NFPA 92 defines design, testing of smoke control

systems
NFPA 92: Standard for Smoke Control Systems provides fire protection engineers
with guidance for the design and testing of smoke control systems.
Over the past few decades, building, fire, and life safety codes have been
forced to continuously adapt to changing architectural trends. While smoke
control systems are required to be provided in certain situations, they are
sometimes provided as an alternative to having to comply with other
requirements, usually for aesthetic or financial reasons. As the prevalence of
design features such as large open spaces and open corridors without
vestibules continues to increase, so do the number of new smoke control
system installations and, consequently, the need for experienced individuals
who understand and know how to correctly apply the applicable codes and
standards.
NFPA 92: Standard for Smoke Control Systems is a standard published by
the NFPA that provides requirements, recommendations, and guidance
regarding the design, installation, acceptance testing, operation, and ongoing
periodic testing of smoke control systems. An important distinction to recall is
that a code tells us when or where something is required, while a
standard" tells us how it is designed, installed, tested, maintained, and so
on. In this case, NFPA 92 tells us how to design smoke control systems
such as stair pressurization, large volume exhaust, and elevator hoistway
pressurization systems that are required to be provided in buildings by codes
such as theInternational Building Code (IBC) or the NFPA 101: Life Safety
Code.

Creation of NFPA 92
NFPA 92 was created during the NFPA Annual 2011 code cycle as a result of
merging two predecessors: NFPA 92A: Standard for Smoke-Control Systems
Utilizing Barriers and Pressure Differences and NFPA 92B: Standard for
Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Spaces. These two
were maintained as separate documents from 1991 until 2009. The NFPA
Technical Committee on Smoke Management Systems then decided to
combine the two into a single document, in part to remediate the use of
confusing terminology and duplicate provisions.
Much confusion existed due to the fact that NFPA 92A referred to
pressurization systems as smoke control systems and NFPA 92B referred to
systems used in large spaces such as malls and atria as smoke management
systems, while at the same time, building codes and other standards
recognized no distinction between these two terms. Building codes and
standards simply referred to both pressurization (or smoke control as
designated by NFPA) systems and systems used to maintain tenability in
large spaces (or smoke management systems as designated by NFPA) as
smoke control systems.
Therefore, to create consistency between the building codes and NFPA 92,
the convention of referring to all systems used to address the impact of smoke
from a fire as smoke control systems was adopted. Pressurization systems
now fall under the smoke control sub-classification of smoke containment
systems, while systems used in large spaces fall under the sub-classification
of smoke management systems.
Chapters 1 through 4
The 2012 edition of NFPA 92 consists of 8 chapters and 13 Annexes.
Chapters one through three cover the typical NFPA standardized introductory
topics: Administration (scope, purpose, retroactivity, and units), Referenced
Publications, and Definitions, respectively. Chapter 4, Design Fundamentals,
contains exactly what the title implies, the fundamentals of smoke control
design. The chapter walks users through a logical design process, which first
involves selecting the desired smoke control method or methods to be used
based on the selection of the specific design objectives.
As mentioned previously, the two smoke control methods (or sub-
classifications) recognized by NFPA 92 include smoke containment, which
involves establishing and maintaining pressure differences to contain smoke
to the zone of origin, and smoke management, which involves removing
smoke or managing smoke spread in large volume spaces to maintain tenable
conditions. The ideal smoke control method for a particular application
depends on the desired design objectives, four of which are listed in Section
4.1.2 (see Figure 1).
Three additional objectives are listed in Annex A and include providing
increased visibility for fire department personnel, limiting the spread of toxic
gases, and limiting the spread of combustion products to protect building
contents. These are sometimes referred to as secondary objectives because,
like anything contained in the Annex of an NFPA code or standard, they are
not part of the mandatory requirements unless adopted so by the authority
having jurisdiction (AHJ). (An example of this is where the AHJ indicates that
the Annex is to be part of the mandatory requirements and the word should
is to be replaced with shall.) Nevertheless, most of these secondary
objectives are inherently met by systems designed to meet one or more of the
primary required objectives. For example, a system designed to maintain the
smoke layer interface at a predetermined elevation will usually meet all three
of these objectives to some extent or for some specified period of time.
As you may have already guessed, the hierarchy of terminology used in this
chapter is often misunderstood and misrepresented. After the selection of
design objectives and methods, comes the selection of the design
approaches. Smoke containment system approaches include stair,
elevator, zoned, vestibule, and smoke refuge area pressurization. These
approaches, along with the smoke management system approaches, are
contained in Figure 1, which should help to clarify the major design
terminology used in NFPA 92.
Supplying power for electric fire pumps
Power is a key element in ensuring a fire pump works in an emergency situation. This
article touches on relevant fire codes and offers best practices to illustrate proper
design of power for fire pumps.
Electrically powered fire pumps are subject to many national and international
codes such as theInternational Building Code (IBC), NFPA 5000: Building
Construction and Safety Code, NFPA 101: Life Safety Code, NFPA 110:
Standard for Emergency and Standby Systems, NFPA 20: Standard for
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, and NFPA 70: National
Electric Code(NEC). Because so many codes are involved, it is important to
understand the scope of each code to ensure the correct code is used during
the design process.
Fire pump codes
IBC 2009. IBC 2009, Section 403, which concerns high-rise buildings,
classifies the fire pump as part of the emergency power system. Section 405,
which deals with underground buildings (generally buildings that have a level
occupied by humans more than 30 ft below the lowest level of exiting the
premises), classifies fire pumps as part of the standby power system.
Section 913 of the IBC requires the installation of fire pumps in accordance
with NFPA 20. In this case most fire pump rooms must be protected by 2-hour
walls. But for non-high-rise buildings that are fully sprinkled, 1-hour walls are
acceptable.
NFPA 5000, 2012 Edition. NFPA 5000 classifies fire pumps as part of the
standby system (33.3.4.2.4, High-rise buildings). Since no definition is
provided for the standby system, this classification can be misconstrued. But
33.3.4.2.1 requires compliance with NEC 701, which concerns the legally
required standby system.
Another important requirement of NFPA 5000 is Annex F, In-Building Radio
Systems. If the local jurisdiction has specifically adopted this annex, the fire
pump room must have radio coverage.
NFPA 101, 2012 Edition. Just like NFPA 5000, NFPA 101 Chapter 11
(special structures and high-rise buildings) requires that fire pumps be part of
the standby system and comply with NEC 701. Also, 11.8.6 requires that the
emergency command center monitor the fire pump status.
NFPA 110, 2010 Edition. NFPA 110 classifies fire pumps as part of Level I
systems, which are essential to the safety of human life (see A.4.4.1). This
standard refers to NFPA 20 for the installation of fire pumps.
NFPA 20, 2013 Edition. NFPA 20 covers all stationary fire pumps, but
Chapter 6 details electrical fire pumps.
Chapter 6 of NFPA 20 requires that the fire pump be powered by a reliable
power source or by two or more independent sources. According to Annex A
of NFPA 20, a reliable power source complies with 9.2.3 and has not:
Had any shutdowns for longer than 4 hours in the previous year
Experienced power outages that were not caused by natural disasters
or grid management failure
Been supplied by overhead conductors.
NFPA 20 Chapter 9 concerns the performance and
testing of electrical equipment between the source and the pump. Even
though the fire pumps run infrequently, Chapter 9 requires that all power
supplies for the fire pumps be sized based on a continuous duty cycle.
Chapter 9 also prohibits the use of phase converters as they are not
considered reliable power sources. Thus, its necessary to use a single phase
motor and fire pump controller if the source is single phase.
Chapter 9 of NFPA 20 describes in detail the overcurrent protection and
means of disconnecting a fire pump service. 9.2.3, referenced above, requires
the installation of a single disconnecting means and the associating
overcurrent protection in the power supply of the fire pump controller. The
disconnecting means must be lockable in place to avoid inadvertent power
loss and remote from other building disconnecting means.
NFPA 20 also requires an alternate power source for the primary fire pump if
the buildings height is beyond the reach of the fire departments equipment.
However, this requirement is waived if a backup pump is installed on the
premises. If the alternate power source is a standby generator system, it must
have enough capacity to carry the full load of the fire pump and other
emergency loads. The generator must also be able to support the fire pump
auxiliary system, such as a jockey pump, and have a fuel supply that can
provide 8 hours of fire pump continuous operation.
NEC 2011. The proper installation of electrical fire pumps and associating
equipment is the scope of the NEC. NEC 2011 dedicates Article 695 to fire
pumps. Article 695 was first introduced in NEC 1996. Article 695 of NEC also
covers the electrical power sources, interconnecting circuits, and switching
and control equipment that are dedicated to the fire pump. Jockey (or
makeup) pumps are not covered by Article 695.
Although the scope of Article 695 has not changed, important revisions have
been made through the years. One of the most important revisions is the
requirement of reliable power for electric fire pumps installed in a campus-
style arrangement. This arrangement includes multiple buildings often
powered by a medium-voltage distribution system.
In case of a campus-style building complex, such as a university, the fire
pump can be fed from more than one power source if there are two (or more)
feeders derived from two separate utility services. However, this arrangement
has to be approved by the authority having jurisdiction before implementation.
NEC 695.3 requires that a reliable power source supply power for an electric
fire pump. While NEC does not define a reliable power source, the definition in
NFPA 20, described above, can apply. The reliable power source must also
be able to carry the locked rotor current of the fire pump motor and the full
load current of the accessory equipment if the accessory equipment is
connected to the same power source. This reliable power source could be an
individual source that in turn could be one of the following:
Separate utility connection.
On-site power production facility (that produces power constantly).
Dedicated feeder.
If the utility power source is not reliable, multiple sources can be used.
Alternate sources could be another separate utility feed or a standby
generator or both. The generator does not need to be sized for the locked
rotor current of the fire pumponly for the full load current of the fire pump(s)
and the associating loads. Remember that NFPA 20 Chapter 9 requires the
power source to be sized for the continuous duty of the fire pump.
Best practices
Ensure continuity of power. It is very important that the fire pump is
powered continuously and inadvertent power disconnection is averted. To this
end, it is preferable that the fire pump controller connects directly to the power
supply. However, this connection is not always possible, so 695.4(B) permits
the installation of a single disconnecting means and overcurrent protection
between the source and the fire pump controller.
NEC 695.6(G) does not permit ground fault protection of the fire pump. Again,
this is done to allow continuity of power to the fire pump circuit.
Lock the disconnecting means. Make sure that the disconnecting means is
not accidentally exercised, interrupting the power to the fire pump. One way to
handle this problem is to lock the disconnecting means in the closed position.
Because the disconnecting means might need to be accessed (exercised)
during emergency situations, the personnel must know its location. NEC
requires a sign placed near the fire pump controller indicating the location of
the disconnecting means.
Allow the locked-rotor current. The overcurrent device should be set to
allow locked rotor current to flow without tripping. On the other hand, the
conductors are sized to no less than 125% of the full load current of the fire
pump motor and 100% of the auxiliary loads that the circuit supplies. This
standard is different from other NEC requirements in that the rest of NEC
requires that the conductors and equipment be protected. In the case of the
fire pump circuit, the priority is to keep the pump running no matter what. If a
fault occurs, the overcurrent device will trip (which seems to be contrary to
what was just stated), but the pump would not work on a short anyway.
Carry only the full load current. The overcurrent protection device between
the generator and the fire pump controller is not required to carry the locked
rotor load of the fire pump motor. Rather, the overcurrent protection device
should be set to carry the full load of the fire pump and the entire auxiliary
load fed through the fire pump circuit. The disconnecting means supplied by
the emergency generator must also be lockable in the closed position, just like
the disconnecting means fed from normal (utility) power.
Design feeding through a transformer. There are cases when a transformer
is needed to feed the fire pump circuit. After all, that is why NEC 695.5 exists.
The transformer is required to be rated at least 125% of the fire pump and
jockey pump loads, plus 100% of auxiliary loads. The primary overcurrent
protection device has to be set to allow the locked rotor current of the fire
pump and the full load of the associating loads. The secondary overcurrent
protection is not allowed.
Account for voltage drop. Another hard requirement of NEC (and also
NFPA 20) is that the voltage drop at the fire pump controller be 15% or less.
There are several ways to deal with this requirement. Depending on the type
of pump, using variable speed drive (dont forget, the inverter-duty type)
eliminates the voltage drop. Another way to mitigate the voltage drop is to size
the conductors appropriately.
Protect conductors. The conductors supplying the fire pump need to be
protected from physical damage. The conductors should be routed outside the
building if feasible. If routed inside the building, the conductors have to be
encased in 2 in. of concrete. While in the electrical room and in the fire pump
room, conductors are not required to have the minimum 2-hour rating, but if
the building is a high-rise, consult NEC 700.10(D).
Work with the fire marshal. When designing power for an electrical fire
pump, make sure you talk to the fire marshal about the fire pump room
location. In the case of a fire, the fire department will enter the pump room to
monitor the pump activity, so the pump room needs to be accessible,
preferably from the outside.
Designing fire systems for flammable, combustible
liquids
Specifying fire protection for the storage of flammable and combustible liquids in
containers is critical.
Loss history has repeatedly shown that improperly protected flammable and
combustible liquids have resulted in catastrophic fires and large property
losses. Unlike most other building occupancies that rely on multiple
fire protection safeguards to prevent a
large loss, there are no second chances with flammable liquid fires. Once the
fire overwhelms the sprinkler system, it is uncontrolled. The fire department
will be faced with a very challenging high heat-release fire. In most cases, fire
department operations will focus on damage control by trying to protect other
surrounding structures, rather than attempting to extinguish the fire.
One of the more notable events that defined the hazards and current
protection needs of flammable liquid storage was the 1987 Sherwin-Williams
distribution warehouse fire that completely destroyed a large sprinkler-
protected warehouse. That fire became the impetus for extensive full-scale
testing of various fire protection schemes during the late 1980s and 1990s. By
1996, both the NFPA and the FM Global standards were significantly revised
to include the results of these tests.
The proper protection of flammable liquid storage is not an easy undertaking
and, as the Sherwin-Williams fire showed, the mere presence of sprinklers in
a building does not mean that adequate fire protection is provided. Such
evaluations and the specification for a commensurate level of protection take
significant experience, not only with the standards used, but also with sound
fire protection principles and historical fire test data. A good level of fire safety
comprises construction features, fire prevention principles, and fire
control/suppression systems once a fire has started. This article focuses on
the control/suppression portion.
Flammable versus combustible liquid
First, the liquid itself is not flammable, but its vapors are. The temperature at
which sufficient vapors are released is known as the flash point, a key
concept. Although an in-depth discussion on flash point is outside the scope
of this article, the flash point is a general indication of how likely ignition is. In
broad terms, the lower the flash point, the higher the fire risk. However, once
a liquid ignites, the damage caused by flammable and combustible liquids is
about the same.
To illustrate this concept, think of two products found in most residential
garages: gasoline and motor oil. Which has the higher fire risk? Most would
say the gasoline. But both liquids have similar heat release rates and when
burning would cause approximately the same amount of damage, given
identical quantities. The motor oil would just be more difficult to ignite.
In accordance with the definitions of NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code, the International Fire Code (IFC), andOSHA, a flammable liquid
has a flashpoint less than 100 F; in other words, it will burn at ambient
temperatures. A combustible liquid has a flash point above 100 F; in other
words, it will typically not burn at ambient temperatures and requires heating
before burning. FM Global uses different definitions. In FMs view, any
combustible liquid that is heated will burn, thus it considers all liquids
flammable, although this definition was recently changed to ignitable. FM
divides water-miscible liquids into four different groups and applies higher
protection requirements to liquids with a flash point lower than 200 F.
It is important to remember that these different classes are not an indicator of
the potential amount of damage once they are involved in an uncontrolled fire.
They are merely indicators of the relative hazard in terms of ignition potential
and difficulty of fire extinguishment.
Codes and standards
Dept. of Transportation (DOT) and fire code requirements are two different
standards with very different scopes. DOT standards are based on
transporting hazardous materials over public highways and across state lines,
typically without any type of fixed fire suppression. Generally, quantities are
limited to a trailer. DOT regulations only apply when a vehicle leaves a private
driveway, not for the storage of products at a facility. Because DOT has
somewhat different definitions for flammable and combustible liquids, DOT
labels are of little help in evaluating hazards and protection requirements for
onsite storage.
The three main standards that provide guidance for protection include the IFC
(currently the 2012 edition), NFPA 30 (currently the 2012 edition), and FM
Global Data Sheets. OSHA defers to NFPA 30. There are some significant
differences in protection philosophies in these standards. Foremost,
businesses must comply with state and local codes, as required by law. For
most parts of the United States, this means Chapters 27 and 34 of the IFC.
However, such compliance may only satisfy the local fire prevention bureau
and provides no guarantees that the building wont burn to the ground. In
addition to the local jurisdiction, the owners should satisfy themselves that
their building and operation are adequately protected to ensure that a fire will
not have a major impact on the company and its operations. Lastly, other
stakeholders (i.e., insurance companies and lenders) need to be satisfied that
all necessary precautions are met to prevent a major property and/or business
interruption loss.
As a decision-maker in flammable/combustible storage protection, where do
you begin? For starters, a call to the local fire prevention bureau is in order. A
general discussion about the project with a fire marshal or plan checker will
yield information such as applicable codes, any local amendments to the
code, required forms, and other fire department requests such as permits and
plan review procedures. The next call could be to the insurance carrier. Most
carriers have a staff of technical experts who will gladly share their expertise,
usually at no charge to their clients. Questions to ask the insurer include what
standards the insurer uses so that a determination can be made whether the
insurers standards exceed the jurisdictional requirements. Most of the time,
they will.
While it would be most convenient to have one universal standard that
everyone follows, the IFC unfortunately has not been updated to contain the
latest protection criteria available and does not address many storage
configurations. Therefore, most insurers base their protection criteria on the
most current edition of NFPA 30. FM Global has its own standards that can
exceed the requirements of NFPA 30. In general, it can be said that FM
Global standards set forth the most restrictive protection requirements and are
thus the most restrictive.
What information do I need?
The fire hazards posed by flammable liquid storage and the required level of
protection depend on a variety of factors, including:
Flash point
Water miscibility and percent concentration
Container type (i.e., metal, plastic, glass)
Container size
Storage arrangement (i.e., floor storage or rack)
Storage height
Ceiling height
Specific gravity.
All of these factors are necessary to determine the protection requirements.
Basis of protection
The required sprinkler densities found in NFPA 30 and the FM Data Sheets
are largely based on full-scale tests that have been conducted over the past
four decades. These tests are cumbersome and expensive. Typically, they are
sponsored by large companies that have a vested interest in a particular
configuration and are conducted by research organizations and by insurance
companies.
Although a significant number of tests have been performed (approximately
160 published to date), many storage configurations have not yet been tested.
The protection criteria in NFPA 30 and the FM Data Sheets are based on the
successful test results. No protection criteria are available for configurations
that did not pass the full-scale test or that have not been tested. It is important
to note that just because protection criteria do not exist for a particular
arrangement does not necessarily mean that it cannot be protected; it just
means that there are no known protection schemes.
When faced with a particular storage arrangement that has no corresponding
protection criteria, it is helpful to research tests that were conducted under
similar conditions. A test that concluded that the fire was not controlled could
explain why no corresponding protection criteria are found in the standards.
Videos of some tests can be found online. These provide good insight as to
the mechanics of fire control with sprinklers and what constitutes passing or
failing tests.
Top 10 things to know about commissioning fire
protection systems
Fire protection engineers should use NFPA 3 as guidance on commissioning for fire
protection and life safety systems.
Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety
Systems is an overall benefit for projects, with its no-nonsense approach that
will assist in validating the intended system design, performance criteria, and
proper installation and operation of these systems. In the United States, the
2012 edition of NFPA 3: Recommended Practice for Commissioning and
Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems is the only
national document providing guidance about commissioning and integrated
testing for fire protection and life safety systems. Although the document has
been out for over a year, many people do not know of its existence or fully
understand it. Understanding the process outlined in NFPA 3 related to
commissioning of fire protection and life safety systems is critical. Another
source of information is the Building Commissioning Assn. (BCxA), which is a
national organization for building commissioning, including fire protection and
life safety. The following is a list of 10 key items, not in order of importance,
that you should know about commissioning fire protection and life safety
systems:
1. Commissioning is a process: NFPA 3 defines fire and life safety
commissioning as A systematic process that provides documented
confirmation that building systems function according to the intended design
criteria set forth in the project documents and satisfy the owners operational
needs, including compliance with applicable laws, regulations, codes, and
standards. NFPA 3 provides the outline of the process related to the steps in
commissioning and the documentation of the commissioning.
2. Agent of the owner: A fire commissioning agent (FCxA) is working as an
owner representative, and as such is an agent of the owner. This is a different
role, with different responsibilities, than engineer of record, installing
contractor, or local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The FCxA is another
set of eyes and ears overlooking the commissioning of the fire protection and
life safety systems and ultimately helps to assure the successful design and
operation of these systems. The FCxA is a member of the overall full building
commissioning team, headed by the commissioning agent (CxA). If the only
systems being commissioned are fire protection and life safety systems, then
the FCxA leads the commissioning effort.
3. Special knowledge and expertise: The FCxA (or FCxA team) should
have special knowledge and expertise related to the specific fire protection
and life safety systems to be commissioned. This includes general industry
practices on how to properly test these systems and an advanced
understanding of the systems installation, operation, and maintenance.
4. Commissioning team brought in during design: It is critical that the
FCxA team be brought in early to allow review of the design documents,
including compliance with the owners project requirements (OPR). Issues
identified by the FCxA during the design phase and modified on paper are
much easier, less expensive, and less impactful to the construction schedule
when compared to design/installation modifications during construction after
system installation.
5. How to test a system: NFPA 3 outlines a process but does not identify
exactly how to functionally test a specific fire protection or life safety system.
The specific NFPA standard that deals with that specific fire protection or life
safety system identifies testing requirements (e.g., NFPA 72 for fire alarm and
emergency communication systems). Furthermore, industry practice and
manufacturers written recommendations are also utilized in the development
of the critical testing plan.
6. Commissioning is not acceptance testing: In the industry, people often
interchange the terms commissioning and acceptance testing, but these
terms are not interchangeable. Acceptance testing does not equal
commissioning. Acceptance testing is typically done either with an engineer of
record or a local AHJ for final acceptance of the system. Commissioning is a
systematic process with documentation that extends from design through
installation, testing, and training.
7. Comprehensive test scenarios: It is critical that a testing plan with
identified comprehensive test scenarios be developed so that all stakeholders
understand what will be tested and the coordination of these efforts. The
various test scenarios can include an individual system test, an integrated
system test verifying sequence of operation, or integrated tests between
multiple systems. It is also important to test not only what the systems are
supposed to do, but also what they are not supposed to do. As an example,
consider a smoke control system that should initiate upon activation of an
atrium sprinkler system water flow. One test would be to verify that the smoke
control system initiates with the atrium sprinkler system waterflow. Another
test scenario would be to activate a non-atrium sprinkler system waterflow and
verify that the atrium smoke control system does not initiate. There are also a
multitude of scenarios to develop, such as proper operation on loss of building
power or prioritization of events.
8. Full-load testing: It is very important to during the commissioning testing
to conduct a full load test with no bypasses, silence, or disconnections
between systems. This includes testing of the fire protection and life safety
systems on emergency or standby Power. The intent of these tests is to
create real-world scenarios that may occur in an operational building and
verify the fire protection and life safety systems perform as intended.
9. Existing buildings: NFPA 3 also addresses commissioning of existing
systems that were previously commissioned, referred to as re-commissioning
(re-Cx), and commissioning of existing systems that were never
commissioned, referred to as retro-commissioning (retro-Cx).
10. Adopted codes: NFPA 3 can be adopted/required by the owner, project
requirements, or contract requirements. Some mandatory commissioning
requirements have also made into building code requirements. For example,
the International Building Code (IBC) has requirements for commissioning
smoke control systems, referred to as smoke control special inspections.

Upcoming NFPA 3 code changes
In the 2015 NFPA code cycle, NFPA 3 is being split into two separate NFPA
documents. The 2015 edition of NFPA 3 will remain a recommended practice,
but will focus only on commissioning. The Integrated Testing of Fire Protection
and Life Safety Systems is being broken out as a separate new NFPA
document, NFPA 4. The 2015 edition of NFPA 4 will become a standard and
will not be a recommended practice, due to the committee decision about the
criticalness of integrated testing between multiple systems. The updated
NFPA 3 and the new NFPA 4 are scheduled for a 2015 edition release. The
NFPA window of time for public input and comments for the 2015 edition of
NFPA 3 and NFPA 4 was recently closed.
Use NFPA 3 to coordinate fire and life safety projects
NFPA 3 takes a contemporary approach to construction and focuses on
commissioning the fire and life safety systems throughout a project, rather than at
the end.
When NFPA released the 2012 edition of NFPA 3: Recommended Practice on
Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety
Systems, a much-needed comprehensive commissioning document for the
fire protection industry was made available. Without the use of NFPA 3 as a
guideline, projects with complex system arrangements and testing
requirements risk portions of their interface being overlooked by both the
design team and the installation contractors.
Such complexities of the fire and life safety system interactions are often the
reason for scope gap, causing stakeholders to remain unaware of issues until
the project is near completiona course of action that can generate chaos
when the contractor is attempting to turn over the project to the owner and
meet the scheduled project deadline. Rather than waiting until the end of the
project to begin coordination of testing procedures, projects should use
preplanned and fully coordinated fire and life safety commissioning plans.
Most codes are vague or even silent on the coordination of the various trades
and disciplines, especially as it pertains to integrated system testing and
confirming that the fire protection systems function as intended by the owner
and design team. These codes do an excellent job of covering individual sub-
system testing requirements but can often lead to conflicts between the
testing requirements of the integrated system.
Failing to coordinate fire and life safety commissioning activities can raise the
following questions:
How does the double interlock pre-action system operate with the fire
alarm system during testing, and will both systems be ready for testing
at the same time?
What is an acceptable test result specific to the project with complex
requirements?
How does the clean-agent gaseous suppression system operate with
the fire alarm system?
How is the integrity test for the room with gaseous suppression
conducted?
How does the smoke control system react to the fire sprinkler system
flow switch, and what type of annunciation is chosen?
Is the flow switch on the standpipe system to generate a supervisory or
alarm signal?
Where does drainage occur when testing fire sprinkler systems?
What disruptions occur after occupancy during future testing, and how
has this been coordinated?
What are the proper metrics for current and future testing of the
systems?
At what stage of construction will the testing occur, and does the
schedule support this goal?
Existing methods and tools
Jurisdictions such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and New York City, as well as
the U.S. government have vast experience with large and/or complex
facilities. Similar jurisdictions regularly use the fire and life safety report option
to address unique scenarios. The purpose of the fire and life safety report is to
designate one person or organization responsible for illustrating how the
different fire protection features interrelate to provide the appropriate level of
protection for the facility. In addition, the report is intended to address any
aspects of the fire protection strategy that are unique to the facility or that may
contradict base code requirements. The ultimate goal is to gather consensus
from the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and the design professionals prior
to the construction phase because doing so allows the overall design
concepts of each discipline to operate cohesively. However, the missing step
is gathering these same important pieces of the puzzle and incorporating
them throughout the construction phase, commissioning phase, and the entire
lifecycle of the building.
Many large projects require the development, documentation, and
implementation of testing procedures. Reports generated during this activity
provide the owner and maintenance entity with testing requirements that are
unique to the property. Specific codes are addressed, but so are requirements
that fall in a grey area not truly addressed by codes. Often this testing
document is developed in isolation from the other disciplines, which can cause
the testing procedure to become an afterthought. Instead, a commissioning
plan established early in the project scope development can be tracked to
anticipate and resolve conflicts before they occur.
Documents such as the Unified Facilities Criteria 3-600-01 used by the U.S.
Dept. of Defense and the General Services Administration (GSA)
P100 document clearly recognize the need for a fire protection engineer and a
fire and life safety report to align all aspects of fire protection on a project. The
P100 document takes an additional step in section 7.17 by directly addressing
Commissioning Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems through the use of
the GSA Building Commissioning Guide. The GSA commissioning guide
requires much of the same documentation prescribed by NFPA 3. However,
the NFPA 3 document provides a detailed guide to meet the requirements of a
comprehensive and well-planned commissioning scheme for various
jurisdictions, rather than just those of the GSA. Furthermore, the NFPA 3
document sets basic requirements, standardizing the appearance of the
report. For these reasons, the development of this document by the NFPA will
be more readily adopted by local authorities and provide more flexibility for
project specifics.