes from the 2022 Edition, 28.1.3(23c). #5 OWNER’S CERTIFICATE INFORMATION NFPA 13 has long required that a signed Owner’s Certificate to be submitted with working drawings (1999 8-1.1.2, 2022 14.1.4, 2007-10 22.1.4, 2013-16 Section 23.1.4, 2019 Section 27.1.1.1(4), 2022 Section 28.1.4). Now, with the 2022 Edition, required information from the owner’s certificate is required to be shown on the plans [2022 28.1.3(14)]. This includes storage materials, storage heights, water supply information, and whether seismic bracing is required. This is discussed in more detail in 2022 Edition Section 4.2. The Owner's Information Certificate has been a requirement to be included with working drawings, but now the required information from it is also required to be shown on plans, starting with the 2022 Edition. #6 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EACH SPACE The 2022 Edition clarifies that design criteria for each room or space be shown on the plans, including hazard classification everywhere, and commodity classification, storage type, configuration, height, and packaging for storage areas [2022 Section 28.1.3(15)]. That’s often critical yet hard-to-find information for plan review. This clarification puts some teeth to requiring that information be shown on plans. #7 FLEXIBLE DROP INFORMATION The 2022 Edition introduces requirements to indicate corresponding k-factor, length, manufacturer, maximum number of bends, minimum bend radius, and model for flexible drops when they’re used [2022 Section 28.1.3(17b)]. While many designers already indicated at least some of this, having the maximum number of bends and minimum bend radius on the plans could go a long way in helping on-site inspection make sure that the install actually adheres to the design intent. Not a terrible idea. #8 MORE SEISMIC DETAIL The 2022 Edition requires more detail on several seismic bracing components. These include design angle categories, flexible coupling locations, locations of seismic components, maximum spacing, penetration clearances, and zones of influence all to be shown on the plans [2022 Edition Section 28.1.3(22)]. IMPACT FOR PLAN REVIEWERS The “working drawing” revamp in the 2022 Edition shakes up an area of the code that hasn’t changed much in some time. For plan reviewers, this is a welcome relief. Many of the updates and additions are simply requiring pockets of information that a plan reviewer needs to know for proper review, but is really difficult to surmise if they’re outside of the design development process. Having teeth to require that commodities and storage arrangements and Obstructed & Unobstructed be identified on the plan will go a long way in checking due diligence has been done in key areas. IMPACT TO DESIGNERS For designers? This could be a tall ask. There’s some major adjustment here. For designers who traditionally have been very thorough in plan preparation and documenting each step of the process, this will be more of a matter of simply sharing some of that documentation. For designers that may not have gone into this level of depth – there’s certainly going to need to be more time dedicated to the process. More time to ask the owner for input. More time to ask for more complete backgrounds for coordination. More time to document, label, and identify details on plans. It’ll take more time. If designers already feel crunched by design time budgets, then it’ll be be an adjustment for everyone. IMPACT TO ESTIMATORS For estimators? When the 2022 Edition (or later) gets enforced, plan on designers needing some additional time to take this on. Time adds for design will be greatest for buildings with storage, seismic projects, or jurisdictions who provide thorough review. There’s plenty of teeth to the the updated list, so it’s less of a “well these things are technically supposed to be provided in the spec” and instead “NFPA 13 requires this to be shown.” Less room to maneuver, in other words. TAKEAWAYS Personally, I like these changes. They allow for clearer communication of intent, which is the point of drawings in the first place. It’ll allow designers to be more thorough in their process. While that might sound contradictory (why would a designer want to be pushed to be more thorough?), many good designers lament that the pace and expectation for flying through design is too fast. Having NFPA 13 be the backbone of what needs to be submitted gives designers a tangible justification to do a more thorough (better) job. The NFPA 13 requirements can play the part of the villian, not the designer who’s trying to do things at a depth that they feel is needed. Hope you enjoyed the recap here, and that you have a great rest of your week. Keep up the good work. - Joe Last week we updated the NFPA 13 shop drawing checklist with references to NFPA 13 2019 and 2022 Editions. While code updates like this are traditionally modest, the NFPA 13 Committee revamped the entire list of requirements for “working drawings” in the 2022 Edition. It was gutted. We’ll expand on that more next week. This week I’d like to key in on one very impactful change that I think will affect many of us in how we design systems going forward. FORWARD-FLOW REQUIREMENT HISTORY A forward-flow test has long been required in NFPA 25 (dating back to at least 2002). The purpose of the test is to verify that a backflow preventer is capable of fully-opening in a fire – or at least to the extent that it allows enough water to flow to satisfy the sprinkler system’s demand. A means of conducting a forward-flow test has long been required, but not necessarily readily implemented. For many lower-hazard systems, it was a test that was possible by flowing out of a fire department connection or main drain. WHY NOT FLOW OUT THE FDC? White it was possible to do a forward flow through an FDC, this approach was never practical. I can’t stand on a high horse here – it was the approach I long used from a design perspective. It’s not practical because conducting a forward-flow test out of an FDC would typically require a system to be shut off, drained, check valve reversed, put back into service, tested, shut off, drained, check valve put back into place, and put back into service. And that was if the clappers on the FDC were removed or restrained in a way to allow enough water to pass through. It’s a tall ask. USE THE MAIN DRAIN? Flowing out the main drain could be a solution for forward flow, but practically speaking how much water can flow through a 2-inch main drain, especially if there’s an OH1 or OH2 demand? Do we have a way to verify how much water we’re flowing, so that we know the test passed? Some have used our own calculator to estimate the amount of water flowing through a main drain by using this orifice flow calculator - https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/a-new-fire-sprinkler-test-drain-flow-calculator That calculation is based on pressure flowing through an opening – either an orifice or pipe diameter – and doesn’t incorporate the losses that occur through the length of a main drain or the fittings along the way. It’s going to be too generous on the amount of flow coming through a main drain – which is good if we’re wanting to know how much water a plumbing drain needs to accept – but bad if we’re trying to prove forward flow based on it. I would suspect that a supply-side calculation (where the available pressure dictates the flow) through a fully-open main drain would be the best way to predict hydraulically how much flow a main drain could flow. If that’s well above the system demand (including hose allowance), then a main drain could be the means to flow. But a 2-inch main drain is very likely not an answer for forward flow for most systems. I’ll leave that discussion open – perhaps there’s a tool we could construct to account for main drain losses and perform that supply-side calculation. PERMANENT MEANS FOR FORWARD-FLOW Somewhat fortunately for those of us who like black and white guidance (myself included) –the NFPA 13 committee closed up the gray area in the 2019 Edition by requiring that an arrangement for conducting the forward flow test, at the minimum flow rate of the system demand (including hose allowance), would be provided “without requiring the owner to modify the system to perform the test.” This comes from NFPA 13-2019 Section 16.14.5.1.1. In the 2022 Edition, the committee went further. A fixed means of forward flow, like hose valves on a test header or system riser, will become far more commonplace once the 2019 and 2022 Editions of NFPA 13 are adopted and enforced. A 2-1/2” HOSE CONNECTION FOR EVERY 250 GPM A test connection is now required for forward flow tests, where now a 2-1/2” hose valve is required for every 250 gpm (950 L/min) of system demand. This total flow must include the hose allowance where applicable. Generally, if there are interior hose valves, then this would need to get added in. So - an Ordinary Hazard Group I system that may have a demand of 270 gpm (with 250 gpm outside hose allowance), would still need two 2-1/2” hose valves for the forward flow test fixed in place downstream of the backflow preventer. For larger systems, or those with interior hose connections? We could be looking at three or more hose connections just for forward flow. This comes from NFPA 13-2022 Section 16.14.5.1.1. That’s a noteworthy change. For a code-minimum, sprinkler-system-only type of project, that’s a tangibly different cost and look to a part of the system. Does this have to be a test header on the outside of the building? Not necessarily, though that would be nice for future testing. Could the hose valves be on a riser in a room that has exterior access? Depending on the room and goals for the building – that could be reasonable. There are two provisional sections that allow existing hose connections to be used for the test (16.14.5.1.2), and other means to test are allowed “as long as the system doesn’t require modification to perform the test and is sized to meet the system demand.” The later comes from NFPA 13-2022 16.14.5.1.3. Is a fixed test-header on the exterior of the building required? No, but it could be convenient for future testing in areas where theft is less of a concern. HAVING TEETH
But in general – we don’t have a “use the FDC” workaround any longer. For those in IT&M, we finally have a sticking point to give an ability to do this test without tinkering with the system. For those in design, we finally have a magic section of code that we can show to justify providing a means of the forward flow test. For those in review and inspection, we have the teeth to enforce it. Hopefully, in the long-run, having systems tested for forward flow will identify backflow preventers aren’t functioning and we no longer have them in buildings ready to fail when a fire happens. Hopefully, this pushes buildings to a bit safer and helps us a be a little more confident in the system’s ability to fight a fire. SHOW ON WORKING DRAWINGS While the means is an installation question – NFPA 13-2022 Section 28.1.3(18) requires that working drawings locate and identify the means of forward flow. It’s no longer a “how do you plan to do this test?” type of comment and will soon be “show the location and label the means of forward flow, per 28.1.3(18).” MY FORWARD-FLOW STORY Are we really just testing the backflow preventer here? Well, yes. In part. But actually flowing an entire system demand tells us quite a bit. It means that our water supply is capable of flowing the full system demand, and all the pipe in-between the water supply and the backflow is also open-enough to flow the full system demand. I once had a project where a tap was made to the city supply main. It was a live tap or “hot tap,” where a drill punctured the side of the city main and a new 6” street valve was installed and our 6” underground came in and fed the building. It was a brand-new 3-story building that was going to have overnight guests. The tap wasn’t fully-made. In fact, as we found out later through a lot of cost and trouble, only a ¾” pilot drill bit made it through the city main. It wasn’t all the way drilled-in. Instead of a 6” tap, we had a ¾” tap. Static pressure to the building was fine. We could run a main drain test just fine (the residual dropped, but the main drain isn’t flowing all that much). Remember – the initial main drain test sets the threshold to check against in the future. We could flow the inspector’s test just fine. When we conducted the forward flow test and opened a couple 2-1/2” hoses – we had no water. No pressure at all. It wasn’t until we conducted the Forward Flow test that we knew there was a problem. Where it not for the Forward Flow test, we would have had a brand-new building, which, by all other measures we would have thought was designed and installed properly – all protected by a system with water that was squeezed through a ¾” hole. While the backstory of testing the Forward Flow may be more about the backflow preventer, the test does give us confidence in the supply up through the backflow preventer being able to handle the system demand. If we measure the flow coming from the forward flow, and also stick calibrated gauges on the upstream cock and downstream cock of the backflow – we can know a whole lot about the health of our system that day. What’s the static pressure? What’s the loss through the backflow? What’s the base of riser pressure at the system demand? How does that compare to our design? We can get a lot of information just from this one test. END SOAPBOX That’s my soapbox rant for today. As with all we write and do on this site, I hope you’ve found it helpful. Keep fighting the good fight, and have a great rest of your week. - Joe Have you had a project with an overhang that needed sprinkler protection and extended just beyond the throw of a dry sidewall sprinkler? It’s a smooth, flat or nearly-flat overhang that’s, say, 21’-6” wide, and in an environment that will dip below 40 degrees F at some point. What are your options then? OPTIONS All of the extended coverage dry sprinklers we know on the market cap out at 20’-0” horizontal throw. That would have been our best option. We could look at using a dry system. There’s the additional cost of the valve, slope requirements, a hit on the remote area size, more corrosion potential – and on and on. It’s costly. We could look at an anti-freeze system. Those come with more restrictions than they used to, but at a minimum would involve an RPZ and now pre-mixed antifreeze solution. Additional cost. Heat trace the pipe? That’s problematic, at best. It needs to function 100% of the time that it’s needed, or pipe will freeze. It needs to be supervised. It needs to be maintained. And when in conjunction with pipe insulation it looks terrible. In short, an overhang that’s just beyond the reach of a dry sidewall sprinkler can take us to a whole new cost tier in the design of a sprinkler system. CODE-COMPLIANT CREATIVITY We had just this situation on a project a few weeks ago, and tried to think creatively to get a code-compliant solution that’s best for the owner, yet doesn’t spike the cost for a dry sprinkler system that only serves four sprinklers. Now normally, sprinkler design tends to be a one way street. An architect designs a building. It gets bid and handed down to the sprinkler contractor. The sprinkler contractor “makes it work” with what they’ve been given. If a consultant is on-board, this would be a great opportunity to pick off challenges like this and advice the architect and owner on ways to mitigate this cost spike for a small project. Perhaps the overhang is designed at 19’-6” instead of 21’-6”. Perhaps they build it with all non-combustible materials if it otherwise didn’t have storage below. Those could be helpful changes that reduce the overall cost in a major way, but may not be a major detriment to the owner’s goals for the building. #1 SHORTEN THE OVERHANG Regardless, we suggested that the width of the overhang be actually shortened to allow a sidewall’s throw to cover the distance and prevent the need for a whole dry system. That didn’t go anywhere. #2 EXTEND THE REACH OF A DRY SIDEWALL We then asked if a soffit could be built to allow a sidewall it’s spacing of no more than 20’-0”. The soffit wouldn’t have to be heated. It could simply be framed (hopefully of non-combustible studs) with sheetrock or a “Hardie Board” or some other skin. It could be almost completely empty on the inside. The goal would be to give a dry sidewall sprinkler a back to collect heat and be installed properly. KEY RULES There’s a few notable rules that come into play here, though.
So working backwards, a soffit that is say, 2’-0” wide and 2’-0” tall would allow a dry sidewall sprinkler to:
But then, we need coverage below the soffit too, right? This could be accomplished with a flexible dry pendent, such as the V3517 dry flexible pendent sprinkler. Just like the dry sidewall, the flexible dry pendent could contain water back on the warm interior space. DIGGING DEEPER We also would want to offset these locations on plan, so a pendent isn’t immediately under a dry sidewall. Offsetting the locations in plan could help potential cold-soldering concerns. We’d also want to be sure that both the dry sidewall and the dry flex pendent would be able to be replaced at some point in the near future. NFPA 25 used to require sample testing or replacement every 10 years starting at 10 years after installation, but the 2020 edition bumped that starting point up to 15 years and the 2023 Edition bumped it again to 20 years after installation (NFPA 25 2017-20 Section 5.3.1.1.1.6, 2023 Section 5.3.1.1.1.5). To accommodate replacement and testing, we might need a way to get access to the inside and the soffit in the future (access panels or future cutout). COST & CONSEQUENCE After all this effort – will the soffit cost more? Sure. Would it cost as much as a dry or anti-freeze system? No, it shouldn’t. Does it help with corrosion and IT&M in the future, considering we wouldn’t have a dry valve and an additional nitrogen system or air compressor? Yes, that’d help too. Just an idea that might help address those “in-between” situations that could spike cost for a smaller-sized project that otherwise wouldn’t need it. What are your thoughts? Have you tried this before? What tips would you suggest? Hope you’ve found this interesting and perhaps moderately helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of your week! How do we solve the systematic problem we have with fire protection bid documents? Some, if not much of the plans and specifications that go out for bid are generally helpful. A quality set of fire protection bid documents:
These types of bid sets do happen. But far, far too often, they don’t. It’s systematic, and makes every step of the design and installation process far more difficult and far more costly than it could be. NOT FAULTLESS I don’t even want to pretend I’m not at fault here. I’ve designed poor projects. I’ve slacked on coordination, and detailing. I’ve glossed over parts of a project that I shouldn’t have glossed over. It’s been painful. But this is something that we can change. WHAT CONTRACTORS SAY For some years now I’ve spoken with sprinkler contractors, architects, and consultants about this. If you’re a contractor, especially if you work in estimating - you could provide countless examples of terrible bid documents. Bid documents that actually get in the way of you doing code-compliant, efficient work. You could speak to this far better than I can. In these conversations, over and over, I’ve heard one key feature that I think many consultants in the MEP space miss. It is far better to have no fire protection bid documents, than to have bad fire protection bid documents. NO FIRE PROTECTION BID DOCUMENTS? That’s important, and counterintuitive. It is far easier for a sprinkler contractor to look at a project and define their own scope, and put a price to it, than it is to try and bid a set of documents that:
If that sounds too far, ask your closest estimator friend. They see this all the time. How many projects do we see underground feeds piped 20-ft before rising up? How many times do we see Star, Central, or Gem still specified today, in 2024? How many times do we see projects wanting a fixed-price bid yet have zero information about the water supply? How are those documents helpful to a bidder? They’re not. MY ANALOGY The analogy that I’ve had in my head and finally am able to bring to life a little is the road, showing the different tiers of fire protection bid documents: 1 - NO FIRE PROTECTION BID DOCUMENTS
There’s the sidewalk on the left, where we have no fire protection bid documents. Let’s say we have a single-family home with an NFPA 13D system. Scope is simple, perhaps we have no specific owner needs, and it’s unambiguous. That type of project probably warrants no upfront, pre-bid fire protection involvement. It wouldn’t have to just be a single-family home though. What about an add & relocate job for a small retail space. Or a small office building. Those can, and often do, work just fine without any upfront fire protection bid documentation. Design-build all the way. 2 - QUALITY "PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS" Then we skip ahead to quality “performance specification” documents. These do all the things we’ve talked about. They don’t necessarily show pipe or sprinklers, but they clearly define the scope, they communicate clearly, they answer major scope questions, they address and alleviate major issues or coordination challenges upfront, and they make it easy to put a price to the job. That’s a quality set of “performance specifications”. 3 - QUALITY "FULL-DESIGN" For high-end jobs, or high-hazard jobs, or critical function or high-visibility or unique jobs – perhaps we’re looking at a full-upfront design prior to bid. Full-design isn’t free, nor quick, and isn’t necessarily the answer for every job. But, as we’ve talked on this topic before; if it’s done well, and thoroughly, then fully-detailed plans can be a tremendous asset to a project. They can eliminate ambiguity and really dial-in exactly what work needs to be done. AND... THE DANGER ZONE What about the DANGER ZONE? There’s a gap, and it’s in-between no bid documents and quality “performance specifications”. And that is the Danger Zone. This is the lane of bad bid documents. These are all the bad things. Inconsistent, boilerplate, confusing, inaccurate, unachievable, irrelevant, or not actually code-compliant. What happens when we live in that lane? We get hit by the proverbial bus. Change orders. Litigation. Or much worse – a fire happens with major loss. This is not the spot to be. WHY DO WE STAY IN THE DANGER ZONE? I’m fairly confident that those who live in that space don’t want to be there either. They feel compelled because the client asks for fire to be included. They feel pressure because competitors are offering to do fire protection. They feel they can’t spend enough time on fire because there is hardly any fee there. Honestly – these are all poor excuses. If there isn’t enough money in the job to put together a quality set of fire protection bid documents – then don’t do them at all. It is far better to have no fire protection bid documents, than to have bad fire protection bid documents. HALF-BAKED DOESN'T HELP Bad, sloppy, half-baked documents don’t help. They don’t solve anything. They get in the way. If you’re the MEP who finds yourself in this area, having that conversation with an owner or architect and there’s just not enough fee to do quality work – then just exclude it entirely. If an architect insists that it get thrown in or done on a microscopic budget, then just ask them to hire a fire protection consultant separately. Half-baking a set of documents is not worth the hassle or the liability. It also doesn’t actually help. When you do take it on, do it well. We all benefit from that. YOUR TAKE If you’re a sprinkler contractor or architect – I really want to hear from you. Where do you land on this? When projects have gone south or had major change orders – what happened? Would being in a different tier have changed the result? Comment below, would love to hear your take. And, thanks, as always, for reading and being a part of the community here. We will get this right. The majority of bid documents for fire sprinkler work is some form of delegated design. A consulting engineer frequently does not provide all of the detail about a system (pipe locations, size, hanging methods, hydraulic calculations, etc). Why is that? In other disciplines, the opposite is common. Mechanical Engineers regularly selects a system type and lays out ductwork in a one-line or two-line configuration on a plan before a contractor bids the system. Electrical Engineers commonly size up, calculate and provide power and lighting locations on plan with an overall one-line diagram. Even plumbing often has plans for domestic water feeds and sanitary waste. Why doesn’t that happen for fire protection? First, the biggest disclaimer today, I’m not advocating for all design to be upfront. Or even a majority of it. I do see many applications where a quality FPE consultant can provide a tremendous amount of value to a project. I explored this a bit with The Delegated Design Problem and in A Practical Design Spec Checklist. But I would like to start the conversation and get your ideas on why we are where we are today with why designs are not done upfront. Here is why I think all sprinkler design is not completed upfront, before bid time. #1 WE DON’T WANT EVERYTHING UPFRONT
Overwhelmingly, the sentiment I hear from sprinkler contractors about ‘full-design’ fire sprinkler drawings is that they wouldn’t want upfront designs for all projects. Why? Because in some (or many) cases, sprinkler contractors feel that upfront design either limits their flexibility or is of very poor quality, or both. A design that doesn’t coordinate with other systems, or ‘leaves coordination’ for the sprinkler contractor, is problematic. It’s difficult to bid and difficult to work with after a project has been awarded. How much needs to be ‘coordinated later’? How ‘real’ is the design? Is it less efficient than the contractor could have laid it out? Many who have designed on the contracting side feel that real-world “fit” and doing the sprinkler layout are one in the same. You can’t ‘rough-in’ a layout without thinking about conflicts and making it actually work in the real world. As an extreme example, I think most could agree that a basic NFPA 13D layout does not need upfront involvement by a consultant. Could they help? Perhaps. Could they provide value? Perhaps. But it does not need a high level of involvement. Now there’s a big counterpoint to this. Just because we don’t want upfront design on all projects doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be beneficial on some projects. Projects that have very specific needs, unique needs, high-visibility challenges, coordination challenges, or that require a specialized set of expertise could very much benefit from upfront involvement. Maybe it’s a retrofit in a high profile historic museum. Maybe it’s suppression for an automated storage retrieval system. Maybe it’s a unique storage configuration that is outside the bounds of NFPA 13. In these types of situations, involvement from a quality FPE consultant can address code concerns and clearly define the scope. It can help mitigate a lot of risk for contractors by doing so and help everyone bid apples-to-apples instead of a wide-open, ill-defined scope. #2 INADEQUATE WORKFORCE (INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES) Perhaps the alternative reason is the lack of expertise in the workforce. We simply don’t have enough people, nor expertise, to take on every project. Even if we wanted upfront involvement to a high-level of detail, we as an industry couldn’t pull it off. We don’t have enough bodies, nor enough qualified expertise. Is it an issue? Absolutely. Does the lack of people affect how well we advocate for fire protection itself? Absolutely. Could the construction experience for architects and owners and contractors actually benefit from more and better individuals working upfront on project? Absolutely. But until we catch up on the quantity of our own workforce, we simply can’t take on more involved work. #3 LOCATION OF THE EXPERTISE Another reason we don’t perform highly-detailed layout work upfront is the location of where expertise for layout technicians often falls – and that’s in contracting. Anecdotally I know far more layout technicians in contracting than I do in consulting. In our survey of nearly 500 industry professionals in 2022, of those who had roles as a designer or layout technician, 68% of them worked for contractors (another 4% were self-employed). That’s different than other disciplines where there is plenty of design and layout expertise embedded in consulting. #4 DOWNSIDES: COST, INFLEXIBILITY, & SCHEDULE Involving expertise upfront isn’t free. There’s a cost associated with it. We mentioned it before and stipulating a full layout upfront also set some parameters in place that can limit the creativity and efficiency of a contractor-provided layout. Lastly, there’s time needed to do that work upfront. Having a high-degree of involvement may not be a positive impact to overall project schedule. SO CAN WE KILL-OFF UPFRONT INVOLVEMENT? It sure feels like I’ve put out a hit piece on any upfront involvement in fire sprinkler design. The question is – does all design need to be done upfront? By an engineer or consultant, or someone other than a contractor? That answer is no. All design doesn’t need to be upfront. We couldn’t pull it off anyways, but it could also be costly and obstructive for many small or simple project applications. Is there value to having upfront involvement? Absolutely - when it’s done well. Consultants provide tremendous value, all-around, when:
Do consultants need to be doing fully-detailed layouts to accomplish this? Often no, though sometimes it could help. HOW DO WE RESHAPE THE WORK? In an SFPE Magazine Article in 2022, Thomas Gardner wrote “There is a happy medium between no delegation and full delegation of the fire protection system.” Count me in that camp. Many times when the subject of “Delegated Design” gets brought up, we instantly jump to extremes. Either all design should be by the EOR, or no design should ever be by the EOR. On one hand we have many military projects that specify the Qualified Fire Protection Engineer (QFPE) to be in direct charge of the layout upfront, if they don’t perform it themselves. On the other hand, we have an ever-growing amount of residential projects in North America that have no FPE or consulting involvement whatsoever. Both of these situations are not necessarily at odds. We can strike the balance between the two, and we can do “Delegated Design” better than what’s being done today. We can improve the quality of upfront documentation that defines scope and goes out for bid, and at the same time, still provide flexibility for the contractor and an overall lean project delivery. Part of solving that puzzle is looking realistically about what different approaches mean – how they look – seeing good and bad examples – and moving forward to introduce, educate and advocate on what better “Delegated Design” means in the future. For literally the past two decades there has been growing momentum to bring light to the issue. We’re not far from having more resources to define what “better” looks like and how we can easily get there. WHAT'S YOUR TAKE? We had a great dialogue about the problem of Delegated Design before, that's here. But what's your take on why work isn't provided upfront? Is it just tradition? Just the way things always have been? Is it any of the reasons I've cited? Why is our delivery method so different from Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing or Structural? What separates us from other disciplines? Comment below - would be happy to hear your take. We tried out something new a couple months ago with a Detail Pick-Apart covering a dry sidewall sprinkler at a deck. We had a great response - healthy discussion from a wide variety of perspectives. Way back when we even talked about different parts and purposes for components of a wet riser. It's the dialogue that I often find the most helpful in seeing and understanding perspective that I simply just don't have. No detail is perfect, nor is it applicable in all situations. No way. It's one possible solution to some situations. That said, it can be really helpful to have open discord and learn from it. Quick rehash on ideas for critique and discord: USE CASES: What are good use cases for this? PROS: What benefits does an approach like this bring? CONS: What are the negatives with an approach like this? IMPROVE: What ways can this approach be improved? What critique would you offer here?
Thanks, as always, for being part of making the industry better. |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBEGet Free Articles via Email:
+ Get calculators, tools, resources and articles
+ Get our PDF Flowchart for Canopy & Overhang Requirements instantly + No spam
+ Unsubscribe anytime AUTHORJoe Meyer, PE, is a Fire Protection Engineer out of St. Louis, Missouri who writes & develops resources for Fire Protection Professionals. See bio here: About FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
April 2024
|