fire protection systems esting t - jones & bartlett...

Flames: ©

Drx/Dreamstim

e.com; Steel texture: ©

Sharpshot/Dreamstim

e.com; Chapter opener photo: ©

Jones & Bartlett Learning. Photographed by Glen E. Ellm

an.

Fire Protection Systems Testing LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• List the four elements that contribute to � re protection system reliability. • Discuss the impact of unreliable � re protection systems on the public, the

business community, and the � re service. • Describe the � re code of� cial’s role in the inspection and testing of � re

protection systems. • Explain the importance of systems acceptance tests, maintenance and

periodic inspections, and retests.

7 7 7 7 7 7 CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 120 26/11/14 3:26 AM

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCNOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION




















Flames: ©

Jag_cz/ShutterStock, Inc.; Steel texture: © Sharpshot/Dream

stime.com

;Stacked photo background: ©

Vitaly Korovin/ShutterStock, Inc.; Paper: © silver-john/

ShutterStock, Inc.; Photo: © Jones & Bartlett Learning. Photographed by G

len E. Ellman.

On April 9, 2012, a massive � re broke out at the former Thomas W. Buck Hosiery Factory in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Two � re� ghters, Fire Lieutenant Robert Neary and Fire� ghter Daniel Sweeney, were killed while attempting to stop the � re from spreading throughout the neighborhood.

The Thomas Buck Building dated back to Philadelphia’s golden age of manufacturing, when it was the textile and cloth-ing capital of the world. Towards the end of the 20th century, however, changing consumer demands and a desire for cheaper labor prompted manufacturers to leave the city. The building went unoccupied and started to fall into decay. Its owner, Daniel Rhodes, had plans to rehab the old factory into artist studios and shops but the project proved to be too big and expensive.

When a father–son team of developers approached Rhodes about purchasing the deteriorating building, he was relieved. The buyers were real estate moguls from New York and claimed to have experience and expertise in urban redevelopment. They also owned and operated a major media enterprise, and so seemed like prime candidates for securing the funding necessary to revamp the Thomas Buck Building. At settlement, however, the buyers did not deliver on the agreed purchase price. After several years of the buyers doling out a little money at a time, Rhodes ultimately settled for pennies on the dollar.

Still vacant, the building continued to deteriorate and the new owners made no effort to secure or protect it, while allowing bills and taxes to go unpaid. They accumulated signi� cant debt: at the time of the 2012 � re, they owed nearly $60,000 in taxes and had $13,000 of unpaid water and sewer fees.

In Philadelphia, the � re code is enforced by the city’s Department of Licensing and Inspection (L&I). Over the years, L&I visited the property and issued a series of violation notices, which went unaddressed. In almost every instance, each time a new inspector visited the property, L&I issued a new case number, treating the property as if it had no previous violations. One of the � rst violations issued for the building was for non-working sprinkler and standpipe systems. A fourth and � nal inspector visited the site in late March 2012. He performed a thorough inspection, found the building to be unsafe, and issued appropriate notices. The factory’s � re occurred one week later.

The Philadelphia County Grand Jury’s report was released in February 2014. The Grand Jury did not bring any charges but their � ndings left members of the Philadelphia Fire Department and municipal agencies at large feeling abused and dejected:

Two Philadelphia � re� ghters died, and two were seriously injured, in a building that two Brooklyn real estate investors slowly turned into a � retrap. But this grand jury report is really about a failure of govern-ment—the failure of Philadelphia administrative agencies to accomplish the basic functions for which they exist. Unfortunately, we have reluctantly concluded that there is currently no appropriate criminal penalty for the tale of misdeeds we found. While the building owners violated virtually every regulation that got in their way, they were never held accountable for doing so, and we do not believe that the available evi-dence can establish that their � agrant code violations and tax delinquencies caused the � re that eventually destroyed their property and the � remen’s lives. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned. Had city departments done their job, these deaths might never have occurred.

1. What are some of the possible reasons that the City of Philadelphia chooses to have L&I, rather than the Philadelphia Fire Department, enforce the � re code?

2. What steps might the � re department have taken to ensure that violations involving vacant structures were corrected?

3. What steps could the � re department have taken to monitor sprinkler and standpipe systems in vacant buildings?

Information for this case study came from: In the Court of Common Pleas of the Philadelphia County Trial Division in re: Misc. No. 0010877-22011, County Investigating Grand Jury XXV: C6.

Case Study

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 121 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















Introduction Within the trade, the term active � re protection features generally refers to � re extinguishing and smoke control and alarm systems, in contrast to passive � re protection features , which refer to � re resistance–rated construction. Active � re protec-tion features have moving parts—they do things or perform some type of operation. Passive � re protec-tion features, such as structurally applied coatings of concrete or gypsum that shield a building’s skele-ton from � ames and heat or rated walls that separate occupancies, are part of the building’s construction and require no activation or signal. Of the two types, passive features are less likely to malfunction, and require less maintenance and vigilance in order to ensure proper operation.

If a sample of � re chiefs from across the United States were asked whether they support the instal-lation of active � re protection features such as sprinkler systems and alarm systems, they would undoubtedly reply af� rmatively, perhaps quali� ed with, “as long as the systems are properly installed and maintained.” Properly installed systems have a huge potential impact for safety and property protection.

Improperly designed, installed, or maintained � re protection systems can pose problems for � re departments, building owners or occupants, and the public. Problems include false or nuisance alarms that require � re department response, a false sense of security for building owners who believe their buildings are adequately protected, a public that has been conditioned to not take alarm activations seri-ously until it is too late, and a few cases in which inadequately designed or maintained systems cause damage in the very buildings they were installed to protect due to freezing or malfunction. Each of these potential issues is signi� cant. Responding to false alarms or unnecessary system activations unnec-essarily puts � re � ghters and the public at risk. Response times to real emergencies might be delayed or increased because resources are out of their nor-mal service area responding to false alarms.

Tip

The general public’s perception that all alarm signals are false alarms results in genuine public apathy at best and signi� cant public danger at worst, such as cases in which people have refused to evacuate structures involved in � re.

Texture: Eky Studio/ShutterStock, Inc.; Steel: © Sharpshot/Dreamstime.com

Fire Protection Systems Active � re protection systems in buildings date back to early efforts by insurance underwriters to minimize the impact of � re on insured commer-cial properties. These early installations were rarely in response to building or � re code requirements; rather, most were the result of insurance company requirements or as a way to qualify for reduced premiums. Even the early model building codes required far fewer active � re protection features than are required by today’s codes. The 1940 Uni-form Building Code required sprinklers only in large cellars of commercial buildings lacking windows above grade, the stage areas of assembly occupan-cies, woodworking facilities, buildings that housed the manufacture and renovation of mattresses, and cellulose nitrate motion picture � lm exchanges. 1 The only alarm component mentioned in the code was for required sprinkler systems.

Time has shown active � re protection features, particularly the automatic sprinkler system, to be of great value in reducing property loss, minimiz-ing business interruption, and protecting the lives of building occupants. Active � re protection systems combined with adequately designed and maintained means of egress and � re resistance–rated construc-tion provide the greatest level of protection to the public, to the economic vitality of the businesses they protect, and to the safety of � re� ghters who are called on to extinguish structure � res. Effectiveness depends on reliability. In describing the importance

122 Principles of Fire Prevention, Third Edition

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 122 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















of reliability in � re alarm systems, John M. Cholin, P.E., stated that reliability depends on the contribu-tion of four system elements: design, equipment, installation, and maintenance. 2 The same elements are applicable to all active � re protection features, including extinguishing systems, smoke control sys-tems, and alarms. The � re service has a vested inter-est in the reliability of these systems.

Tip

In order for a � re protection system to be effective, it must be reliable.


Which Buildings and Why Some buildings are equipped with sprinkler systems that are not required by code and, instead, were installed in order to receive one of the trade-off incentives contained in the model building codes. For some, the term trade-off has a negative connota-tion, and many in the � re service believe the concept is less than wholesome. However, the term describes provisions within model construction codes that per-mit the reduction of certain requirements (generally

passive � re protection features) in exchange for the installation of sprinklers.

Building codes have always permitted the reduc-tion of certain � re resistance–rated features in sprin-klered buildings. The basic idea makes good sense, because there is an extremely low chance that a major � re will occur in a building that is fully pro-tected with a properly maintained sprinkler system. Records dating back well over a century demonstrate that automatic sprinklers are the most cost-effective and ef� cient method of protecting property from � re. The reductions in property loss associ-ated with sprinklers are signi� cant ated with sprinklers are signi� cant Table 7-1 .In addition to the average property loss per � re, the chances of dying in a � re are cut by one-half to two-thirds in sprinklered buildings versus nonsprin-klered buildings. 3

Tip

Sprinkler systems signi� cantly reduce potential loss of life and property from � re.


The installation of sprinkler systems is of such bene� t to building owners, occupants, and to the � re service that strategies to increase the number of sprinkler systems in buildings have been developed

OCCUPANCY TYPE BUILDINGS WITHOUT SPRINKLERS

BUILDINGS WITH SPRINKLERS

FIRE LOSS REDUCTION (%) IN SPRINKLERED BUILDINGS

Stores and Of� ces $25,000 $11,700 53

Manufacturing $52,000 $18,700 64

Health Care $4,800 $1,700 66

Public Assembly $21,800 $6,500 70

Courtesy of Kimberly D. Rohr, U.S. Experience with Sprinklers (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2001), page 1.

A Comparison of Average Loss per FireTable 7-1 A Comparison of Average Loss per FireTable 7-1

Steel: © Sharpshot/Dream

stime.com


stime.com

Chapter 7 Fire Protection Systems Testing 123

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 123 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















and implemented by � re service organizations. Fire service demands that model codes require sprinklers in more buildings have often been challenged and defeated in code hearings by special interest groups. As a result, members of the � re service turned to developers and owners and embraced methods of inducing them to install sprinklers. Reducing the costs of other � re safety features, thereby making the installation of sprinklers cost effective, was the trade-off. It was, and still is, a system of balancing active and passive � re protection features.

In return for a complete sprinkler system, a build-ing can be an additional story in height, can be larger in size, and the � re resistance ratings of its structural members can be reduced Figure 7-1 . Travel dis-tance to exits can be increased based on the knowl-edge that sprinkler systems greatly reduce the rate of � re growth and the probability of � ashover. The � re service did not invent the incentive system; rather, it embraced it as a method of increasing the likelihood of sprinkler protection. The number of sprinkler systems installed in buildings has increased consid-erably because of the economic incentives within the model construction codes. There is value to the system of trade-offs, and those involved in the code development process must be mindful of balancing � re protection features to ensure a building’s safety.

Tip

Trade-off incentives require balancing active and passive � re protection features in order to guarantee a building’s safety.


An in-depth discussion of the building code sys-tem and of balancing active and passive � re protec-tion features is beyond the scope of this text. Instead, we will discuss the building code change system’s existence and � re service involvement in the code process. Trade-offs are a reality. Building structural elements are less � re resistant, combustible buildings are bigger and taller, and travel distance to an exit is increased in sprinklered buildings. It is important to ensure that such systems are properly installed and maintained, and it is ideal when the responsibility falls to the local � re prevention bureau.

Automatic sprinklers and other � re protection systems are required in buildings and structures that contain high-risk occupants such as hospitals, pris-ons, and schools, as well as in residential occupancies and buildings with large occupant loads, such as the-aters, nightclubs, and passenger terminals. They are also required where types and amounts of regulated materials are present and in buildings with high � re loads such as warehouses and stores. In most cases, these buildings receive the bene� t of reductions in passive � re protection even though they are required to be sprinklered anyway. Low-risk structures, such as of� ce buildings and small industrial buildings, which rarely require sprinklers based on occupancy classi� cation, tend to be equipped with sprinklers if the owner realizes that savings from reductions in passive � re protection features are greater than the cost of sprinkler installation Table 7-2 .

Sprinkler Reliability Overall, sprinkler systems are a very reliable form of � re protection. In a 1985 Canadian Building Digest article,

Figure 7-1 The installation of a sprinkler system allows these apartment buildings to be three stories in height and constructed with combustible materials.


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 124 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















Figure 7-2 Closed valves are the leading cause of sprinkler failure. © Jones and Bartlett Learning. Photographed by Glen E. Ellman

maintained from the late 1800s through the 1960s. 4

The NFPA discontinued tracking the performance of sprinklers in 1970, citing that the data collection was biased toward poor performance, which could result in an inaccurate perception of sprinkler effectiveness. 5

The reliability of � re protection systems depends on proper design, installation, and maintenance. Nineteenth and early-20th century insurance engi-neers were sticklers for making sure that sprinklers were correctly designed and installed, and they went to great pains to minimize the possibility that sprin-kler systems could be rendered inoperable without considerable effort. Standards were written with reliability in mind. Outside screw and yoke valvesand post indicator valves for sprinkler water sup-plies were designed to be instantly recognizable as open or shut Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 . The term “closed” was not used on post indicator valves because closed and open do not look different enough to ensure that the valves could be read from a distance. Although the systems were complex, reli-ability was a foremost concern.

The primary causes for unsatisfactory sprinkler performance up until 1970 were issues that could be readily identi� ed by inspection and testing. Infor-mation from statistics collected over several decades

BENEFIT OR INCENTIVE EXAMPLE

Height increase Nonsprinklered, unprotected frame of� ce buildings are limited to two stories, three stories if sprinklered.

Area increase/Reduction in construction class

Building areas based on construction type may be increased by 300 percent for one-story buildings and 200 percent for multistory buildings.

Reduction in structural ratings

Protection of structural members through encasement in gypsum, concrete, or other material may be reduced.

Reduction in occupancy separation ratings

Ratings for walls and � oor/ceilings between different uses may be reduced.

Increased travel distance to exits

Distance to an exit may be increased by 50–100 feet in some occupancies.

Decrease in separation of exits

Exits may be closer together, increasing the chance that they could become impassible from the same cause.

Reduction in requirements for interior � nish/decorative materials

Flamespread ratings are reduced in sprinklered buildings and increased amounts of decorative materials are permitted in sprinklered buildings.

Data from: 2012 International Building Code.

Examples of Model Building Code Incentives for Fire Sprinkler Installation

Table 7-2 Examples of Model Building Table 7-2


stime.com


stime.com

J.K. Richardson placed the reliability of sprinkler sys-tems at greater than 96 percent based on statistics compiled by the National Fire Protec tion Association (NFPA), the Australian Fire Protection Associa-tion, and the City of New York. The statistics were


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 125 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















PROBLEM PERCENTAGE OF CASES

Water shutoff 35.4

System inadequate for level of hazard

13.5

Inadequate water supply 9.9

Inadequate maintenance 8.4

Obstruction of water system 8.2

System only designed for partial protection

8.1

Data from: Kimberly D. Rohr, U.S. Experience with Sprinklers , National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2001, page 50.

The Leading Causes of Unsatisfactory Sprinkler Performance, 1925–1969

Table 7-3 The Leading Causes of Table 7-3


stime.com


stime.com

identi� ed areas that require heightened vigilance by owners, design professionals, contractors, and code of� cials Table 7-3 . In 1970, most people in � re protection likely never envisioned the large sprin-kler recalls that began to occur in the late 1980s, the largest of which was the recall of the Omega brand. The beauty of sprinklers was their simplicity, some

of which faded with the development of high-per-formance heads.

Fire Departments and Fire Protection System Inspections The involvement of � re departments in the inspec-tion of new � re protection systems is a fairly recent development. In describing “� re department inspec-tion work,” the 1941 Crosby-Fiske-Forster Handbook of Fire Protection , which later became the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook , mentioned only “enforcing the maintenance of automatic sprinklers, standpipes, hose[s], and extinguishers.” 6 The inspection and approval of new � re protection systems was often—and in many jurisdictions still is—the responsibil-ity of the building code of� cial. In some cases, � re departments may not fully agree with what has been approved by the building department.

Tip

Good communication between the building and � re departments during plan review and � nal inspection can reduce the possibility of disagreements between departments.


Fire Protection Systems Tests Fire Codes and Acceptance Tests Since the 1970s, the model � re codes have man-dated an acceptance test and contractor’s certi� cation of completion for all required � re suppression and alarm systems. The BOCA/National Fire Prevention Code (published by the Building Of� cials and Code Administrators) speci� cally mandated witnessing of the tests by the � re of� cial, and the Standard Fire Code and Uniform Fire Code required noti� cation of the � re of� cial before the tests, thus enabling the � re of� cial to witness the tests. The International Fire Code , the

Figure 7-3 A post indicator valve shows that the valve is shut rather than open. © Jones & Bartlett Learning. Photographed by Glen E. Ellman.


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 126 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















cooperative effort of the members of all three model code organizations, requires a contractor’s “statement of compliance,” prior noti� cation of the � re code of� -cial, and the � re code of� cial’s approval of acceptance tests, thus enabling � re departments to engage in on-scene inspections during acceptance testing.

Required acceptance tests and test protocols are included within the code-referenced standards for installation. The NFPA standards for � re protection systems are among those referenced by the International Building Code and International Fire Code Table 7-4 .

Systems Testing Bene� ts Each of the standards for installation referenced by the model building and � re codes includes detailed provisions for the installation, testing, and mainte-nance of all active � re protection systems. The sys-tems must undergo an in-depth test to verify that all components are properly installed and that they operate in accordance with listing documents and referenced standards. Physical performance of the test and conformance with the code are the respon-sibility of the installing contractor. The contractor is also required to notify the appropriate code of� cial before the � nal acceptance test is performed. The code of� cial has the option of witnessing the accep-tance test; doing so is time well spent. Witnessing of acceptance tests by � re department personnel:

• Ensures that systems are installed in accor-dance with approved plans.

• Ensures that conditions in the structure, including life and property hazards, accu-rately re� ect those used to design the system. Fire protection systems are engineered sys-tems designed for speci� c hazards.

• Provides an additional set of eyes on the con-struction site, promoting construction safety.

• Creates opportunities for interaction between � re department and building department per-sonnel, leading to increased cooperation and safer structures.

• Enables � re department inspectors and contrac-tors to interact, leading to a better understand-ing of both groups’ expectations and needs.

• Provides valuable training for � re� ghters and prospective � re of� cers in the design and operation of � re protection systems—training that unfortunately is scarce within the frame-work of most local � re department training academies Figure 7-4 .

There is tangible value to having the municipal � re department, rather than another government agency or a licensed and bonded third-party agency ,

STANDARD NUMBER TITLE

NFPA 11 Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam

NFPA 11A Medium- and High-Expansion Foam Systems

NFPA 12 Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems

NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems

NFPA 13D Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes

NFPA 13R Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies

NFPA 14 Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems

NFPA 15 Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection

NFPA 16 Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems

NFPA 17 Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

NFPA 17A Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems

NFPA 20 Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection

NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code

Data from: National Fire Protection Association.

NFPA Standards for Fire Protection Systems

Table 7-4 NFPA Standards for Fire Table 7-4


stime.com


stime.com


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 127 26/11/14 3:26 AM






















participate in the hands-on review of � re protection plans and the witnessing of required performance or acceptance tests required by the installation standards.

Maintenance and Retests Ensuring that systems are properly designed and installed is only bene� cial if they are also adequately maintained and repaired. System maintenance and retests are required by many of the same standards as are used for installation. One exception is for sprinklers and other water-based � re protection and other water-based � re protection Figure 7-5 . NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Main-tenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems evolved from NFPA 13A, Recommended Practice for Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems , and NFPA 14, Recommended Practice for Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Standpipe Systems.

Tip

The maintenance and repair of a system is equally as important as ensuring that it is properly designed and installed.


“Recommended practices” are exactly what the name implies—recommendations, and as such, they are not legally enforceable. NFPA 25 is a user-friendly document that includes nearly all water-based � re protection systems. (Sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings and manufactured homes are exempted from NFPA 25.) NFPA 25 includes main-tenance provisions; tests protocols and schedules; and even copies of useful checklists that summa-rize weekly, monthly, and annual tests. Test records must be available on-site for inspectors to examine Figure 7-6 . Retests and inspections required by NFPA 25 are conducted by plant personnel or out-side contractors. The � re prevention bureau ensures that the tests and maintenance are being performed.

One point sometimes overlooked is that the maintenance and testing of these complex systems not only ensures safety and continuity of business operations, but also saves owners money in the long run. Maintenance is less expensive than extensive repairs or replacement.

Tip

Routine maintenance is more cost effective than extensive repairs of replacement.


Figure 7-4 Inspectors who witness � re protection system tests quickly become a resource for the entire � re department. © Jones & Bartlett Learning. Photographed by Glen E. Ellman.

Figure 7-5 NFPA 25 requires � ow tests of speci� c water-based � re protection systems. © Jones and Bartlett Learning. Photographed by Glen E. Ellman


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 128 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















Contractor Oversight As in any regulatory process, the job of the � re inspec-tor in the testing and inspection of � re protection sys-tems is to ensure that the contractor performs the job in accordance with the code, not tell the contractor how to perform the job. The inspector is responsi-ble for ensuring that the code provisions are met and that the owner and the public will be safer because of these efforts. Inspectors must not abuse their author-ity or engage in a game of “gotcha,” in which they strive to reject a contractor’s work. Should any con-tract disputes arise between the owner and contractor or between the general contractor and the subcon-tractors, the inspector should not get involved.

Tip

The � re inspector ensures that the contractor performs the job, but does not tell the contractor how to perform the job.


Requirements for plan submissions and permits, test protocols and fees, and scheduling procedures should be clearly spelled out, readily available, and fairly implemented. Playing favorites is not only unethical, it is illegal. Allowing one contractor to skirt the rules gives him or her an unfair advantage

Figure 7-6 Contractor’s record and tags are evidence of compliance with code-mandated maintenance and tests. Courtesy of A. Maurice Jones Jr.


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 129 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















in a highly competitive trade. The old axiom of “fair, � rm, and � exible” should describe the inspection and test program.

Keep in mind that construction is a fast-paced, highly competitive business. Developers work with detailed budgets that � nance total costs, including inspection and test fees. After construction � nanc-ing is obtained, unexpected costs and change orders result in budget overruns. These costs must be paid in cash by the developers and cut directly into pro� t margins that are often thin to start. Most develop-ers want timely inspection service, to know what is expected of them, and to be informed of the cost at the start of the project. Most are willing to pay fees that allow the jurisdiction to provide timely inspec-tion. As delays in inspections and approvals slow down construction, many construction contracts contain hefty bonuses for on-time completion and even heftier � nes for delays.

Developing an Acceptance Testing Program There are many points to consider when developing an acceptance testing program. The following ques-tions in particular must be answered before deciding to implement a program for the inspection and wit-nessing of acceptance tests:

• What agency has the oversight responsibility for � re protection systems installation within the local code? The fact that the local building department is responsible does not necessar-ily preclude the � re department from func-tioning as an agent of the building of� cial.

• How many and what type of systems are installed each year? Is the area prone to construction booms and busts? Could staff be hired and trained only to have the pro-gram dry up because of lack of work? Such instances may point toward � re department staff using contracted engineers and oversee-ing the overseers.

• Is the � re department willing to provide the necessary personnel, training, and resources to adequately perform the job? Staff or resource shortages are not acceptable excuses for long delays in providing inspection ser-vices. The potential damage posed by doing a less-than-adequate job is very real and very lasting on the image of the � re department.

The National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland, is a good source for information on � re protection systems testing programs, as well as being the premier location for training on � re protection systems, systems testing, and plan review. The NFPA and the International Code Council also provide training and certi� cation programs.


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 130 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















WRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UP

Flames: Drx/Dream

stime.com

; Steel texture: © Sharpshot/Dream

stime.com

Chapter Summary • Active � re protection features include � re

extinguishing, smoke control, and alarm systems.

• Passive � re protection features include � re resistance–rated walls or � oors.

• The reliability of an active � re protection sys-tem depends on four elements: design, equip-ment, installation, and maintenance.

• When properly designed, installed, and main-tained, active � re protection systems have a well-documented record of increasing the level of life safety and minimizing property damage and business interruption.

• Modern � re departments have a vested inter-est in the reliability of active � re protection systems. Unreliable systems can negatively impact public safety and the preservation of property through false function.

• Trade-off incentives provisioned within the model building codes permit the reduction of certain requirements, such as structural rat-ings or height restrictions, in exchange for the installation of sprinklers.

• The involvement of � re departments in the inspection of new � re protection systems is a fairly recent development, and in many juris-dictions the inspection and approval of new � re protection remains the responsibility of the building code of� cial.

• Statistics collected from the 1800s up through the 1960s indicated that the primary causes for unsatisfactory sprinkler performance were issues that could be readily identi� ed by inspection and testing.

• Since the 1970s, the model � re codes have mandated an acceptance test and contractor’s certi� cation of completion for all required � re suppression and alarm systems.

• Witnessing of acceptance tests by � re depart-ment personnel promotes safer structures and increased understanding and cooperation between � re department and building depart-ment personnel, and provides � re personnel with valuable training opportunities.

• System maintenance and retests are required by many of the same standards that are used for installation. One exception is for sprin-klers and other water-based � re protection, which are covered in NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems.

• The job of the � re inspector in the testing and inspection of � re protection systems is to ensure that the contractor performs the job in accordance with the code. Requirements for plan submissions and permits, test protocols and fees, and scheduling procedures should be clearly spelled out, readily available, and fairly implemented

• Key points to consider before deciding whether to implement an acceptance testing program include which agency has the over-sight responsibility per the local code, the scope of the systems installed annually, and personnel and resource availability.

Key Terms Active � re protection features Fire protection

features or systems such as automatic sprin-klers, � re detectors, or smoke removal sys-tems that operate or activate automatically or manually.

Outside screw and yoke valve A � re protection system water supply valve in which the stem protrudes from the housing when the valve is shut, making the valve condition readily apparent.

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 131 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















WRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPFlam

es: Drx/Dreamstim


Sharpshot/Dreamstim

e.com

Passive � re protection features Built-in � re pro-tection features, such as rated construction, that provide � re safety and do not require activation.

Post indicator valve A � re protection system water supply valve used in large buildings, in which a raised post extends either above ground level or from a wall. The top of the post contains the valve actuator and a visual indicator of the valve condi-tion, allowing the valve to be opened and closed easily and making its position readily apparent.

Third-party agency Nongovernmental agency that has been approved by the code of� cial to conduct tests and inspections; test and inspection results are forwarded to a code of� cial, who approves or rejects the installation, construction, or operation.

Trade-off incentives Code provisions that per-mit the reduction of � re protection ratings and increases in building height, area, number of sto-ries, and reduction in means of egress provisions in return for the installation of sprinkler systems.

Case Study On August 18, 2007, Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) units responded to a � re on the 17th � oor of the Deutsche Bank Building in Manhattan. The building had been so badly damaged in the September 11th attacks that it was being demolished. Several � oors were still being decontaminated of asbestos and other toxins, and were sealed off to prevent leakage. This may have created atypical air pressure that caused the � re to behave differently than a typical high-rise � re, which burns upward.

Fire� ghters needed to manually advance a hose line to the � re � oors because a standpipe was broken. Two � re� ghters ran out of air and died of asphyxiation. In the ensuing investigation, a building inspector claimed his supervisor refused to order a hydrostatic test of the damaged standpipe and ordered him not to mention the broken standpipe in a report.

Engine Company 10, which was stationed next to the tower, ignored a June 2007 reminder to inspect demolition sites every 15 days. A second memo, circulated 11 days before the � re, was also ignored. It warned: “THE ONLY SAFE ASSUMPTION IS TO ASSUME THE WORST.” The station commander had read the memo, but could not recall handing it to his lieutenants. The station commander was one of three � re department of� -cials transferred from their commands as a result of the incident. The building of� cial who refused to order the standpipe test retired and did not face a disciplinary hearing. Criminal charges were brought against contractors by the Manhattan District Attorney. Two years later, two construction company of� cials were acquitted of all charges by a New York jury.

1. Why was the building sealed at the time of the � re?

A. Because it was a crime scene B. Due to water damage from the broken

standpipe C. For asbestos removal purposes D. For bank security reasons

2. What was the cause of death for the � re� ghters?

A. Asbestosis B. Asphyxiation

C. Burns D. Falling

3. What type of test should have been performed on the standpipe?

A. Hydrostatic B. Visual C. X-ray D. Sonogram

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 132 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















Flames: Drx/Dream

stime.com

; Steel texture: © Sharpshot/Dream

stime.com

4. How often did FDNY policy require demoli-tion sites to be inspected?

A. Weekly B. Every 30 days C. Every 15 days D. Every 10 days

Information for this case study came from: Sarah Kugler, “Deutsche Bank Fire Probe: Many Failures,” Washington

Post , August 28, 2007, Washington Post Web. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082800272.html ; Kerry Burke and Greg B. Smith. “Deutsche Bank Fire Shocker: Worker Told to Not Mention Bad Standpipe,” New York Daily News , June 19, 2009, New York Daily News Web. Available at: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/deutsche-bank-fire-shocker-worker-told-mention-bad-standpipe-article-1.196145

Review Questions 1. List two active � re protection systems for

buildings.

2. List two passive � re protection systems for buildings.

3. What four system elements determine reliability?

4. What NFPA standard was developed for the testing and maintenance of water-based � re protection systems?

5. Who is responsible for physically per-forming acceptance tests of � re protection systems?

6. Name two points that should be consid-ered when developing an acceptance testing program.

Discussion Questions 1. The NFPA discontinued tracking the per-

formance of sprinklers in 1970, citing that the data collection was biased toward poor performance. Would it be valuable to resume gathering, compiling, and publishing these data? Why or why not?

2. Write a short position paper either support-ing the NFPA’s position or opposing it. Use � re data or information from actual � re inci-dents or perform your own limited survey of sprinkler systems.

Additional Resources In-depth information on many of the subjects dis-cussed in this chapter can be found in the follow-ing texts and publications and at these websites. John L. Bryan, Automatic Sprinkler and Standpipe Systems

(National Fire Protection Association, 1990). Arthur Cote and Percy Bugbee, Principles of Fire Protection

(National Fire Protection Association, 1988).

David Diamantes, Fire Prevention: Inspection and Code Enforce-ment , 3rd ed. (Delmar, 2007).

Robert M. Gagnon, Design of Special Hazard and Fire Alarm Systems (Delmar, 1997).

Robert M. Gagnon, Design of Water-Based Fire Protection Sys-tems (Delmar, 1997).

Maurice Jones, Fire Protection Systems, 2nd ed. (Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2015).


9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 133 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















WRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPWRAP-UPFlam

es: Drx/Dreamstim


Sharpshot/Dreamstim

e.com

National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Handbook (National Fire Protection Association, 2008 ed.).

National Fire Protection Association at www.nfpa.org

Kimberly D. Rohr, U.S. Experience with Sprinklers (National Fire Protection Association, 2001).

U.S. Fire Administration at www.usfa.fema.gov

End Notes 1. Uniform Building Code , 1940 ed. (Los Angeles, CA:

Paci� c Coast Building Of� cials’ Conference, 1940), page 246.

2. Arthur E. Cote, P.E., et al., Fire Protection Handbook , 18th ed. (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Associ-ation, 1997), pages 5–37.

3. Kimberly D. Rohr, U.S. Experience with Sprinklers (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2001), page 1.

4. J.K. Richardson, “The Reliability of Automatic Sprinkler Systems,” Canadian Building Digest , vol. 238, July 1985.

5. Rohr, page 48.

6. Robert S. Moulton, et al., Crosby-Fiske-Forster Hand-book of Fire Protection (Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1941), page 539.

9781284057157_CH07_120_134.indd 134 26/11/14 3:27 AM






















fire protection systems esting t - jones & bartlett...

Documents