|
I remember a very specific conversation with a Fire Protection Engineer I worked for at the time. I was studying fire dynamics and smoke control in an online graduate program, and he specifically expressed his interest in those courses. We both had undergraduate degrees in Architectural Engineering and were working on fire modeling for a couple of smoke control projects at the time. Access to take those courses was always possible. We explored what it would take for a non-degree-seeking student to take just a select course or two. At the time (if I recall correctly), he may have needed to apply as a non-degree-seeking student and the cost of attendance was in the thousands of dollars to take just those two courses (somewhere in the $5,000 range). Based on cost and inconvenience, he didn’t apply or take those courses. I remember thinking that it was unfortunate how high-level information is accessed.  What if you could learn whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted? COST TO PRODUCE LIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Traditional learning (pre-internet) has a long legacy of requiring in-person and live learning in order to get access to information and challenge ourselves in new ways. When we came online, we still tended to teach and engage in live learning. Both of those methods can still be powerful, engaging, and relevant to today. But they’re also problematic in terms of cost and time. Reaching a world-class professional at the same time and for hours at a time is expensive. Is charging $5,000 for two courses justified? For a world-class institution and faculty in that form of educational delivery? Yes, it’s necessary for them to continue operating. NEW OPTION, REDUCED COST But, we have a third option now. And that third option is in well-developed, pre-packaged learning that doesn’t require the student and instructor to sync up or only deliver to a classroom of 15 students. This isn't new to MeyerFire (of course). The instructor writes, develops, and teaches on their ideal schedule, and the student learns, engages, re-learns, and improves on their ideal schedule. That fundamental switch is incredibly important because it means the cost to each of us can come down dramatically. THE NEED FOR INFORMATION The fire protection industry is desperate for access to vetted, quality, engaging, and impactful learning material. We have a whole generation of experts who are retiring, and behind them, we have a new, younger generation with an entirely different level of expectation for their own mentorship and learning opportunities. It’s not just mid-level Fire Protection Engineers who want it; it’s brand-new sprinkler designers, plan reviewers, inspectors, fire marshals, estimators, and so on. We all want access to learn whatever we want to know about next. And that’s the core issue. It’s access. THE NEED FOR ACCESS If we want to grow and truly improve with impactful learning and do great things in the world, then we have to have access to the information. It can’t be hidden behind $6,000 paywalls or $50 courses each time we want to learn a new topic. I’m not mad at providers who charge that—it’s not that they are evil capitalists—it’s the real cost to prepare that level of information with that level of expertise. It’s a scale problem limited directly by the live teaching model. Plus, we need live teaching. We need that offering as a multimodal way of learning, asking questions, and reinforcing concepts. It’s not one versus the other; it’s both working in conjunction to help us all be better. We wouldn’t tell a new hire that they need to stop reading books because we have access to YouTube today. That’d be dumb. We have both and can use both. Multimodal learning (in-person, live online, on-demand online) can work together to reinforce important concepts. Besides, delivery methods will work differently for each person. NEED LOWER COST TO ACHIEVE HIGHER IMPACT But access to the material is what is critical. And we can’t get access if the material cost is too high. In order for enough people to in the industry to learn, grow, improve, and impact the industry, we need enough people to actually access the learning. If I can bullet-point where we are:
 What if you could explore and tinker in areas outside your expertise? Truly grow in whatever direction you wanted? WHAT UNLIMITED LEARNING COULD LOOK LIKE
In 2021, I thought a lot about this problem. Selfishly, I wanted something like the learning ‘programs’ in the Matrix. To learn something in the Matrix, Tank pops in a quick drive that downloads all the information you need to be competent in a matter of seconds – boom – you’re now an expert. I’d love to be able to learn like that, but it’s called ‘science fiction’ for a reason. The next best thing would be a library of hundreds of courses on wide-ranging topics, where I could pop in any one topic I wanted to learn that day and learn it—impactful, engaged learning on whatever topic I wanted. ACCESS & COST Here’s the thing, though, about access and cost. We need the value to far exceed the cost. That’s a given. We bundle all of our PDF cheatsheets, software, CEUs, and learning into one subscription – so very high value for the money. We also need the cost to be as low as possible, so that we get the impact that we want. We also need the cost to be high enough to keep us afloat and allow as much re-investment into more and more content as possible. In essence, you, me, and everyone else plugged into the University platform are splitting the gigantic costs to develop exactly what we want—an unlimited library where we can learn whatever we want to learn, whenever we want to learn. That would be incredible. Is it going to happen overnight? Of course not. But it will happen, and we’re well on the way there. When we say the future of learning looks a lot brighter than what it is today, it’s because there will be options in learning (1) what you want to learn, (2) how you want to learn, and (3) when you want to learn. Getting access to that level of education is going to be a game-changer for the way that we train and develop the next generation. And I’m so excited for what’s ahead.
1 Comment
I want to challenge you with a question. I’m going to suppose you’re a reasonably competent, experienced, practicing fire protection professional. (You’re reading this blog, after all!) Some of you are also licensed Fire Protection Engineers. If I asked you to first write a balanced combustion chemical equation for heptane (C₇H₁₆) in the presence of oxygen, and then find the Heat of Formation per molecule of heptane, could you do it with only knowing the values of Heat of Formation for water vapor, oxygen, heptane and carbon dioxide? No ChatGPT, no Google – just the answer to this? Or, are you like me, in that not only is it a stretch for me to be capable of doing this, but I have never come close to doing anything of this sort in a variety of Fire Protection Engineering roles that I’ve taken in my career? NUANCE IN THE EXAM That question – specifically – is fair game for the Fire Protection P.E. Exam. Chemical equation balancing and heat of formation are both in the Fire Protection P.E. Exam specifications, as is many other nuanced applications. Fire Protection Engineering covers a very wide breadth of content. It’s far more than sprinkler protection. One of the most misunderstood parts of being a Fire Protection Engineer is the assumption that an FPE is an expert in sprinkler systems. They could be, but they very well could not be. At most, the Fire Protection P.E. Exam is 20% sprinkler system-related. The P.E. Exam covers Special Hazards, Fire Alarm, Smoke Control, Explosion Protection, Passive Building Systems, Egress, Human Behavior, and some fundamentals on using information and data.  Historically, the Fire Protection P.E. Exam covers far more than just fire suppression. Many might argue that much of the knowledge that is tested is not regularly used in industry practice by Fire Protection Engineers. Historically, while many things are not relevant to a practicing Fire Protection Engineer, the test has been nuanced and forces the examinee to consider and be at least minimally competent in some basics of all these facets of Fire Protection Engineering. Historically, that’s been OK. Even if it’s not real world, it has served its role in trying to delineate competency for Fire Protection Engineering. But now, in 2024, we have two converging themes that are going to change the future of Fire Protection Engineering licensure. Some changes will be good, some may not. DECOUPLING THE EXPERIENCE TO SIT FOR AN EXAM Some states have “decoupled” the requirement for experience in order to sit for a P.E. Exam. Meaning that instead of waiting and gaining four years (or two years in some states, such as California), some states will allow an engineering graduate to take the exam at any time, but not earn the license until they’ve later reached the required amount of experience. Texas, for example, moved to this in 2016 to accommodate different career paths and encourage licensure. (https://pels.texas.gov/decoupling.html) FLEXIBILITY I see this as a two-edged sword. On the one hand, offering flexibility in when the exam is taken can encourage more attempts at the exam and more licensed Fire Protection Engineers. If I’ve heard anything over the last decade, it’s that we need more good people invested in fire protection and licensed as FPEs. There continues to be a massive demand for FPEs. Allowing someone to take an exam before having kids or marriage, while they’re fresh out of school and still in ‘study-mode’, or during more convenient times of their life does well to benefit the examinee. ACADEMIC VS. REAL-WORLD On the other hand, this puts a lot of pressure on the test writers to get the subject matter correct. If we’re testing on topics that do not relate to the industry, then this ‘decoupling’ is pushing the new-grad into a massive advantage. Going back to our chemical equation question. Let’s assume the new graduate student, Person A, doesn’t know the answer. Let’s look at a practicing, experienced, and competent experienced professional. Let’s call them Person B, who has never come across this in the fire protection industry and hasn’t studied or taken a major test in two decades. Who does this question benefit? It’s Person A – and by a wide margin. They’re still fresh out of school. They’re used to exams. They’re used to studying long hours (hopefully). They remember how to take tests. They know test-taking strategy; they’ve just done it for years! Suppose the test prioritizes more theory or academic subjects. In that case, the green new graduate has a significant advantage in passing the test – even over people with many years of experience. I’ve been told multiple times from people with little to no relevant experience that they’ve already passed the PE Exam. What does that say? That the person is highly intellectual? They’re driven and self-motivated, and smart? That the exam can’t differentiate between relevant experience and someone who studies for the exam? I don’t know the answer to those questions, but they’re worth asking. To be clear – there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with anyone taking the PE Exam whenever they are eligible. Go get that thing! It’s a tremendous benefit in recognition and sets people up for a whole new career trajectory. What I question are the particulars of the exam itself. Its role is changing, and it probably needs to adapt and be a better indicator of industry knowledge than academic knowledge. The experienced professional should have a natural advantage if the test reflects real-world practice. Passing the PE Exam in Fire Protection should feel much more familiar and comfortable to an experienced person than a new grad. This is going to be a challenge for the volunteer test writers. It’s a tall task, and there has long been a complaint about the exam (that it’s too academic). If you feel called to that effort, contact SFPE and get involved! They’re always looking for help in test writing or exam specifications. Also note that they don’t allow crossover between the real writers and the outsiders who teach on it (us). The exam's subject matter is an important and relevant debate today. HISTORICALLY HIGH BARRIER TO ENTRY On an unrelated trajectory, Fire Protection as a discipline has gained increasing visibility in the design and construction environment today. To prepare for the Fire Protection P.E. Exam 15 years ago, SFPE’s handbook and online course were the only options for prep material. Today, SFPE’s online course continues, we have content and a book, the School of PE has a course, and others like PPI have also expressed interest in serving this space. With the older written book, an examinee needed to purchase SFPE’s Handbook ($500-$900), NFPA’s Handbooks ($300+), and nearly a dozen codes and standards (which could easily run $500+). Now, with the online exam, any relevant material is provided as part of the exam itself. Fifteen years ago, no one had to purchase an online course or optional handbook, but the cost of just the required reference materials could easily have run $1,500 or more, and the cost of a course on top could have easily added another $1,500. Fifteen years ago, there was a massive financial barrier to entry.  Required reference materials alone could commonly cost $1,500 or more in the older written-exam format. It was extremely burdensome to invest the time (three months or more) and the cost (regularly $3,000+) to take the Fire Protection P.E. Exam. Don’t forget – with having to wait a few years to take the exam – there was more at stake than time and money. There’s a major pressure of passing the exam when your employer, family, and colleagues all know how much attention and effort you’ve put in. In other words, it was an extremely high-stakes test. TODAY'S LOWER BARRIER TO ENTRY For one, the cost of codes and standards is pennies on the dollar. NFPA Link only costs $10 a month and gives access to all these codes and standards. The NCEES Handbook is free, and there are low-cost options like the NCEES practice exam (~$45) and our book ($250). Some courses and their materials can still run $2,000 or more, but the financial barrier to entry is a fraction of what it used to be. For example, if your employer is already on MeyerFire University, it’s only $130/year to add yourself as a user and get all the PE Prep. While that sounds like a shameless plug, I don’t mean it that way. I am sure you’ve seen enough about the University already. Concerning the cost - I’ve thought for years that access to this kind of information needs to be available and more accessible to the industry beyond only the PE examinees. It needs to be out there. So what easily ran $3,000 just 15 years ago could look a lot more like $500 or less today. WHAT COULD THIS MEAN? In some states, decoupling has altered the experience requirement for sitting for the exam. Breaking down the tradition of insane costs just to adequately prepare for the exam is going to lessen the barrier to entry in a healthy way. Reducing the costs also lessens the impact of not passing the exam on any one try. 1. LESS AT STAKE One possible benefit of decoupling and democratizing cost is that far, far less is at stake for one person taking the exam. So you’re a year out of school, take the exam, and don’t pass. Who cares? You can retake it next year, and there’s no shame or hole in your bank account. There’s less angst, less pressure, and less money at stake. That’s a good thing. 2. MORE FPEs? Could removing the financial burden mean that more people try the exam? What about a licensed engineer in another discipline? If they don’t realistically need to spend $3k to take the exam anymore, do they try it when they would not before? On average, if more people take the exam and give it the attention it deserves, we’ll get more licensed FPEs. That’s possibly a very good thing for the industry. In a way, if an organization's goal is to create more Fire Protection Engineers in the world, then reducing the burden to get licensure (reducing cost) could perhaps be one important way to encourage that. Not make the exam easier, but make it less expensive. SCARCITY VS. ADVOCACY Now, before we think of this from a scarcity mindset, and that more FPEs will mean more competition and less value for each existing FPE – I would challenge you with this: What is our biggest detraction from being more involved and doing better fire protection work in our industry? It’s our shortage of skilled, caring professionals. We can’t advocate for more involvement or be more involved without more highly skilled, caring professionals. They don’t have to be FPEs, but if more of them are – great. Advocacy for caring about and advocating for fire protection is half of our battle. If we have more FPEs in the world, that advocacy becomes easier. 4. COMPETENCY With decoupling, we’ve removed some experience component. Is the test measuring a person’s ability to study and take an exam? Is it a measure of intelligence? Is it a measure of competency in fire protection technical understanding? Is it a measure of what a competent, educated, discerning engineer should be? Is it protecting the care, concern, and craft of ethical and sound engineering judgment? Or is it playing into further apathy that’s already present outside of the fire protection industry? I don’t know the answer to any of these. But with decoupling, these questions come into play and become relevant in a completely new way. 5. MORE ONUS ON ABET-ACCREDITED ENGINEERING DEGREE Let’s say the exam parameters don’t change. That it stays fairly embedded in foundational engineering testing and leans a bit more academic than real-world practice. Suppose the exam itself shifts from the gate-keeping role of what it means to be a competent professional and rather is (pessimistically) a measure of academic achievement. What does that mean for the ABET-Accredited Engineering Degree that is required in order to take the exam? My gut says that the importance of the PE Exam decreases, and the importance of the engineering degree increases. If the PE is less of a barrier, then the engineering degree becomes the significant effort and more of the ‘gatekeeper’ of the profession. 6. KEEPING WHAT IS GREAT What sets the fire protection industry apart from others (looking at you, MEP) is our shared sense of responsibility. I find that many people are more loyal to a cause and to doing good in the world than they are to their own employer. We have a common sense of purpose, and I think that drives a lot of passion and care for the community that is our group of fire protection professionals. That’s a real thing. I don’t think that changes in licensure will affect the industry much, especially since so few people who practice in the industry are FPEs to begin with. But I do think that potentially lowering the barrier to entry (financial, time investment, or burden of failure) means we need to be on the lookout for ways to continue to embrace, encourage, and build-up newcomers to the industry. We care about it. People before us and people before them have cared about it. My hope is that the industry's major growth means that we grow the community and do not drift out of the passionate niche mindset that so many of us carry. YOUR TAKE Lots of food for thought today. What’s your take?
Last week, I posted a Main Drain Estimator tool that runs a supply-side hydraulic calculation in loops until it balances. This tool is showing promise as being much more in line with expectations for estimating flow through a main drain.
Based on your feedback from this past week, I've updated the tool to incorporate three different main drain models that insurers have used to estimate main drain flow so that you can compare our results to others. One important note: all other three models depend on using a 2-inch main drain. If the actual size is different, then the comparison is not applicable (results in N/A in our tool). I ran an error analysis based on our method; the c-factor is the biggest driver of variability. Using a C-factor that's off by 10 of the real value would result in an error of about 7% of our predicted flow. It's not terrible, but accurate C-factor use without looking inside the pipe would naturally be a source of uncertainty here. One direction I'd like to take next is to chart the main drain results against a prior flow test and/or against a hydraulic placard. We could add accommodation to account for underground losses when comparing a flow test at the street, and we would be able to represent the main drain test, the flow test, and the hydraulic placard based on riser data on the same chart. In theory, should the main drain be clear of obstruction, this could offer a very quick gut-check on whether the main drain results are within expectations from an original water supply (which is the purpose of a main drain test). It could also provide an initial flag if the water supply has degraded below the system design, which would warrant some further evaluation. There's certainly plenty of nuance and debate here about NFPA 25 inspection and testing scope, but for practical purposes from a building owner or insurer's perspective, a quick-use utility tool that could help find those problematic properties could offer some benefit to the industry. Check out our updated tool below, and feel free to comment on the updates or your thoughts. Thanks!
Last week, I wrote about why estimating the flow through a main drain is more complex than just calculating the resistance of one open orifice to how much flow comes out.
The problem with simply using an open orifice is that we calculated the maximum possible flow from that opening. That was what I wanted in order to hand off a maximum possible flow for a plumbing designer to accommodate, but the maximum calculation is problematic if we want to estimate how much actual flow comes from a main drain. In last week's comments, we shared different ideas and models too (thank you!). Essentially, at least in theory, the flow from the open end of a main drain is restricted at the opening but also throttled by the pipe path along the main drain (including the length of pipe, friction, and any obstructions), the main drain valve, and the parameters of the riser. Additionally, our riser gauge measures the normal pressure even when water flows. It's not a pitot gauge. Considering that, I took the conceptual outline from last week and built an iterative tool that takes all the input information we need and estimates flow from a main drain. What this does is take the main drain configuration, take the main drain residual pressure we get, assumes and loops a pressure balance, and turns out a theoretical flow from the main drain. The caution here is that this is an estimation, and we haven't proven what input values are most-accurate from real-world tests. For instance - how much of the pipe is obstructed, on average? What c-factor best represents real-world conditions? What would an error analysis suggest about our range of possible flow? All these can be tested and figured out in time, but in the meantime I wanted to offer up the first draft of the tool for your exploration and feedback:
Give it a spin, and let me know what you think.
If you find a bug, let me know and we can discuss improvements in the comments. Thanks as always for being part of our community here! Hope you like this one. - Joe One of the curiosities I have every time I run a main drain or see one run is how much flow the system is actually discharging. From the amount of discussion and inquiries one of our tools has generated, I know many of you are curious about it, too. HOW MUCH DOES THE MAIN DRAIN ACTUALLY FLOW? For one – if we knew with some certainty how much flow came through the main drain, then we could actually complete a backflow forward-flow test entirely just by opening up the main drain all the way. That’s the theory, at least, that I’ve heard some people point to as to why they don’t provide another fixed means of forward flow. For a lower hazard system; say a system whose greatest challenge is still Light Hazard – it’s not unfathomable that a fully-open 2-inch main drain could flow at least the system demand (which might be as low as 120 gpm for a minimum quick response (QR) reduction area and 30% overage, no hose allowance included). Even for an Ordinary Hazard Group 2 system using a QR area reduction and 30% overage, the system flow may still be in the 220-250 gpm range. Would a fully open 2-inch main drain be enough to handle it? Or what if that main drain was upsized to 2-1/2 inches? This piques the curiosity, right? IS FORWARD-FLOW ACHIEVABLE THROUGH A MAIN DRAIN? IF SO, WHEN? It would be very nice to have an idea if forward flow was achievable for some of these lighter-weight systems just through the main drain. The Drain Flow Estimator We introduced a tool we called the Drain Flow Estimator tool a while back (https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/a-new-fire-sprinkler-test-drain-flow-calculator), which was built to estimate the maximum possible flow from an inspector’s test or a main drain. That tool only uses one calculation: discharging water through an open orifice:  The Drain Flow Estimator calculates the maximum possible flow rate through an opening, but isn't a good way to estimate the actual flow through an opening Let’s say we have a very large water storage tank and poke a hole in the side of it near the bottom. How fast does water drain from the tank? We have a formula for that. It’s Q = 29.84 C d^2 √p. That is, we have a flow (gpm) that is constrained by the type of opening (C, the discharge coefficient), the diameter of the opening (d, in inches), and the total system pressure at the opening (p). We use this regularly when we conduct fire hydrant flow tests. The equation translates pitot pressure to how much flow comes out of the opening. We took measurement inaccuracy into account and built this out into its complete tool for converting pitot pressures to flows (https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/new-pitot-to-flow-rate-converter-with-precision).  The Flow Rate Conversion tool takes a pitot pressure and converts it to flow, while doing an error analysis to give a realistic range of accuracy of the combined measurements THE PROBLEM Here’s the problem with using only that equation to estimate flow from a main drain – it’s the maximum possible flow. Now, it meets the need that we had for building the tool—to estimate the maximum possible flow so that we could size drains appropriately (hint: don’t run an inspector’s test or main drain to a janitor’s sink). It serves its purpose of estimating the maximum possible flow. However, the Drain Flow Estimator tool doesn’t provide a realistic amount of flow through the main drain or inspector’s test and drain, only the maximum. That’s problematic if we want to know the actual flow through a Test and Drain or a Main Drain, as discussed earlier. Why is it the maximum and not actual? #1 PIPE CONSTRICTION That is, we’re not accounting for the pipe's constriction between the opening and the riser, the friction loss within the riser itself, the loss through the elbows along that path, or the constriction at the valve opening. #2 TYPE OF PRESSURE Another thing we’re not really considering is the type of pressure that’s measured. When we take a pitot pressure measurement, we insert a tube into the centerline of the water flow. The pressure measurement taken from a pitot gauge accounts for the static pressure of the water (the normal pressure that is exerted in all directions) and the velocity pressure caused by the forward motion of the water. That’s what a pitot gauge is measuring—the total pressure.  Measurement taken from a pitot gauge measures total pressure, which is the sum of normal (static) pressure that is exerted in every direction, and velocity pressure that is created from the movement of the water in the stream A gauge on a riser does not measure total pressure; it measures normal pressure. That is, it doesn’t matter if the water is standing still or moving at 20 feet per second. The gauge is only measuring the pressure that runs perpendicular to the pipe in the normal direction. #3 LOCATION OF PRESSURE The last source of error is where the pressure is measured. For a hydrant flow test, we measure the pitot pressure immediately after the hydrant opening. We use the formula and convert it to a flow, knowing the pressure right at that opening. If we instead use this same formula for an open orifice but add a pressure upstream at the riser, then we’re using a higher pressure than what will be available downstream at the opening of the main drain. If we want to know the maximum possible flow, that’s probably fine. That’s the extreme case. But if we want to know the actual flow through the drain, then that’s problematic; it’s another source of error. BUILD A TOOL THAT CAPTURES ACTUAL? So, how would we construct a tool that estimates the actual flow through a main drain? Well, in theory, we could work an iterative loop like this:
As a result of this process, we would have an iterated, balanced supply-side hydraulic calculation that estimates the flow coming through the main drain. If you love the math or the theoretical exercise – weigh in on your take. Open to ideas on this. DOWNSIDE & POTENTIAL MISUSE Now that’s great Joe, so go ahead and build it (typed in sarcastic voice font). We can build it (and probably will because I’m curious). If we do, I’d want to go out to a parking lot and validate this in the real world 30 different ways (looking at you Fire Sprinkler Podcast). But beyond that, there’s a fundamental issue with a calculator like this – it’s still an estimated amount of flow based on a pressure measurement at the riser but with the flow coming out downstream some distance later. AN ESTIMATE BUT NOT REALITY It’s not a measure of the actual flow through the opening; it’s only a calculated estimate. The downside of not being a measurement is that if there’s some wrong assumption—say a C-factor or number of elbows or whatnot—then we introduce inaccuracy. But it's probably hard to detect. What if we have some type of pipe constriction that we can’t see from the outside? Say there’s a large rock or dirt buildup, or the coupon that was cut for the main drain tap is actually smaller than it should be. That constriction would throttle the actual flow down but maintain the same or higher pressure upstream at the gauge. That is – it would look like it’s flowing more water than it actually is. The advantage of measuring the actual flow out of a main drain is that we know with some certainty what the flow is achieving and not an estimate. Fundamentally, I know of two quick(er) ways to measure the flow, even for a main drain. There’s the bucket test, in which you flow into a large 55-gallon drum and time how long it takes to fill it up. Divide your bucket size by the time it takes to fill up, and you then have your average flow.  Two of the most-obvious ways to measure flow are to measure a pitot pressure and convert to a flow, or run a hose to a "bucket test" and time how long it takes to fill up the volume. Then there’s the pitot measurement. Connect a test hose with an adapter to the main drain, measure the pitot pressure, and convert it to a flow. Either way, you could measure the flow coming from the opening. That’s far more accurate, of course, than a tool that estimates and incorporates a handful of assumptions. THE UTILITY? Is this kind of tool, that provides a theoretical balanced supply-side flow with the supporting math and documentation, something that would be of interest? Do you see the harm in having an estimate doing more harm than good here? Do you ever use a main drain for forward flow on less hazardous systems, and if so, do you verify what that flow is? Curious on your thoughts about this as a challenge in the lens of trying to create helpful resources and not circumvent or obstruct good practices. As always, appreciate you being here and being part of the community. - Joe Last week, we posted results on what sprinkler contractors need as part of a set of biddable construction documents. One of the top needs that sprinkler contractors expressed was whether the owner had any insurance-driven criteria that applied to the project. THE SURPRISE This likely isn't a surprise if you've encountered it on a job: a building is designed, bid specs are applied, bids are collected, the contract is awarded, sprinkler shop drawings are created and submitted, and then out of the blue [BOOM!], a review comes in from FM Global. FM Global? Did someone know that this was an FM Global job? No discredit to the FM Global team whatsoever - they do an excellent job in establishing a higher level of excellence and have propelled our industry for years - but shouldn't we all have known that FM would be a part of the project from the beginning? That answer, of course, is yes. CHALLENGES WITH INSURER-DRIVEN CRITERIA It can be tough to grapple with if you've been on a project where that's been a surprise. It can also put a building owner in a difficult position of mediating what their insurer wants them to provide against the increased cost of doing so via change order. As we've discussed, delegated design is one key area where a consultant provides tremendous value in coordinating and pre-planning these asks well before bid day, which would create a smoother project experience. Instead, missing or ignoring insurance criteria altogether can set the project back in schedule and cost. From the consultant's side - it's not always easy to get a straight answer from a building owner. VARIABILITY AMONG BUILDING OWNERS Big developers or large corporate clients are often very informed on their design standards; they may even have a complete set of standards themselves ready to distribute. Smaller or first-time building owners are often less likely to carry insurance criteria that stipulate much in terms of fire protection above code minimum. But what about the projects in between? What about the corporate client building in the area for the first time? The regional grocery chain? The distribution center? Mid to large retailers? Restaurants? Healthcare? Manufacturing? Hotels? Anything in this range could carry insurance that mandates a standard above NFPA 13 in certain areas, including critical ones like sprinkler design criteria. Just because an insurance company isn't FM Global doesn't mean that FM Global Standards don't apply; many other carriers could still follow FM Global criteria or even have a more comprehensive program like XL GAPs (or something similar).  Insurance criteria and owner standards play a critical part in a set of fire protection bid documents and can be a costly surprise too late in a project. But what's the best way to get the answer from the right person?
BEST PRACTICES FOR GETTING THE INSURANCE QUESTION ANSWERED What I'm most curious about is what has been your most successful process for getting this information from a building owner. As a consultant, I had my best luck when we'd have a design meeting, and the owner or owner's representative was in the room, and I could ask directly about any insurance mandates above code minimum. The line I used often sounded like, "Do you carry any requirements or standards above code minimum, like FM Global?" If the owner or owner's representative was familiar with FM Global, there'd usually be a quick yes and they could confirm fairly quickly. Honestly, all other cases would get a blank stare. I'd explain that the insurance criteria above the code were not the norm but that we'd want to incorporate it if there were any that applied. In most cases, this was enough information to work from, but I never liked the inexact nature of going by a mostly uninformed answer. I found it to at least elicit a response, unlike emails, which tended to never get returned, but still - there's got to be a better way. THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU? From last week, we know that insurance criteria are a major factor in determining what should be in the bid documents. So my question to the consultants here is: What have you found to be the best approach to getting this information from an owner? What method has worked to (1) actually get a response from the right person and (2) get a response that's usually accurate? Let us know in the comments here. I have my lame approach but I'd much rather collaborate and share ideas on what works so that, as a whole, we can do a better job of creating a quality set of bid documents. Thanks for continuing to advocate for the industry. Hope you have a great rest of your week! - Joe Perhaps the biggest elephant in the room of the fire sprinkler design industry is the problem of delegated design. It's not the concept, per se, but its execution that leaves so many projects in bad waters ripe with change orders. I'm looking specifically at projects where little to no effort was put into the fire protection bid documents, and as a result, the bidding contractors are worse off than if no fire protection bid documents had been provided at all. BAD DELEGATED DESIGN Bad delegated design (1) makes bidding and estimating far more difficult, (2) performing the work more difficult, (3) can create costly change orders for the owner, (4) can actually get in the way of code compliance, and (5) hurts bidders, building owners, and the practice of fire protection engineering overall. Fire Protection doesn't have to be a "necessary evil." It doesn't have to be the bane of every architect and building owner. We don't have to be the bad guys: this is an issue we can do something about. And make no mistake - I'm not immune to putting out sour projects. I can improve just as much as I like to soapbox. Personally, I think this should be the central focus for any fire protection engineering organization. It's the #1 issue I hear about from the construction side. Cleaning up the practice and improving the building owner's experience with a smooth, streamlined process with far less adversarial friction can put fire protection in a warmer "thanks-for-looking-out-for-us" light rather than what it is today for many. HOW TO FIX? I don't get the impression the issue has much of anything to do with those who are fire protection people - those inside the industry who learn, read, push themselves, get educated, engage online, ask questions, go to the fire protection conferences, get their CEUs in fire protection, or get credentialed in fire protection. I don't get the sense that the problem is from those who are plugged-in and are invested in fire protection. But, that doesn't mean we let it slide. This is a topic that we're not going to let go until it's far better than what it is today. If you want to read more on this, see these pieces: - The Delegated Design Problem - FP Engineering Documents: What Goes In? - A Practical (Real-World) Design-Spec Checklist - The "Lanes" of Fire Protection Pre-Bid Consulting - Why Isn't All Sprinkler Design Done Upfront? WHAT MATTERS IN A SET OF BID DOCUMENTS? We're working on material to help build up the consulting side - what we need help with today is identifying what it is that actually matters to sprinkler contractors in executing a project (estimating, bidding, managing, designing). IF YOU WORK IN SPRINKLER CONTRACTING, WE NEED YOUR OPINION HERE: Yes, this is a survey - it should take about 120 seconds - but it's one where we're looking for specific scoring data so that we can relate, score, and real, helpful give feedback to consultants on how they can create better documents. This is an opportunity to be heard and help us deliver something tangibly helpful in improving the industry. We'll follow up with the data we collect and give that back to you as a big thank you for your time and input. I hope, in time, to put together entry-level educational material on exactly these topics but have your voice in as part of that process. Plenty more to come on this topic. After you've had a chance to take the poll and score what matters to you, come back here and share your take in the comments below. Your take is always appreciated! Thanks as always for being part of this community, and have a great rest of your week! - Joe
Have you specified or encountered a specification that asks for the pipe to be "as high as possible" in areas with exposed structure?
If so, does that mean we want to pipe through the open web of a structural joist? THEORY VERSUS REAL-WORLD This might be the most classic design versus real-world installation conundrum. Just because something might be possible doesn't necessarily mean it will fit. Well, for some years now, I've asked people I respect how they determine whether a pipe can go into the joist. SHOULD WE ROUTE IN OPEN WEB JOISTS? We might first want to ask whether we should put the pipe in the open web joist, to begin with. If the joists are shallow, not going to be aligned, or will they be interrupted by solid beams and the end of each bay? In those cases, then the pipe really shouldn't be up there anyway. But, assuming we do have some depth to open-web joists, and the joists will be aligned (giving us an open and continuous path to hang the pipe), we still need to know if the pipe will fit. LENGTH OF PIPE THAT WILL FIT The answer from an novice consultant might be - well of course it'll fit. Just cut the length of the pipe down so that it'll fit up there. But where do we draw that line? If we have hundreds of feet of pipe run in an open-structure area, it's going to be a labor and materials nightmare if we have to use 6-ft long sticks of pipe the whole way down. Additional fittings, additional hangers (if we want a hanger on each stick of pipe), additional labor... major cost impact. If we can use cut lengths of 10'-6" (half of a full-length 21-ft stick of pipe), then maybe that cost impact isn't as bad. CALCULATED APPROACHES In asking around, I've found three different calculated methods of determining whether a pipe will fit (mathematically) to slip up and into open web joists. Those three methods, as I can best identify, is a calculated simple method using exponential relationships of the joist depth and gap-between joists (I called it the Simplified Formula, please inform me of a source if you know it). This is the second calculation. The third was originally credited to AFSA's Ed Miller from the 1990's, which I've identified third in the list and seems to generally be the most-conservative of the three calculated concepts. And the main concept is a purely diagrammatical calculated approach based on the visual. The concept is that the slope of the pipe just as it slips past the joist on the right is calculated, the rise of the pipe is calculated and compared against the available open height in the space (can the height of the left-end of the pipe fit underneath an upper-chord?). SKETCHED APPROACH Of course, we can always draft or model up an example and see it for ourselves, but my hope in creating this tool is to shed some light on the practicality of putting pipe up into the joists and help see that relationship come together. Below is the tool:
TOOLKIT
If you like tools like this - you should check out our Toolkit and MeyerFire University (which includes the Toolkit). Plenty more practical tools for everyday use for the fire protection professional. YOUR TAKE Where do you land on this? Have you used any of these methods before, or do you have your own? Do you know where these originated, and if so, point me in the right direction so I can credit the right source? Comment below - would love to know your thoughts on the topic and where you see something like this helping.
We've made a few updates to our Trapeze Calculator tool - primarily with code references and table updates from the 2013 through 2022 Editions of NFPA 13. The tool now features updated references for the different editions of NFPA 13.
QUICK CALC With only a few "knowns" (pipe diameter and schedule, and distances to nearest structure), you can now quickly calculate the required section modulus, visit options for the trapeze bar, and see these options schematically in a scaled section view. MULTIPLE PIPES? Do you have multiple pipes on a trapeze? Calculate the section modulus required for each, add the two moduli together, and simply override the Section Modulus Required value below to see your options.
This week I've updated our Quick-Response Remote Area tool, which quickly takes a few considerations into play and reduces the size of a fire sprinkler design area based on the Quick-Response Reduction that's allowed in NFPA 13. This new free version incorporates references in NFPA 13, 2022 Edition.
Suppress Early, Suppress Less The concept behind reducing the calculated hydraulically remote area in a fire sprinkler system is entirely based on fighting a more minor fire earlier in the development of the fire. There are a handful of factors that contribute to the timing of sprinkler response (a good future discussion), which include the thermal sensitivity, sprinkler temperature rating, distance of sprinklers relative to the ceiling, sprinkler spacing, ceiling height, and dynamics of the fire itself. The reduction in the hydraulically remote area is based upon comparative tests of quick-response spray sprinklers against standard-response spray sprinklers. According to the NFPA 13 handbook, the tests demonstrated that the earlier the water is applied to the fire, the smaller the fire and, ultimately, the fewer sprinklers needed to activate. Not Universally Accepted While the remote area reduction has been included in NFPA 13 for years, it is not universally accepted. Many engineer specifications don't allow the reduction, and design standards for significant organizations such as the Department of Defense (UFC 3-600-01) don't permit it either. Why not accept the remote area reduction, if NFPA 13 includes it? Like other elements in hydraulic design for fire sprinkler systems, not using the remote area reduction provides an additional safety factor to the system. Additionally, since the quantity of sprinklers relates to the quantity of water flowing in the system, main sizes are directly impacted by using or not using the quick response area reduction. Building owners may opt to not want to reduce the remote area to preserve reasonable (larger) main sizes and give themselves flexibility on building modifications and sprinkler system changes in the future. Quick-Response Area Reduction Calculator This quick calculator is in part a checklist of prerequisites to reduce the remote area on a fire sprinkler system, in part a method of showing your work, and in part a quick calculator on determining your final remote area size. Don't see it below? Give it a try here. I hope you find these tools helpful. Free ones are available on the TOOLKIT dropdown at www.meyerfire.com. If you're a MeyerFire University member, you get all these right in your iOS or Android app too. Thanks, and hope you have a great rest of your week! - Joe |
ALL-ACCESS
SUBSCRIBEGet 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
November 2024
|
RSS Feed
