Until I did some research recently, I hadn’t realized that NFPA 72 breaks out different definitions for Unwanted Alarms by fire alarm systems. In a way, as an FPE I always kind of shuttered and turned a blind eye to the reality of how much of the rest of the world views fire alarm systems – as a nuisance. Imagine yourself flipping through a book that you’ve pulled off the shelf at the library. It’s quiet; the librarian shushers are about and keeping the noise down. Then suddenly the fire alarm system activates – it’s loud, startling, What is the first thing that comes to mind when this happens? As a fire person, I jump into detective investigator mode. I understand what kind of inputs would trigger an alarm, so I’m naturally very curious on what might have happened. But what about the ‘Average Joe?’ If it’s a calm library on a quiet afternoon, are they in a rush to leave? Or is their first thought “it’s probably a false alarm?” I can tell you by experience that unless there is another signal, like the smell of smoke, sight of smoke, or others moving quickly – most will pay attention and mostly ignore the alarm. They assume it’s a false alarm until they have evidence that suggests otherwise. FALSE ALARMS DON'T REFLECT WELL This is really bad for our industry. The prevalence of false (unwanted) alarms makes people apathetic to the alarm in the first place, and it reflects poorly on us. Is the reduction of false alarms more important than detecting an actual fire event? Of course not. We need these systems to detect and alert us that something is up. But as a downstream effect or a lesser-priority, we also should pay attention to finding ways to reduce unwanted alarms. We want our systems to be trusted and we want people to react when they someday do activate. WE JUST TALKING IT&M? Much can be said about regular inspection, testing, and maintenance of the system. Old and dirty smoke detectors can certainly cause alarm when there isn’t a hazardous condition. But from the very beginning, we can help prevent unwanted alarms by design. That’s something that designers, engineers, plan reviewers and inspectors can help prevent from the very beginning. BRAINSTORMING IDEAS I don’t have all the answers here, but I would like to start the dialogue and open discussion on clever ideas that help reduce unwanted alarm. NFPA 72 has a list of terms that fall under Unwanted Alarm, which is any alarm that is not the result of a potentially hazardous condition. It lists Malicious Alarm (person acting will ill-intent), Nuisance Alarm (alarm by a non-hazardous condition), Unintentional Alarm (person triggers but by accident), and Unknown (no known cause). My gut says that Malicious and Nuisance are the most preventable. How can we discourage someone from activating an alarm as a prank (Malicious), and how can we reduce Nuisance Alarms where there is no actual threat? Here is my shortlist – I am very interested in your tips and takes on additional ideas to avoid Unwanted Alarms by design. #1 REMOVE MANUAL PULL STATIONS (WHERE ALLOWED) The most-accessible method for an occupant to activate a fire alarm system is with a manual pull station. The IBC (most commonly-adopted model code in the US) has exceptions to remove manual pull stations for fully-sprinklered buildings. When this exception is offered, it’s worth considering. Many new construction projects require fully-sprinklered buildings anyways, so eliminating the exposure for a pull station in a highly populated area would reduce the potential for pranks. That being said, always consider the alternative. Are we talking about a middle or high school situation, or a hospital? Is it a dormitory, which is all-but-guaranteed to have a 2am alarm activation during Finals week? Or is it a critical care facility where there are multiple patients who cannot self evacuate? Manual Pull Stations do have their purpose and place in the industry; so we still want to consider the context and purpose for them. One important note that’s often missed – using the exception to remove manual pull stations doesn’t remove all of them in a building. One pull station must still be installed “at an approved location,” just not at all exits. #2 USE DUAL-ACTION PULL STATIONS If we can’t, or don’t want, to eliminate manual pull stations at all exits – then let’s think about securing them. Can we make the pull stations a little more involved to activate? Would going from a single-action (just pull down) to dual-action (push in and pull down) help prevent accidental activations? It’s possible, though I personally haven’t seen data to suggest it. I can’t imagine a teenager being discouraged by a minor additional action if they already plan to activate a system. But could it prevent a tall and curious five year old from activating the system? Possibly. Going from single-action to dual-action isn’t a notable cost difference, so this would be fairly easy to execute. If you have data on this – be sure to chime in in the comments. #3 PIEZO COVER FOR MANUAL PULL STATIONS Now “Prank” isn’t a formal term here, or at least not yet. But many of my personal experiences with false alarms was during college in the dormitories. How can we make activating a pull station troublesome for someone who is actively looking to empty a 1,000-person dormitory as a “prank”? One way is to put covers with a piezo alarm on the pull station itself. The piezo buzzes as soon as the cover is lifted, which draws attention to the location. If someone is activating the system during an actual fire, the logic is that they shouldn’t be deterred by a buzzer. But someone who’s trying to “get away” with something? Maybe the attention is a deterrent. Can using a Lift Cover with local Piezo alarm discourage malicious alarms? #4 VIDEO MONITOR PULL STATIONS AT EXITS Perhaps a better long-term solution isn’t a buzzer but a security camera at the location. If exits are already being monitored for security in that area, why not get a camera placed to include the pull station? If it’s much harder to avoid discipline, perhaps the security camera acts as a deterrent. While this might sound expensive – just imagine how many malicious alarms happen in some occupancies? The cost, time and effort of fire departments responding to calls that should have never been placed in the first place? It’s extremely disruptive and very well could lead to fines too. Addressing some of this upfront, when the building is being designed or renovated, could have lasting financial benefit to the owner. #5 SIGNAGE AT MANUAL PULL STATIONS Along the line of logic for security cameras – what about the threat of security cameras? Even just basic and clear signage right above the pull station of “SMILE, YOU’RE ON CAMERA” would be an inexpensive but potentially effective way of deterring bad players. Having a reminder for consequences may just be as effective even if a camera is not actively recording. If you’re a graduate student and looking for a research paper – maybe test this out and let us know. #6 SMOKE DETECTOR LOCATION Thus far we’ve focused on manual pull stations, and that’s because they’re the most easily-recognized way for anyone to activate the system. But what about the nuisance alarm? Perhaps the most front-of-mind false alarm is burned popcorn activating a nearby smoke alarm. Why is that smoke alarm there in the first place? Can locating required floor-level smoke alarms further away from cooking appliances help prevent nuisance alarms? Well, typically in homes, smoke alarms are required within sleeping areas, just outside of sleeping areas, and on each floor level. Similar requirements are found for residential occupancies. The IBC is explicit in the areas that need smoke detectors or smoke alarms in Section 907.2.
If a smoke detector is required in the area, how can we improve the situation? Can we shift the location to be as far-away from cooking sources as possible, but still be along the path of egress that we’re seeking to satisfy the IBC and NFPA 72? Many times it seems that during design, the smoke detector is just a hex with an “S” on it. It’s just a symbol that gets popped wherever there’s blank space on the CAD plan (I’m guilty of this). We need to be better than that. If a smoke alarm or smoke detector is anywhere near cooking appliances (stoves, microwaves, ovens) – then let’s get those detectors further away but still meet code. That extra distance means that normal cooking exhaust is going to diffuse and be less likely to trigger the smoke alarm. Here again – think about context, what we’re monitoring, and what we’re trying to achieve with the detection in the area. #7 USE THE UL 268 7TH EDITION One of my favorite improvements concerning smoke detection is that the UL 268 Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, recently added a specific test, informally called the “Hamburger Test,” that requires a smoke detector or smoke alarm to not activate under specific cooking conditions. On a side note, the 7th Edition also includes a test for correctly responding to burning foam, which better matches modern furniture padding material. These additional requirements have come into play with the 7th Edition, which is now mandated for newly manufactured smoke alarm and smoke detectors. This is a huge step in the right direction to trigger less nuisance alarms. If we have the opportunity to install or specify UL 268 7th Edition detectors, that might be a major value-add for the owner. I don’t know the current status of availability or whether the manufacturers have caught up to the requirement yet, but the 7th Edition of the standard is currently mandated for new devices. YOUR EXPERIENCE What tips do you have? What are some practical considerations you make when designing or reviewing fire alarm systems? If you’re an AHJ, consider kindly advising owners or designers to consider these things by passing along the “lessons learned” can have a tremendous value to the owner. They can say no where it’s not code-required, but having been in the consulting space I’m incredibly appreciative of tips to consider that is in the interest of the owner. Comment below with your tips or ideas that you like. As always, thanks for being part of the community here! 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. It's been quite the year! First - I'm thankful for you being a part of the community here. Whether it's reading a post here or there, downloading a cheatsheet, posting on the forum, using a tool or learning on the University platform - I couldn't be more thankful. You have helped make a dream of mine come to reality where I get to focus on ways to improve the industry I care so much about. Thank you for helping make that happen. Second - a lot has happened this year. We ramped up the learning experience with a load of new resources and 360-virtual simulations over at MeyerFire University. Perhaps just as impactful, we brought about an entirely new and improved site complete with an iOS and Android app. A lot has happened in that space over this year. In case you missed it, here are the top articles and resources of all time (as of 2023) at MeyerFire: #10 IS A POST INDICATOR VALVE REQUIRED FOR MY PROJECT? A code path study that looks at when post indicator valves are actually required. #9 A THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR A calculator which helps size thrust blocks for underground pipe. #8 REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINS IN FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS A recap of when, where, and what size drains need to be in a fire sprinkler system. #7 FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST CHARTS A few pages for immediate flow translations for different fire hydrants. Useful for flow testing. #6 ARE FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FOR A CANOPY? A flowchart look at when sprinklers are required below a canopy, overhang, or porte-cochere. #5 A FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION CHEATSHEET A PDF of all the biggest requirements & tips surrounding FDCs. #4 DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE INSPECTOR'S TEST A breakout of the different requirements associated with an inspector's test. #3 SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES IN NFPA 13, 13R, & 13D A breakout of the big differences between the three fire sprinkler standards. #2 BREAKING DOWN COMPONENTS OF A FIRE HYDRANT Types, components, and the "why" behind different parts of a fire hydrant. #1 COMPARE FLOW OF K-FACTORS WITH K-FACTOR CALCULATOR A tool (paid tool as part of the Toolkit) that optimizes flow and pressure across different available fire sprinkler k-factors. Thank you for another great year in helping improve the industry. I can't begin to tell you how excited and optimistic I am about what we'll be able to impact moving forward. Here's to 2023, and a bright year ahead. Cheers. - Joe Are you and others on your team looking for accredited professional development hours to wrap up 2023? Cash in and round-out unlimited continuing education requirements with MeyerFire University. We are a NICET Recognized Training provided and International Code Council Preferred Educational Provider, so all of our courses are NICET and ICC certified. With just one subscription you can get as many continuing education hours as you'd need, and still have the subscription active for your 2024 requirements next year as well!
Plus, you're in control of who uses your seat throughout the year - so you can remove yourself and add in others throughout the year for year-round learning. If you've been on the sidelines debating whether to join - now is a great time! Visit https://www.meyerfireuniversity.com to learn more today.
A couple weeks ago I was talking with a friend (shoutout to Chris Logan and his Fire Sprinkler Podcast) about different naming conventions for specific pipes in a sprinkler system.
What a great end result that chat started! We drew it up, labeled as best we knew, and posted it last week for your input. And boy did you not disappoint! ​Probably the term I knew least about was this one -
We got a wide range of names and input on how you describe the system. We can create a pretty kickin’ diagram today with your awesome input.
But I can't help but to take it one step further. We all have anecdotal experience, but what is the most common terms actually used in industry? If I’m talking to a colleague across the country – what term is most likely to strike home? I hate surveys, so I’m not going to do that. Instead, below we have simple poll questions where you can instantly see the results too. Vote on what term you usually call each part of the system, and afterwards we'll build a new (and more representative) diagram based on the most common terms. Keep in mind that each of these pieces don't have a defined name. The others we covered last week (riser, system riser, feed main, cross main, branch line, armover, sprig) are all defined terms in NFPA 13. If we do this well enough it just might be what the industry uses over the next few years, so thanks for taking part! TERM #1 ​TERM #2 ​TERM #3 ​TERM #4 ​TERM #5
Thanks for your input & being a part of the community here!​
You’re on a jobsite. On the phone with the boss back at the office. You’re looking up at a portion of the sprinkler system and have a question about that one piece of pipe. How do you describe that piece of pipe? What’s it called? It sounds silly, but up until Monday I’m not so sure that I knew the proper name for each segment within a sprinkler system. Like the true, proper terms that I should have learned way back when. There are a few things that can impact that – one is informal regional terms, which can cause some inconsistency. One is that up until Monday I’d never actually read all the definitions in NFPA 13 for each stick of pipe. One is that when I’d get cross-eyed looks when talking about a specific piece, I’d usually just point to it in conversation and move on. Well – as we do around here – it’s time to bring this topic out into the light and maybe we can all learn a bit from the discussion. Here’s a basic diagram of a sprinkler system, which each pipe path identified as best I understand it today: Is this consistent with the terms you use? What other names (maybe keep it PC?) or terms do you use? If not, what terms (even informal ones) do you use to describe each pipe? Take a look at the diagram above and some of these pictures and let us know here.
Last week I wrote on the Delegated Design Problem we have in the fire protection industry. The big ugly elephant that looms over us all. And wow – what a response! It’s a good thing (I guess) that so many others are as agitated as I am with the state of delegated design as I am. GOOD DELEGATED DESIGN ≠ FULL-LAYOUT One big and important point I’d like to make about the issues with what I’m calling delegated design; the answer is not full layout drawings by engineers. Some fire protection engineering firms can, and do, excellent detailed layout drawings for fire suppression systems. In some cases (unique, high-risk, location-sensitive clients), full-layout fire sprinkler documents can help convey exactly what the owner needs to all bidding contractors. It can be well done. But that’s not what we’re talking about when we’re talking about good delegated design. A set of engineering documents go by plenty of names:
I’m simply calling them “Engineering Documents” and that process being “Delegated Design”. A good set of high-quality of Engineering Documents is helpful to contractors, helpful for pricing, helpful to define and communicate the scope, and helpful to the owner as it conveys what the owner wants. In my opinion, that doesn’t have to mean a full-layout. In most contractors’ opinions (we’ll get data on this later), my guess is the far majority don’t believe that quality engineering documents means a full layout. If done poorly, they’re actually worse for a project. WHAT SHOULD ENGINEER DOCUMENTS INCLUDE? So what criteria exists today? We wrote on this a few years ago with a checklist for things to consider in a set of Engineering Documents. That’s our go-to on what to include. But what does everyone else say? Ten different leading organizations in the industry addressed just that. In a joint position statement originally created by SFPE and endorsed by everyone else (ABET, AFAA, AFSA, ASCET, FSSA, NCEES, NFSA, NICET, NSPE, SFPE), the paper identifies what it is that Engineering Documents should include. A link to the position statement is here: https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/professional-policies-and-position-statements/sfpenspenicetascetncees This is an important piece of information that (just my opinion) seems to be met by those who care about fire protection, and completely ignored by those who don’t. I would go so far as to think that most of the players who don’t meet the recommendations of the white paper probably don’t know it exists. There’s a major disconnect there. STATE MANDATES In some states, much of this same criteria is formally adopted into state law. Three that I’m personally familiar with (Florida, Illinois, and South Carolina) overlap much of what the joint position recommends. These state mandates have teeth. If an AHJ has installation drawings without upfront engineer involvement, they have the authority to reject and require upfront involvement (Illinois is slightly different in that the specific requirements are less defined). Other states have mandates too. If you have a tip you’d want us to add to this, comment below here. SO, WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS? Below is a table to compare the main elements of the joint position paper and a sample of state mandates. Now, fire protection is not just fire suppression, but I wanted to start on the fire suppression side and look at this in detail since it’s the suppression side of delegated design that seems to be the most pervasive issue today. A comparison of the joint-position statement (ABET, AFAA, AFSA, ASCET, FSSA, NCEES, NFSA, NICET, NSPE, SFPE) and several state statues for minimum requirements of fire protection engineering documents. In this list we find a lot of should-be-obvious things. Identifying the scope of work. Ask your favorite contractor – how many drawings have you seen for a renovation or an addition that doesn’t cleanly identify what work is actually supposed to be done? Are we scrapping everything? Are we going in all-new? Are we just add and relocating sprinklers? Hazard Classifications & Design Criteria. This one is the hammer to the head. It’s the most-important decision for the design of a suppression system. What is the hazard? What design criteria do we need to protect it properly? Again going back to your favorite contractor – how many times have you had projects where hazard classifications weren’t even identified? Or, the only place it is addressed is with a paragraph about Light Hazard and Ordinary Hazard in the specification while completely ignoring the huge storage area that’s part of the project? Water Supply. Every state and the position statement all agree that water supply is an upfront, engineering document responsibility. Ask your contractor – how often do they see it? ASK YOUR FAVORITE CONTRACTOR As an industry – as a collective – we’re failing right now. And I don’t want to pretend that I’m above scrutiny. Ask someone who’s looked at my documentation. It’s not perfect. I’ve failed to meet this mark. But I can be better – we all can. This has to improve, and I think we can build up the support and resources around this topic to make it happen. YOUR TAKE This is the first look at simply “what should be in a set of fire protection engineering documents”. What should they be? If you have input – tips, comments, thoughts – join the discussion below. If you work in other areas – Louisiana, Arizona, wherever – that have state-level mandates for fire protection engineering documents – let us know below! Having a representative summary helps everyone. Thanks for reading – hope the research we’ve compiled this week helps you think about how we as a whole can improve the way we practice. If there’s one big hairy problem in the fire protection industry that everyone knows about, yet few take head-on, it’s the delegated design problem. The practice of delegating pieces of the fire protection design has been around forever. THE CURRENT REALITY Some harsh but perhaps true realities today as an industry:
Out of those realities has been “delegated design”, where a professional engineer stipulates (specifies) what they deem critical, and “leave” the details to the installing contractor. GOOD VS. BAD If done well, delegated design can:
If done poorly, delegated design can:
THE CENTRAL ISSUE At the risk of sounding highly dramatic, I see this as the central issue that plagues our industry in North America. It is awful. And if you haven’t seen it, then ask your local estimator. What do they see? Is the scope of work well-defined? Or are they seeing documents that are simply full of landmines? Where a quick note on plumbing plans or buried in a specification could mean tens of thousands of dollars of cost that the contractor is supposed to eat? A DISSERVICE We, as an industry, do a terrible disservice to everyone else in the way that we do delegated design. Terrible. This isn’t a regional issue, either. I didn’t know it was this bad until I started working for contractors and I saw what they saw. And good grief, it’s terrible. SO FULL-DESIGN? Now conversations about this usually then go to – fine – what would you have Joe? Full design, every time? What about a single-family home? We don’t have enough FPEs for complex projects, much less residential sprinkler design? And I’m with you there – I think the answer is more about reform than it is abolishment. If we simply do delegated design well, I don’t think we’d have the issues we’re seeing today. WHO'S TO BLAME? And, if I’m going to make gross generalizations; if you’re the kind of person who cares about the fire protection industry, or maybe you see your role as being “in” the fire protection industry (like this concept) … then you’re likely not the problem. I tend to find it’s not the people that are concerned about this being the biggest violators. It’s those who don’t care, don’t show up, don’t invest in fire protection. They just “also do” fire protection. That said, the issue needs fixing. CREATING CHANGE Two weeks ago I wrote about working towards change. If 2033 looks different, what is the reality we want to create by then? I think this problem is solvable, and it’s worth solving. A CARROT OR A STICK? Generally, we see fixing incentives as a carrot or a stick problem. Do we use the carrot, or the stick? The carrot entices, rewards, promotes and builds up those that are doing things well. We find ways as an industry to recognize and promote people who do it well. The stick simply beats the violators. It pushes-down, disciplines, penalizes. This might be reporting to state boards or reporting to certification bodies. Right now, we collectively don’t have much of a carrot or a stick.
NO REWARDS? NO PUNISHMENT? We don’t recognize who is doing it well, and we certainly don’t promote them. Heck – we really don’t even have a scorecard or a standard to even identify what “doing it well” looks like! And state boards? What if the people on the board are doing the same bad practices as the violators? Reporting someone to a state board is time-intensive, has little reward, and makes enemies. No wonder so few people go about trying it. And besides that – what do we even compare negligence against? What is our standard practice? If negligence is so widespread, then what really is our standard of care? So, the question becomes, how can we uplift the practice of engineering in our industry when we don’t clearly establish what it is that we should be doing? And even where we have established what that practice looks like – how many of those practicing in fire protection have read and understood it? How accessible is that guidance? WHAT'S THE ANSWER? These are questions and challenges I think we’re up for tackling. I think it can be done. As with all the other impact projects we look at – what is the fundamental answer?
I don’t know the answer, but I think it is within reach. Maybe it’s one or all these things. While some of the writing lately may sound grandiose (and it is my writing, thank you very much ChatGPT), we’re taking active measures to attack this core issue head-on. In the coming pieces over the next few months, I’ll talk about the issue from my vantagepoint, build and ask, and try to open up the dialogue on what a better engineering practice looks like. This is something we can affect, and something I hope you also want to see improved as well. Got ideas on this topic? Share them below. I'd love to hear your input. We can get this right. Thanks for being a part of our community – and as always – as an advocate for what we all do. - Joe |
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
|