|
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. |
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
January 2025
|
RSS Feed
